Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Lrip Costs Per Aircraft - Over $200 Million  
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 20494 times:

-- F-35A: $172 million per aircraft;
-- F-35B: $291.7 million per aircraft;
-- F-35C: $235.8 million per aircraft.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...rod=133433&shop=dae&modele=feature
And that's not the end of the price escalation as these planes need millions of dollars in rework to an extent not even known yet.

Each subsequent LRIP tranche has been more expensive than the previous one. To say prices are coming down, is simply false. I am not anti F-35 for the sake of it. But at these prices and a serial mismanagement in terms of broken promises and budgets - spanning years - it's time to think about if this is wise. The armed forces can easily wind up with so few of these, like in the case of the F-22, that it becomes questionable as a system, IMHO.

Regarding the F-22, I did not know that 60 of them do not have the more advanced radar, which was done to save money. So we have about 120 fully capable F-22s of which many are down for maintenance as they have a very low readiness rate - meaning only very few can be deployed in a sustainable fashion. If the F-35 suffers a similar fate, we'd be making a terrible mistake and wasting gobs of money.

I think the risk is too high with the F-35, akin to gambling in Las Vegas, hoping that whatever extra money will be needed will miraculously appear. It didn't for the F-22 and won't for the F-35, IMHO.

148 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 20403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is the part that will bite us where it hurts (from the above article)

"1. It does not include the cost of the modifications, retrofits and upgrades that will be necessary to bring all LRIP aircraft to their nominal configuration, once flight testing and development are completed. The estimated cost of these modifications, known as concurrency costs, varies between $5 million (Lockheed Martin) and $10 million per aircraft (US Senate panel).

The JSF program office has not released its own estimate, but Venlet in December said the bill for fixing concurrency ills was so high it "sucks the wind out of your lungs." "

It may be a great plane someday (hopefully by mid century) as our Canadian posters so often tell us, however it remains a budgetary drain that will probably get plugged at a much smaller number than initially proposed.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 20351 times:

I guess you didn't bother to read the entire article to notice this bit.

Quote:
While these are the projected unit costs for the LRIP 5 aircraft, there is no implication that production aircraft would cost anywhere near these amounts.

However, costs will not begin to decrease until the F-35 enters full-scale production, and this is unlikely to happen for some years yet, especially since the Pentagon has now decided to further reduce LRIP production until flight tests demonstrate that the aircraft is meeting its performance and reliability goals.

Another pointless article to feed the anti-jsf hysteria.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 20326 times:

The article is only pointless if you are completely disinterested in the costs. For those people yes, this article is pointless. But for those interested in the F-35 costs, the article is exactly on point.

It also refutes the false assertions that the costs are going down. Each tranche has been more expensive than the previous one, that is a fact. Which flies in the face of the program business model. Costs should have started to come down long ago, but they keep escalating.

IMHO, here's a taste of how this is going to turn out, F-22 all over again:
In 2008, LRIP-6 was supposed to be an order for 118 F-35s, including 82 aircraft for the US services and 36 aircraft for the international partners. Foreign orders have not solidified yet, but the US order for 82 aircraft is out of the question. Anticipating a Senate move to free F-35 production, the DoD asked the Congress for only 32 F-35s in FY2012, a 50-aircraft cut from the 2008 production profile.

The Senate's appropriations subcommittee now wants to extend the 32-aircraft production plateau into LRIP-7.


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...f-35-production-freeze-or-new.html

We'll be lucky to get 300-400 capable F-35s put into full service at extremely high costs, IMHO. Maybe even less if the price becomes too high for the politicians and the program is terminated early because of that. The cuts have already begun.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 20311 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 2):
I guess you didn't bother to read the entire article to notice this bit.


We read that bit.. the point is with escalating costs for these low production units, there may not be sufficient funds to very allow full production for the entire proposed fleet. And going balls out building planes that require major modifications, retrofits and upgrades will not produce cheaper a/c. We don't live in a world where "damn the expense.. full speed ahead" makes any sense.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 20307 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 2):

I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that at this point. I think it's high time we need to start looking at other options. As much as I'd like to see the F-35 in the RCAF, these 3 facts still remain:

- 65 F-35's for 20+ years won't cut it for the RCAF, more frames will be required.
- The rest of the pre-Afghanistan equipment in the CAF needs to be replaced
- We don't have enough money to cover both

[Edited 2012-03-12 22:28:58]


No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 20309 times:

Tommy,

Um it should be blatantly obvious: when you cut units produced, the costs will go UP. You have to pay for the fixed costs (building, tooling, labour, etc), which you have to pay, be it if you produce one or a hundred. That's why cutting production numbers is sometimes a false economy and often leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy:

Costs are high -> therefore cut units to cut costs -> per unit costs skyrocket -> costs are still high, cancel program

I will note that there will be no way that the US government will ever cancel the F-35 program. All three of the service leaders (the USAF, USMC and USN), including the the Defense Department and Congress all support F-35 and are more than willing to cut other programs to make sure that they get their allotment of F-35's. All current international partners also continue to support buying F-35's.

Four types of costs are associated with the JSF acquisition of the F-35: (1) recurring flyaway cost; (2) procurement cost; (3) acquisition cost; and (4) total ownership cost. While each is an important element in the project, they continue to confuse those who are concerned about the cost of an aircraft purchase.

The basic unit of analysis is the recurring ­flyaway costs which include program ­management, hardware, airframe, vehicle and mission systems, propulsion and engineering change orders. Procurement costs are frequently expressed per aircraft as average procurement unit costs (APUC). The acquisition costs of the JSF include procurement costs, plus research, development, test and evaluation and cost of facility construction. Finally, total ownership costs include all the preceding costs, plus operations and support, improvements and modifications. While each number associated with each cost is 'correct', each number uses totally different sets of assumptions.

Production lines are most expensive as they begin production, then decrease and taper off quite dramatically once the assembly line has fully established. This is true for every manufactured product out there, be it a jet fighter to a watch.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 20302 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 5):

I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that at this point. I think it's high time we need to start looking at other options. As much as I'd like to see the F-35 in the RCAF, the 3 still remain:

- 65 F-35's for 20+ years won't cut it for the RCAF, more frames will be required.
- The rest of the pre-Afghanistan equipment in the CAF needs to be replaced
- We don't have enough money to cover both

What options? We have to replace the CF-18's.

In a comprehensive article in Frontline Defence magazine (Issue 3, 2011) entitled "Strategy and the F-35", Lieutenant-General (ret) Ken Pennie noted that if a decision were made to conduct a purely Canadian competition, the competing ­aircraft would likely be:

Lockheed Martin F-35 (US);
Boeing F/A-18E/F (US);
Saab Gripen (Sweden);
Desault Mirage (France);
Desault RAFALE (France);
BAE Eurofighter.

LGen Pennie suggested this list would quickly be pared to three aircraft: the F-35, the F/A-18E/F and the Eurofighter, and then quickly reduced to the F-35. Insiders suggest the Eurofighter is the least capable and most expensive and that the remaining aircraft do not meet Canada’s mandatory minimum requirements, leaving the F-35 as the only possible choice.

To purchase a lesser aircraft that doesn’t have the same stealth qualities, armament and capabilities as the F-35, would jeopardize future mission success for our Air Force, and reduce the potential for pilot survivability. A Super Hornet or a Eurofighter might be good enough for today’s strategic demands but we would be effectively using yesterday’s technology to meet challenges in the coming decades – about which we can’t even hypothesize.

This is serious business and requires the best equipment available. The world of the 21st century has already proven to be unkind and unstable, and we cannot predict the threats and dangers that are in our future. But whatever happens, we have learned from hard experience that it will be a “come as you are” party.

Political decision makers should be mindful that those who oppose this purchase will never have to fly this aircraft into harm’s way. They will not have to defend their claims when Canada faces domestic or international adversity. They will not be held accountable if the Canadian Forces fail to meet mission objectives because we ­purchased an inferior aircraft with inadequate capabilities to achieve the mission aims and provide pilot survivability.

In aerial combat, you must be the best, or you die. You win, or you die. You reach your target and deploy your weapons, or you die trying. There is no second place.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 20296 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 6):
Um it should be blatantly obvious: when you cut units produced, the costs will go UP.

Everything you point out, is known manufacturing ramp up cost. What you fail to appreciate is the fact that program costs go down overall, if you cut the number of units enough - even if unit prices are very high.

For instance, if the F-35 program were cancelled tomorrow, the overall program cost would be less than continuing it - even if every subsequent F-35 cost $1.

Getting stuck on unit costs is missing the overall picture. More important is total program cost - or how much is available to spend. And please be clear - military personnel do not decide where to spend the money - Congress does. Military personnel do not have the freedom or authority to shift money around amongst programs, as in a slush fund. Doing that would land them in jail.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 20274 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
Everything you point out, is known manufacturing ramp up cost. What you fail to appreciate is the fact that program costs go down overall, if you cut the number of units enough - even if unit prices are very high.

For instance, if the F-35 program were cancelled tomorrow, the overall program cost would be less than continuing it - even if every subsequent F-35 cost $1.

Getting stuck on unit costs is missing the overall picture. More important is total program cost - or how much is available to spend. And please be clear - military personnel do not decide where to spend the money - Congress does. Military personnel do not have the freedom or authority to shift money around amongst programs, as in a slush fund. Doing that would land them in jail.

However, if you cut units, it has a domino effect on everything else, not only just unit costs. It also negatively affects maintenance and training costs, the costs of upgrades and future development.

I will remind you that Congress acts upon the recommendations of the DoD; for example, Congress terminated the Comanche program upon the recommendation of the US Army, and as per the US Army's request, diverted the funds from the Comanche program to fund other Army Aviation modernization efforts. Practically every service is willing to sacrifice or has scarified something for F-35's. They know that there will be no other 5th generation alternatives available.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 20133 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 6):
All three of the service leaders (the USAF, USMC and USN), including the the Defense Department and Congress all support F-35 and are more than willing to cut other programs to make sure that they get their allotment of F-35's.

Just where are those cuts going to come from? The KC-46As? The Ford class CVNs? The Virgina class SSNs? The future bomber?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
In aerial combat, you must be the best, or you die. You win, or you die. You reach your target and deploy your weapons, or you die trying. There is no second place.

The Japanese clearly had the superior aircraft in the A6M Zero, yet the AVG with the P-40B managed to beat them, and that was with superior pilot skills and tactics. There are many other examples in fighter history that support that.

A $200M single engine airplane already starts out with a known weakness in survivability, the single engine. The question remains how much stealth does the RCAF need over the far northern regions of Canada? All you will be stopping there are bombers, not fighters. You can still do that with cheaper, but very effective F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18E/Fs. If you need stealth, you only need frontal stealth qualities, so the F-15SE, which costs half of what a F-35 costs will do the job very well. In 2009, Germany ordered 31 Typhoon, Tranch 3A aircraft for an average price of E90M.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 20096 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 6):
I will note that there will be no way that the US government will ever cancel the F-35 program.


Reminds me of Nixon being 1000% behind Agnew just before dumping him.

What you seem to miss is the "as produced today" plane still needs major redesign mod, rework and systems completions.. The more we produce before a final acceptable unit appears the more the costs will go up. The creep in costs of the low rate frames is perhaps hiding the redesign and rework costs. These will continue to be amortized across any future production costs.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
how much stealth does the RCAF need over the far northern regions of Canada?


   Good point.

I would hope congress is smart enough to put a production hold on this program until they get it straightened out and all, repeat, all the final production costs are known.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 20042 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):

At what cost? This isn't any different than what happened with the CF-105. It's the right bird, but the wrong time to spend money on it. The Chinese are in the same boat, and the Russians have a much tighter R&D budget than the JSF partners. The reality is that 4.5 gen aircraft will be the primary force for at least another decade.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 20032 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
It also negatively affects maintenance and training costs, the costs of upgrades and future development.


That is only true on a per unit basis, but not on an overall expenditure basis. On total costs basis, cutting the number of units has has a positive effect on those items, not negative. The fewer F-35s there are, the less those items you mentioned will cost the DoD for the entire F-35 fleet taken together. You are stuck looking a narrow - per unit - metric, only. On a program this size, the total program cost is the ultimate figure, not just the per unit calculation.

As an analogy, if I rush down to my car dealer, I am sure I can get a lower per unit price on acquisition and maintenance if I buy a fleet of cars instead of one. But I can't afford to buy nor operate a fleet of cars.

[Edited 2012-03-13 12:25:46]

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 20024 times:

Quote:
F-35 jets purchase not guaranteed: Fantino
http://www.montrealgazette.com/busin...ranteed+Fantino/6294963/story.html

Quote:
Responding to NDP questions during an appearance before the Commons' defence committee, Fantino said the government remains supportive of the F-35, but the government had not made "the determinate decision" on whether it will purchase the F-35, and that it had not "discounted backing out."



What the...?
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 19957 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
so the F-15SE, which costs half of what a F-35 costs

Source?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 19900 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):

Just where are those cuts going to come from? The KC-46As? The Ford class CVNs? The Virgina class SSNs? The future bomber?

Whatever each service feels that they can sacrifice.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):

The Japanese clearly had the superior aircraft in the A6M Zero, yet the AVG with the P-40B managed to beat them, and that was with superior pilot skills and tactics. There are many other examples in fighter history that support that.

Not true; in certain flight regimes the A6M Zero was the better aircraft, but in other flight regimes, the P-40 was better. The P-40 only gained a reputation of being a mediocre aircraft well after the war.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
A $200M single engine airplane already starts out with a known weakness in survivability, the single engine. The question remains how much stealth does the RCAF need over the far northern regions of Canada? All you will be stopping there are bombers, not fighters. You can still do that with cheaper, but very effective F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18E/Fs. If you need stealth, you only need frontal stealth qualities, so the F-15SE, which costs half of what a F-35 costs will do the job very well. In 2009, Germany ordered 31 Typhoon, Tranch 3A aircraft for an average price of E90M.

The end of the Cold War sowed expectations for a peaceful world with a greater level of international development and cooperation. Since then, Canada has experienced several geostrategic shocks where Canadian air power was deployed:
- Persian Gulf War (1991): CF-18 aircraft provided air cover for multinational maritime operations over the Persian Gulf
- Kosovo (1999): CF-18 aircraft participated in UN-sanctioned NATO operations to protect ethnic-Albanian Kosovars
- Libya (2011): CF-18 aircraft deployed to support allied operations.

Without exception, each of these operations came as a surprise to Canadians, requiring fighter aircraft to deploy quickly. Future operations can be expected to happen in a similar manner – with little or no notice. But as military technology develops and becomes less expensive, older and less sophisticated aircraft will be flying into increasingly perilous situations.

Many of the arguments against the F-35 are seriously misinformed. The need to replace Canada’s CF-18 aircraft cannot be argued. We also need to upgrade air combat capabilities to meet emerging threats and challenges that cannot be foreseen at this point.

Idealists choose to disregard new and emerging security concerns emanating from sovereignty challenges, terrorism, illegal migration and climate change, as well as the global threats facing Canada in years to come. The reality is, however, that we cannot rely on our allies for domestic security and we must be prepared to participate in collective defence to honour our international commitments and treaty obligations. We must participate in pacification efforts whenever and wherever the Canadian Government decides to deploy our forces.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 12):
At what cost? This isn't any different than what happened with the CF-105. It's the right bird, but the wrong time to spend money on it. The Chinese are in the same boat, and the Russians have a much tighter R&D budget than the JSF partners. The reality is that 4.5 gen aircraft will be the primary force for at least another decade.

All key military acquisitions must be viewed with Canada’s usage history in mind. It cannot be argued that Canada squeezes all possible productivity out of its aircraft (and other military hardware) before it is retired. Examples include the DC-3 Dakota, purchased in 1943 and flown until 1988, and the Sea King maritime helicopter which will celebrate its 50th year of service in August 2013. Our current CF-18's, purchased in the 1980s, will be approaching 40 years old when ultimately decommissioned and replaced. In the navy front, the Protecteur class AOR's are going to be pushing 50 years of service by the time a new replacement is expected to be in the water. I can point to many other pieces of military equipment where we have squeezed practically all possible productivity out it to the point where it is completely obsolete.

Any 4th or 4.5th gen fighter would long be obsolete at a more rapid rate than a 5th generation fighter. You have to think really long term as the CF will probably will never buy another jet fighter type within the next few decades.

Quoting kanban (Reply 4):

We read that bit.. the point is with escalating costs for these low production units, there may not be sufficient funds to very allow full production for the entire proposed fleet. And going balls out building planes that require major modifications, retrofits and upgrades will not produce cheaper a/c. We don't live in a world where "damn the expense.. full speed ahead" makes any sense.

Well, the price increases should not be a shocker. That's what happens when you cut the build from 42 to 30 after the long-lead items are already started, and keep making cuts well after long-lead items are ordered.

And pay attention to what type of cost they are using: URF, APUC or PAUC? All are "unit" costs but each aggregates a different list of items in each.

[Edited 2012-03-13 16:55:15]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 19869 times:

[quote=ThePointblank,reply=16]Any 4th or 4.5th gen fighter would long be obsolete at a more rapid rate than a 5th generation fighter[./quote]

Before you buy anything, you need to make the case that it is in fact needed. Why could the Canadians not get along just fine with the cheaper F3 Rafale C for instance, with the new AESA radar, M88-4E engines and the other upgrades? To note for Canada are the two engines and the much longer combat radius of the Rafale over the F-35.

The Rafale is more capable in almost every way over the F-35 except stealth - carries much more and flies almost twice as far and has 2 engines.

Or an F-15SE with the AN/APG-81 radar and other avionics upgrades? It would trump the F-35 in every way except stealth as well.

If you take away the stealth aspect - the remainder of what the the F-35 offers is way bellow par. It carries a far smaller load a much shorter distance yet will cost far more.

Assumed with the F-35 is that L band and VHF radars will never be able to detect the stealth aircraft - another gamble and deliberate omission. It is known that stealth aircraft can be more easily detected with VHF and L-band radars, which are being developed in conjunction with AESA radars. This stealth capability offered by the F-35 and F-22 may only be temporary and then everyone is stuck with an expensive and inferior plane.

From Wiki:
An American F-117 Nighthawk fell to a Serbian Air Defense crew who were operating their radars on unusually long wavelengths to launch a Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' missile at it which brought it down.

[Edited 2012-03-13 18:27:19]

User currently offlineBe77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 19848 times:

I love the promise of the F 35.
The delays, wildly escalating costs, current mission readiness stats, and did I mention costs really make me wonder if it is really a gen 5 machine yet, or if it is concept development project still.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):

At the price in time and $, it looks more and more like we'll see some F18 E/F with the maple leaf roundel in the near future. Think of the AC 777 fleet, which was never really intended to get so big, but once the 787 delays started hitting, something had to fill in. In this case, I'll go with a fleet of gen 4.5 'now', and once the bugs get ironed out, some F35s can be added.
With only a very few exceptions (most of which we are generally allied with) there aren't too many places where a 4.5 isn't more than enough. Hopefully there will be a true 5.0 available when we need it!
And, depending on the Gov't of the day, we also have the recent example of the C17, where after years of neglect in the transport fleet someone finally decided to go get some (finally!).

Anyway, there might not be much choice in the matter: the existing F18 s are getting up there, the F35 isn't ready for prime time, so if we need something for conflict X in the next few years, it might be time to send out the request for proposals now. When the F35 is ready, If it does what it is supposed to do (questionable at this time), and if it is offered at anywhere near a price that can be justified for the increase in performance and safety for the person sitting in it, then it will be any easy decision (well, easy depending on the politics of the day).

As for the politics, even the current Gov't is backing off...which at a basic level disappoints me, but, at the new costs and uncertainties with the capabilities, makes me think the program might be in worse shape than we know (which would really be ugly).



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 19840 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 17):
Before you buy anything, you need to make the case that it is in fact needed. Why could the Canadians not get along just fine with the cheaper F3 Rafale C for instance, with the new AESA radar, M88-4E engines and the other upgrades? To note for Canada are the two engines and the much longer combat radius of the Rafale over the F-35.

Maintenance and support costs would be astronomical. We would also have to completely dispose of all of our current inventory of munitions in favor of their French counterparts.

Canada does not care about twin engined fighters; the story that the F/A-18 was chosen over the F-16 back in the 1970's because the F/A-18 had twin engines is revisionist history that ignores the situation at hand; Canada wanted a multi-role fighter that could use medium-range radar guided missiles at a reasonable price. The F/A-18 at the time had that while with the F-16, the capability to be armed with radar-guided missiles only entered service well after the first CF-18's were introduced. The fact that it had twin engines was just a bonus, and did not factor into the decision making process; the requirement for radar-guided missile capability and IRB's played a bigger role (McDD offered to manufacturer KC-10 and MD-11 wings, MD-80 wings, empennage and cabin floors, and F/A-18 side panels and pylons in Canada for selecting the F/A-18).

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 17):
The Rafale is more capable in almost every way over the F-35 except stealth - carries much more and flies almost twice as far and has 2 engines.

Rafale flies farther only with 5 drop tanks, in an otherwise totally clean configuration, and will not be able to hit supersonic speeds. F-35 will fly almost just as far, and be able to hit supersonic speeds in all configurations.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 17):

Or an F-15SE with the AN/APG-81 radar and other avionics upgrades? It would trump the F-35 in every way except stealth as well.

Don't even go there; we've discussed the F-15SE at length, and the analysis is that the aircraft is seriously compromised in many key areas.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 17):
Assumed with the F-35 is that L band and VHF radars will never be able to detect the stealth aircraft - another gamble and deliberate omission. It is known that stealth aircraft can be more easily detected with VHF and L-band radars, which are being developed in conjunction with AESA radars. This stealth capability offered by the F-35 and F-22 may only be temporary and then everyone is stuck with an expensive and inferior plane.

It is very difficult to aim a weapon with VHF and L-band radars; they lack the resolution that is necessary for aiming of weapons. In short, a VHF or an L-band radar won't be able to tell the difference between a F-35 or a Boeing 747. All it sees is a target.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 17):
An American F-117 Nighthawk fell to a Serbian Air Defense crew who were operating their radars on unusually long wavelengths to launch a Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' missile at it which brought it down.

Predominate factor was that NATO planners were completely complacent and did something that broke one of the first rules of warfare: become predictable. NATO combat aircraft flew in predictable routes to and from their targets. Contributing to this was a total lack of ECM and Wild Weasel support; the battery commander knew from spies and observers that NATO didn't have any ECM or Wild Weasel aircraft airborne at the time and thus could operate his radar more freely.

Plus, the SA-3 had a secondary IR and TV guidance mode, which was employed here.

Stealth doesn't mean you are totally invisible; it means that the ability of your opponent to detect you is significantly degraded. Eventually, a persistent and close enough enemy will be able to see and shoot at you, but the good thing is that if the ability of your opponent to detect you is degraded, you can move around the enemy or shoot at him first before they can respond.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 19653 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
It is very difficult to aim a weapon with VHF and L-band radars; they lack the resolution that is necessary for aiming of weapons. In short, a VHF or an L-band radar won't be able to tell the difference between a F-35 or a Boeing 747. All it sees is a target.

Today perhaps - tomorrow? These radars are being developed you know. Are you certain they'll never get to the point were they can be used against the F-35 and other stealth aircraft? The are other radars, the over the horizon ones, that bounce their signals off the atmosphere and detect stealth aircraft from above. The Australians claim to be able to do this to a limited degree.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
Don't even go there; we've discussed the F-15SE at length, and the analysis is that the aircraft is seriously compromised in many key areas.

Your analysis? Don't go there because you don't want to? The F-15SE with all the avionics upgrades would just kill the F-35 on every metric except stealth. If operated with AWACS, as most do, they can be pretty stealthy operating with their radars off. As an attack aircraft, you would get a lot more capability for the money. Wild Weasels anti radar planes and jamming can take care of AA missiles on initial attacks.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
the good thing is that if the ability of your opponent to detect you is degraded, you can move around the enemy or shoot at him first before they can respond.

That is true today. But in 2020 and beyond? Look at the radar and sensor developments going on. Eventually even Stealth will not be all that hot anymore and then we'll be stuck with an expensive dog.

The Rafale and F-15SE both mop the floor against the F-35 on every metric but stealth. But we need to use 2020 AA radar technology to asses the effectiveness of stealth at that time in the future, as the F-35 will not see operation till then. Future technology against future technology.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 19607 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
The end of the Cold War sowed expectations for a peaceful world with a greater level of international development and cooperation. Since then, Canada has experienced several geostrategic shocks where Canadian air power was deployed:
- Persian Gulf War (1991): CF-18 aircraft provided air cover for multinational maritime operations over the Persian Gulf
- Kosovo (1999): CF-18 aircraft participated in UN-sanctioned NATO operations to protect ethnic-Albanian Kosovars
- Libya (2011): CF-18 aircraft deployed to support allied operations.

Without exception, each of these operations came as a surprise to Canadians, requiring fighter aircraft to deploy quickly. Future operations can be expected to happen in a similar manner – with little or no notice. But as military technology develops and becomes less expensive, older and less sophisticated aircraft will be flying into increasingly perilous situations.

Many of the arguments against the F-35 are seriously misinformed. The need to replace Canada’s CF-18 aircraft cannot be argued. We also need to upgrade air combat capabilities to meet emerging threats and challenges that cannot be foreseen at this point.

Idealists choose to disregard new and emerging security concerns emanating from sovereignty challenges, terrorism, illegal migration and climate change, as well as the global threats facing Canada in years to come. The reality is, however, that we cannot rely on our allies for domestic security and we must be prepared to participate in collective defence to honour our international commitments and treaty obligations. We must participate in pacification efforts whenever and wherever the Canadian Government decides to deploy our forces.

Believe this is a serious misread of history. All the conflicts mentioned above were coalition efforts -- and that is what Canada may participate in in the future. In such a coalition, the Yanks will provide top cover and probably SEAD. Stealth is simply not necessary for our air force.

There's no doubt the CF-18s are running out of life, so yes they need to be replaced. The CF-18E/F/G would do what is required well enough. Our security is a shared responsibility with our allies, both through NORAD and NATO, and has been for a long time. Canada simply cannot afford to mount a defense establishment on its' own that is capable of defending the country, so a coalition it must be far into the future.

See? I didn't even mention LRIP costs once.  



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 19590 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
Today perhaps - tomorrow? These radars are being developed you know. Are you certain they'll never get to the point were they can be used against the F-35 and other stealth aircraft? The are other radars, the over the horizon ones, that bounce their signals off the atmosphere and detect stealth aircraft from above. The Australians claim to be able to do this to a limited degree.

It is a technical issue. The long wave lengths simply do not have the resolution to accuracy aim weapons with; in order to achieve good target discrimination capabilities, you need the X band and upper S band radars, which practically every SAM, AAA, and fighter jet carries.

You seem to be under the impression that VHF and L-band radars is some "wunder" weapon that has only recently been thought of. As for "doing better" how well have the VHF radar systems that HAVE been employed against VLO aircraft done?

Thousands of successful strikes, one single VLO aircraft that was subsonic, had no level of fighter agility at all and no radar warning receiver system was confirmed to have been brought down.

Gee, I can't imagine why force planners and operators think the demise of "stealth" you and others harp on about so often, is just a tad premature.

In reality these systems are no more useful than trip-wires. They may alert a defender to someone being present, but they won't provide targeting information on ANY aircraft. At best they can give a defender an idea of where to start searching, but the sky is big and tactical fighters are small and fast.

Ironically enough these systems are likely to be very useful for one thing: all these will do is let you know when you're about to die. They are fixed in place when operational, they have to constantly radiate large amounts of very long wavelength energy.

A quick read of the Russian literature shows that even the very latest digital Russian Vostok VHF radars are intended as "trip wires" only. They give (according to their own specs) accuracy readings within hundreds of metres at ranges of about 40k's (their own guess) in jamming environments, which they most certainly will be in. Such radars are extremely vulnerable to jamming, SEAD weapons and spoofing, all of which, not surprisingly are within the F-35's "bag of tricks".

All the problems with tracking, targetting and engaging VLO aircraft still remain. The only thing they give you "maybe" is detection.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
Your analysis? Don't go there because you don't want to? The F-15SE with all the avionics upgrades would just kill the F-35 on every metric except stealth. If operated with AWACS, as most do, they can be pretty stealthy operating with their radars off. As an attack aircraft, you would get a lot more capability for the money. Wild Weasels anti radar planes and jamming can take care of AA missiles on initial attacks.

Except that F-35 accelerates faster, can carry more munitions, and has the ability to see all around the aircraft, the proposed F-15SE is an competitive aircraft. Except that it isn't, and recent sales have indicated this; note that the a number of nations that have access to F-35's against the F-15SE are choosing or have expressed interest in F-35 over the F-15SE. These nations include Israel and Singapore.

The larger RCS of the F-15SE would offset any sensor advantages, as a VLO target would have the first look advantage, and be able to maneuver into an advantageous position. The Silent Eagle would have advantages against 4/4.5gen aircraft, would be on the defensive vs a 5th gen aircraft. I believe Adolf Galland said this in regards to the necessity of the first look advantage in aerial combat:

Quote:
The first rule of all air combat is to see the opponent first. Like the hunter who stalks his prey and maneuvers himself unnoticed into the most favorable position for the kill, the fighter in the opening of a dogfight must detect
the opponent as early as possible in order to attain a superior position for the attack.

Also, Robert L. Shaw, in the book,"Fighter Combat Tatics and Maneuvering", emphasizes the importance of having the first look advantage over your opponent as being able to spot your opponent before they see you is an incredibly significant advantage.

Someone obviously has been reading way too much APA papers to realize that the F-15SE is vaporware and now we're already 'properly upgrading and equipping' it with more vaporware to make it competitive against unclassified F-35 capabilities in 2012.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 21):
There's no doubt the CF-18s are running out of life, so yes they need to be replaced. The CF-18E/F/G would do what is required well enough. Our security is a shared responsibility with our allies, both through NORAD and NATO, and has been for a long time. Canada simply cannot afford to mount a defense establishment on its' own that is capable of defending the country, so a coalition it must be far into the future.

However, note that I did say Canada has a tendency to keep aircraft around for very lengthy service lives to the point of utter and complete obsolesce. The USN is going to retire the F/A-18E/F roughly 20 years from now. After that any Canadian fleet of the Super Hornet will now become an orphan fleet, where we will have to support and develop upgrades for, at a considerable cost. At least with the CF-18 IMP, we could leverage USN and USMC development and experience for Hornet upgrades.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19558 times:

ThePointblank:

Everything you said about radar, is about today's technology - everything. But I am not talking about today's technology as the F-35 won't enter service till at least 2020. You need to look at what will be available in 2020 and beyond to make a comparison, because that is what it will be up against. You frequently make this apples to oranges comparison and I frequently have pointed this out to you.

The F-15SE and the F-35 will never go up against one another, so I wonder why you make such a hypothetical example. The F-35 will be used as a bomb truck/attack aircraft. So that is the role in which to compare the F-15SE/Rafale VS. the F-35. Since the F-15SE or Rafale would almost surely operate with AWACS and Harm equipped aircraft, radar AA the air defenses will be suppressed or destroyed by HARM and enemy fighters seen by AWACS and attacked by Rafale/F-15SE with their radars shut off. The AWACS can guide the missiles fired by the F-15SE/Rafale, until the missiles acquire the target. If you argue the enemy will have large numbers of GEN 5 stealth fighter that will evade AWACS - which country is this?

As to the F-35 VS, F-15SE/Rafale capabilities outside stealth - The F-35 does not accelerate faster, it does not carry more payload or munitions and it has significantly shorter range carrying the same payload.

Why don't you admit to anything inferior about the F-35 against anything? You are blinded by your love for the thing. It's a fact the F-35 is slower, carries less payload and munitions, accelerates slower, has a slower top speed, has less range and will likely cost much more - VS. the F-15SE or Rafale. And the Rafale is no paper plane.


And if the F-35 carries more than 4,000lbs of munitions, it is not stealthy either - so what's the point? The F-15 can carry up to 24,000lbs of munitions into theater. The F-35 only 4,000lbs in stealth or 18,000lbs non stealth - and not as far. You can accept reality or stick you head in the sand.

[Edited 2012-03-14 20:25:25]

[Edited 2012-03-14 20:25:58]

[Edited 2012-03-14 20:47:02]

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19551 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
It's a fact the F-35 is slower, carries less payload and munitions, accelerates slower, has a slower top speed, has less range and will likely cost much more - VS. the F-15SE or Rafale.

I have heard this before yet you still fail to provide any actual sources for your "facts".


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 19651 times:

So let's do the math:

To equal one F-15 carrying 24,000lbs of munitions, you would need 6 F-35s in full stealth to make a difference. And the only difference would be stealth.

1F-15 VS 6 F-35s

The Rafale can carry 20,900lbs today and with the new M88-4E engines up to 23,000lbs.

That's about the same as the F-15.

The lack of stealth can be compensated by escorting the bomb truck with 1 Anti Radar aircraft and 1 more loaded with 10 air to air Meteors or AIMs in the pack of 3 planes. Scale up as needed.

Or

6 F-35s to carry bombs and 2 more to carry 4 AA missiles each in full stealth - for a total of 8 AA missiles (VS 10 for the Rafale/F-15 flight of 3 planes). You don't have anti radar missiles, but you do have stealth. 8 F-35s VS 3 F-15/Rafales - that's the math, even assuming radars don't improve VS. the F-35 by 2020. And if more than 8 enemy planes show up, your 100% toast, because you'll run out of missiles. At least with the Rafale/F-15 you run out of missiles after 10.

So you'll need at least $1.2 billion worth of F-35 aircraft for the mission VS. $300 million worth using Rafales or F-15s. Even if you reduce the payload of the F-15/Rafale bomb trucks by half to only 12,000 lbs each by making it a flight of 4, that's still only $400 million worth to deliver the same amount of bombs.

This also means more pilots needed more aerial tankering, etc... the costs are astronomical - just for stealth.

[Edited 2012-03-14 21:58:43]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 19633 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):

Everything you said about radar, is about today's technology - everything. But I am not talking about today's technology as the F-35 won't enter service till at least 2020. You need to look at what will be available in 2020 and beyond to make a comparison, because that is what it will be up against. You frequently make this apples to oranges comparison and I frequently have pointed this out to you.

Tommy,

You don't get it. It is technically impossible for a VHF or L-band radars won't have the resolution necessary to guide weapons, and that hasn't changed ever since WWII. Everyone has stopped using VHF or L-band radars for anything other than volume search functions. You keep talking about future radars, ignoring the fact that the laws of physics makes it impossible to ask VHF and L-band radars to do what you are asking. Whilst they too can theoretically detect a low RCS aircraft, they have significant difficulty providing quality information on range, bearing or doppler. All things which are rather useful to know, even if it is simply so you can vector an aircraft there. I'm not a radar specialist or a physicist, but I know well enough from the literature that what you are proposing is impossible.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
The F-15SE and the F-35 will never go up against one another, so I wonder why you make such a hypothetical example. The F-35 will be used as a bomb truck/attack aircraft. So that is the role in which to compare the F-15SE/Rafale VS. the F-35. Since the F-15SE or Rafale would almost surely operate with AWACS and Harm equipped aircraft, radar AA the air defenses will be suppressed or destroyed by HARM and enemy fighters seen by AWACS and attacked by Rafale/F-15SE with their radars shut off. The AWACS can guide the missiles fired by the F-15SE/Rafale, until the missiles acquire the target. If you argue the enemy will have large numbers of GEN 5 stealth fighter that will evade AWACS - which country is this?

You brought up the F-15SE as a substitute, so any comparison is valid.

I will note that a number of other nations are developing their own 5th generation fighter (I'm sure you are well aware of China's and Russia's programs on that front).

And AWACS guiding missiles? I'm sorry, but that's technically impossible, for the reasons described earlier regarding radar capabilities. You need upper S-band or X band radars for weapons system guidance.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7827 posts, RR: 5
Reply 27, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 19687 times:

Looks like the Canadians are getting serious cold feet over this procurement.

Quote:
Canada's associate defense minister on Tuesday said one of the most ardent supporters of the F35 program could back out of a multi-billion purchase of the fighter jets.

"We have not as yet discounted the possibility of backing out of the program," Minister Julian Fantino, responsible for military procurement, was quoted as telling the House of Commons defense committee.

which should be fairly easy since

Quote:
but noted that no contract has been signed.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 19670 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
And AWACS guiding missiles? I'm sorry, but that's technically impossible, for the reasons described earlier regarding radar capabilities

Really? A little 101:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM
"The missile uses this information to fly on an interception course to the target using its built in inertial navigation system (INS). This information is generally obtained using the launching aircraft's radar, although it could come from an infrared search and tracking system (IRST), from a data link from another fighter aircraft, or from an AWACS aircraft."

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
It is technically impossible for a VHF or L-band radars won't have the resolution necessary to guide weapons

You are an expert in this field, yes? Please describe your credentials so we can all judge your comments according to your credentials, thanks.

In the meantime, can you refute the following with your knowledge in signal engineering?

http://tech.mit.edu/V121/N63/Stealth.63f.html

John Hansman, a professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, explains, “Some stealth aircraft, like the F-117, are specifically designed to have a low radar cross section to monostatic, or conventional, radars. They are not stealthy to some bi-static configurations.”

Conventional monostatic radar places the transmitter and receiver in the same location, making it simple to locate a plane when spotted. Bi-static, or multi-static radar, would position the receiver at a different position from the transmitter. This makes it more difficult to compute the location of the aircraft. (Multiple Grippens have multiple receivers in multiple locations with data link -Edited).

However, since stealth aircraft do reflect some radar, but away from the transmitter, bi-static radar could conceivably receive the reflection and detect the stealth aircraft.

..........

The television analogy is particularly apt, since Lockheed has been working on a project that operates on the same principles as Roke Manor’s anti-stealth system. In this project, called Silent Sentry, FM radio stations and VHF television broadcasts are used to provide the dense network of radio waves that interacts with stealth aircraft. While there are fewer FM and VHF transmission towers than cell phone towers, each individual station transmits much more powerfully.The smaller number of stations would also reduce the computational requirements of the system.

..............

“A lot of stealth technology deals with redirecting radar waves,” said Greg Duckworth, a Principal Scientist at BBN working on underwater acoustics in an area very much analogous to radar.” It’s very effective against monostatic radars. However, if you have bistatic radars, in particular a very large number of sources, so that you excite the target from a wide range of angles, and you have a multiplicity of receivers in many locations, you essentially will get around the stealth target’s redirection capabilities.

................

These data further reduce the effectiveness of stealth technology. While stealth has always returned a small signal, even to monostatic radars, that signal is so small that it is usually filtered out either by the radar scope or by the operator. However, with velocity and shape information, as well as software specifically designed to detect the inconsistencies that give away a stealth airplane, it becomes considerably easier to separate planes from birds in the sky.

................

“No offensive advantage lasts,” he said. “Often there is a relatively cheap defense counter to match new offensive technology. We may find ourselves moving further away from manned delivery platforms and focusing more on cruise missiles, tactical ballistic missiles, and short range missiles with incredible accuracy.”


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 29, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 19653 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
However, note that I did say Canada has a tendency to keep aircraft around for very lengthy service lives to the point of utter and complete obsolesce. The USN is going to retire the F/A-18E/F roughly 20 years from now. After that any Canadian fleet of the Super Hornet will now become an orphan fleet, where we will have to support and develop upgrades for, at a considerable cost. At least with the CF-18 IMP, we could leverage USN and USMC development and experience for Hornet upgrades.

The Aussies ? They'll be flying their Rhinos into the '30sor even later.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 19605 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
So let's do the math:

To equal one F-15 carrying 24,000lbs of munitions, you would need 6 F-35s in full stealth to make a difference. And the only difference would be stealth.

1F-15 VS 6 F-35s

The Rafale can carry 20,900lbs today and with the new M88-4E engines up to 23,000lbs.

That's about the same as the F-15.

Tommy, both you and Pointbalnk need to do a little less Top Trump fact quoting and add bit more realism. Yes the F-15 can get off the ground with 24,000 lbs of ordnance (at least the E anyway) but from what length runway, with how much fuel and how far can it go with that and at what speed. And how many strike targets have that 10,000ft runway conveniently located nearby. At leats the F-15E has a large amount of fuel capacity on board but look at the Rafale, I don't know about its future upgrades but whatever way you look at it, its internal fuel capacity is 10,000lbs so its not going far with 23,000lbs of ordnance hanging off it and if you want to go far it certainly will only be able to carry a small fraction of that 23,000lbs as a lot of its main hard points will be taken up with tanks.

The largest load outs in OIF and OEF were in the order of 4,000lbs ordnance. Most would have been less. The only airframes that could carry even that load a meaningful distance were: F-111, F-15, F-14 and Tornado - 3 of which are dedicated strike platforms and one which had that inherent capabilty from being designed to carry 6,000lbs of missile a long way. The 3 swing wing figthers have blistering low level performance, true supersonic capability with very high subsonic speed availble while loaded and the F-15 is no slouch here either. While the quoted low level speed of the Rafale is not far behind these, there's no way a delta winged figher could sustain that speed at low level and wont approach the speed of the others when loaded.

One thing we know about the F-35, regardless of its problems is that it can carry 4,000lbs internally with 18,000lbs of internal fuel. It can probably supercruise in that configuration (at least for a part of the mission once fuel load has lightened) and will do it in full stealth mode. In that clean configuration it will go a looong way, outranging anything short of a B1-B. That combination of speed and stealth and range will mean that it wont need the tanker, ECM and escort support vital to 4th gen platforms. With the retirement of F-14 and A-6 the USN has to put tanker equipped F-18's up with every strike package. So to reach a target 500nm away will require a gaggle of F-18E/F/G's in various configurations to hit a target that a single F-14/A-6 with an EA-6B could hit 15 years ago. But we all know the F-18 is much more affordable than those old platforms don't we. The USN found the reality of that situation out pretty quick in OEF where they were repeatedly hitting long range targets when they had to depend heavily on the fleet air defence figher F-14 instead of their strike platform F/A-18 and oh so much more affordable and flexible F-18E/F. (mind you there is an argument that they knew the F-14's time was up so it made sense to use up as much airframe hours on them as possible instead of the F-18's which were going to have to last another 30years)

I'm not an F-35 fanboy like some of the others, and I would share your grave concerns about its affordability, particularly in terms of numbers procured but when 'you do the math' on it, the F-35 will put the ability to reach out and strike back in the hands of forces in a way not seen siince the F-111 was conceived. And the ecomomics of that real life operation must factor in at some stage too. To say that any other 4th gen fighter or combination of fighters can match that strike capabilty based on quoted max loads is purile nonsense.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 31, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19535 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
The Japanese clearly had the superior aircraft in the A6M Zero, yet the AVG with the P-40B managed to beat them, and that was with superior pilot skills and tactics. There are many other examples in fighter history that support that.
Not true; in certain flight regimes the A6M Zero was the better aircraft, but in other flight regimes, the P-40 was better. The P-40 only gained a reputation of being a mediocre aircraft well after the war.

The Zero outclassed the Warhawk in speed, manuverability, rate of climb, and armorment (until the M-2 .50 calibers were added). The P-40 had an advantage in rate of desent, which is what the AVG used. They would attack from above, one pass through the Japanese fighter formation, then keep on going.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):so the F-15SE, which costs half of what a F-35 costs
Source?

Unit cost

F-15SE: US$100 million (planned average cost, 2009) including spares and support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15SE_Silent_Eagle

The F-15SE will have the same frontial stealth aspect as the F-35A/C, and a smaller frontal RCS than the F-35B.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
Many of the arguments against the F-35 are seriously misinformed. The need to replace Canada%u2019s CF-18 aircraft cannot be argued. We also need to upgrade air combat capabilities to meet emerging threats and challenges that cannot be foreseen at this point.

Really? No one is arguing against the RCAF replacing their current CF-18s, and yes, you do need to upgrade the combat capability of the RCAF, as a whole, not just its fighter wings.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
The larger RCS of the F-15SE would offset any sensor advantages, as a VLO target would have the first look advantage, and be able to maneuver into an advantageous position. The Silent Eagle would have advantages against 4/4.5gen aircraft, would be on the defensive vs a 5th gen aircraft.

The vast majority of the fighter aircraft in the world right now are Gen 4.5 or older. These will remain in service through mid-century in great numbers. The only deployed Gen 5 fighter is the F-22, and I don't think that is much of a threat to Canada. Even by the end of this decade, there will only be a handful of operational Gen 5 types, or still in developement. These include the F-35, T-50, J-20, LMFS, FGFA, ATD-X, KF-X, and TFX. Even through the 2020s and 2030s there probibly won't be that many Gen 5 fighters, and some nations may even start developement of Gen 6 machines. Buying the F-15SE/Typhoon/Rafal/F/A-18E/F right now will protect Canada will into the 2040s and beyond.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
You don't get it. It is technically impossible for a VHF or L-band radars won't have the resolution necessary to guide weapons, and that hasn't changed ever since WWII.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
AWACS guiding missiles? I'm sorry, but that's technically impossible, for the reasons described earlier regarding radar capabilities.

Where did you get all of that as none of it is true.

Here is the current capability of the CF-18;
Data from CF-18 Specifications[52]
General characteristics
Crew: 1 or 2
Length: 56 ft 0 in (17.07 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 0 in with Sidewinders (12.31 m)
Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.66 m)
Wing area: 400 ft2 (37.16 m2)
Airfoil: NACA 65A005 mod root, 65A003.5 mod tip
Empty weight: 23049 lb (10455 kg)
Loaded weight: 37150 lb (16850 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 51550 lb (23400 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F404-GE-400 turbofans, 16000 lbf (71.2 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1127 mph, 1814 km/h) at 36100 ft (11000 m)
Combat radius: 330 mi (290 nmi, 537 km) on hi-lo-lo-hi mission
Ferry range: 2070 mi (1800 nmi, 3330 km) (range without ordnance)
Service ceiling: 50000 ft (15000 m)
Rate of climb: 50000 ft/min (254 m/s)
Thrust/weight: 0.89
Armament
Nine Weapon/ Store Stations (5 pylons: 1 Under Fuselage and 4 Wing Stations) (2 LAU 116 located on sides of fuselage: deploys AIM 7 Sparrow and AMRAAM Missiles)(2 LAU 7 located on the wing tips: Deploys AIM 9 Sidewinder Missile), carrying up to 13700 lb (6215 kg) of missiles, rockets, bombs, fuel tanks, and pods
1 × 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan internal gatling gun with 578 rounds, with a firing rate of 4000 or 6000 shots per minute
Missiles:
Air-to-air: AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-7 Sparrow
Air-to-ground: AGM-65 Maverick, CRV7 rockets
Bombs: Paveway, Mk 82, Mk 83, Mk 84, GBU-10, -12, -16 and -24 laser guided bombs.
Avionics
Raytheon AN/APG-73 radar
BAE Systems AN/APX-111 IFF
Rockwell Collins AN/ARC-210 RT-1556/ARC VHF/UHF Radio
General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems AN/AYK-14 XN-8 mission computer
Smiths Aerospace AN/AYQ-9 Stores Management System

The planned capabilities of the F-35A;
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 51.4 ft (15.67 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft[N 5] (10.7 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[N 6] (4.33 m)
Wing area: 460 ft²[162] (42.7 m²)
Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,540 lb[123][N 7][335] (22,470 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[N 8] (31,800 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[336][N 9] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[336][337] (191 kN)
Internal fuel capacity: 18,480 lb (8,382 kg)[N 10]
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[157] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) Tested to Mach 1.61.[338]
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: 584 nmi[339] () on internal fuel[340]
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[341] (Tested to 43,000 ft)[342] (18,288 m)
Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: **With full fuel: 0.87 With 50% fuel: 1.07
g-Limits: 9 g[N 11]
Armament
Guns: 1 × General Dynamics GAU-22/A Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 4-barreled gatling cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[N 12][157]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[157][162] and 2 internal bays with 2 pylons each[162] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)[124] and provisions to carry combinations of: Missiles: ** Air-to-air missiles: AIM-120 AMRAAM
AIM-9X Sidewinder
IRIS-T
MBDA Meteor (Pending further funding)[343]
JDRADM (after 2020)[344]
Air-to-surface missiles: AGM-154 JSOW
AGM-158 JASSM[163]
Brimstone missile
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
SOM
Anti-ship missiles: JSM
Bombs: ***Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
JDAM-series
B61 nuclear bomb[345]
Avionics
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system
BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) electronic warfare system
Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system

The planned capability of the F-15SE;
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 63.8 ft (19.43 m)
Wingspan: 42.8 ft (13.05 m)
Height: 18.5 ft (5.63 m)
Wing area: 608 ft² (56.5 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A006.6 root, NACA 64A203 tip
Empty weight: 31,700 lb (14,300 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 81,000 lb (36,700 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-229 afterburning turbofans, 29,000 lbf (129 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,650+ km/h)
Combat radius: 800+ nm (720 nmi for stealth A/A mission)[34] (920 miles (1,480 kilometres))
Ferry range: 2,400 mi (2,100 nmi (3,900 km)) with conformal fuel tank and three external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,200 m)
Rate of climb: 50,000+ ft/min (254+ m/s)
Armament
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan 6-barreled gatling cannon with 510 rounds of ammunition
Four internal hardpoints in conformal weapons bays for low-observable capability, or
External load the same as Strike Eagle's with standard CFTs, including targeting pods and additional external fuel tanks.[35]
Avionics
APG-82 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar
BAE Systems Digital Electronic warfare system (DEWS)
Digital “Fly-by-Wire” Flight Control System (DFCS)
Lockheed Martin Sniper advanced electro-optical targeting system and Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system
Link-16 fighter data link

All data taken from the respective Wiki pages.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19509 times:

As a Swede I would promote Gripen, it will be cheap, not very hard to maintain and with one engine its cheaper per hour. It has less range, less weapons and a smaller radar. If price is the most important aspect, go for it  

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 33, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19452 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
The vast majority of the fighter aircraft in the world right now are Gen 4.5 or older. These will remain in service through mid-century in great numbers. The only deployed Gen 5 fighter is the F-22, and I don't think that is much of a threat to Canada. Even by the end of this decade, there will only be a handful of operational Gen 5 types, or still in developement. These include the F-35, T-50, J-20, LMFS, FGFA, ATD-X, KF-X, and TFX. Even through the 2020s and 2030s there probibly won't be that many Gen 5 fighters, and some nations may even start developement of Gen 6 machines. Buying the F-15SE/Typhoon/Rafal/F/A-18E/F right now will protect Canada will into the 2040s and beyond.

Actually, the rising price of the F-35 can be considered a beautiful thing: if it continues it will help make war unaffordable. One thing that is clear to me is that, although I have NEVER been a Reagan fan, he made it clear to the USSR that America would spend whatever it took to bleed the USSR dry.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19438 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Unit cost

F-15SE: US$100 million (planned average cost, 2009) including spares and support

This is before development costs that the first buyer will have to fund. No one is stupid enough to buy what Boeing is selling in their F18I or F15SE when Lockheed has a true 5th gen F35 just around the corner. If the F15SE was really that good, the Koreans would have bought/funded its development.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 19398 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 30):
Tommy, both you and Pointbalnk need to do a little less Top Trump fact quoting and add bit more realism

That's why I mentioned adding another bomb truck to share the load for a flight of 4 instead of 3. Then the bomb trucks would only carry 12,000lbs of munitions each with the rest being fuel and two more with 1 carrying anti radar and 1 pure A2A missiles. Please read my entire post.

The flexibility offered by the F-15SE and Rafale far exceeds that of the F-35. If you wanted to, they could strike much farther than the F-35 ever could under any circumstances without tankers. I was just giving one example.

The F-35 can not go beyond a 600nm radius on internal fuel, period - if even that. That is it's range. Going supercruise would cut the range significantly and is of little use against missiles or enemy aircraft, which are much faster anyway.

Looking at the armament/rnage capabilities of the Rafale and F-15SEa little closer, they easily carry some A2A missiles along with the bomb loads, so 2 bomb trucks carrying 12,000 lbs of bombs each and 1 anti radar is enough for the sortie. Total of 3 is good.

Vs. 6 F-35s needed to carry 24,000lbs of bombs the same distance.

[Edited 2012-03-15 14:10:24]

User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19360 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
And I made a big mistake in favor of the F-35. It really can only carry 2,000lbs of bombs internally, not 4,000, but also a few AA missiles. Escort F-35 would not be needed. So to revise, a mission to carry 24,000 lbs of bombs a distance of say 500 miles with 4 Rafale's or 4 F-15SEs, you wold need 12 F-35s - it's a joke - that's no way to deliver bombs. A fleet of 12 would cost $1.8 billion VS. $400 million + pilot training and operating expenses and logistics.

That's a ridiculous statement!

I'm going to let others straighten you out as they have done before on what the F-35 can or cannot carry internally save to quote what it says in wikipedia: A and C model 2x2000lb internal, B model 2x1000lb internal

You're then comparing external carriage of weapons to internal carriage based on one type having an ECM escort and the other not. If you want to do that let the F-35 carry external fuel and weapons and send the same ECM and escort aircraft with it if you believe that is a safe level of protection. Its a nonsensical argument

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
That's why I mentioned adding another bomb truck to share the load for a flight of 4 instead of 3. Then the bomb trucks would only carry 12,000lbs of munitions each with the rest being fuel and two more with 1 carrying anti radar and 1 pure A2A missiles. Please read my entire post.

You're using the Rafale and F15 in the one statement as if they are equal when they are clearly not even in the same ball park for range/payload capability. An F-15E has internal capacity for 22,900lbs fuel including the FAST packs. The F-15SE will have less as some of the internal fuel is traded for weapon bays. The Rafale has 10,000lbs internal fuel. There is no way they are comparable for range/payload. 4 F-15E's might be able to get 24,000 lbs ordnance 500 miles between them but not the Rafale. To get 500miles it will need external tanks, in all likelhood this will take up 3 of its main hard points leaving 2 for ordnance. I think it would be lucky to get 4,000lbs out that far on a combat mission, based on what I've read about real combat, I don't believe it could. Even at 4,000lbs you're still looking at probably a minimum of 8 aircraft to get 24,000lbs out 500 miles when you include ECM, more if you have to escort them.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
The flexibility offered by the F-15SE and Rafale far exceeds that of the F-35. If you wanted to, they could strike much farther than the F-35 ever could under any circumstances without tankers. I was just giving one example.

Again you're using the two aircraft in the same argument when they are incomparable aircraft. On top of that to say that a Rafale (10,000lb internal fuel) can out range an F-35 (18,000lb internal fuel) in any circumstance whatsoever is just plain ludicrous.

Maybe if you crated it up inside a C-5 it might have a chance.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 19327 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
That's a ridiculous statement!

I got the versions confused. Mu bad, sorry. It is true of the F-35B version can only carry 2,000lbs of bombs internally. The A and C versions can carry 4,000lbs - I edited my post.

Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
let the F-35 carry external fuel and weapons and send the same ECM and escort aircraft with it if you believe that is a safe level of protection

Then what would be the point of the F-35? It would not be stealthy that way - to operate the F-35 unstealthy makes the stealth features useless. There would be no point what so ever in acquiring the F-35 if you are going to do that. The F-15SE or Rafale are far superior to the F-35 in load/range capability, even against unstealthy F-35s. They just do not have the same range/payload - even unstealthy and operated stealthy - forget it. 4,000lbs of bombs is the limit for the F-35.

Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
4 F-15E's might be able to get 24,000 lbs ordnance 500 miles between them but not the Rafale.

You're right, because 4 Rafale's could deliver even more lbs of bombs than that over that distance, especially with the newer M88-4E engines. You should look up the range/payload of the Rafale rather than going off the seat of your pants. The Rafale is very close to the F-15.

Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
Again you're using the two aircraft in the same argument when they are incomparable aircraft. On top of that to say that a Rafale (10,000lb internal fuel) can out range an F-35 (18,000lb internal fuel) in any circumstance whatsoever is just plain ludicrous.

You are assuming only internal fuel used for F-15/Rafale - why? I never assumed that. Of course they both carry external drop tanks, Rafale more so tha the F-15SE - so what? But not the F-35 if it is to operate stealthy. So internal fuel only applies to the F-35. If you are going to operate the F-35 with drop tanks in a mission, then acquiring that plane makes no sense at all. And Rafale can be fitted with 2 go fast/conforming fuel tanks as well as the F-15.

The raw number are: With 12,000lbs of bombs, the Rafale can carry 20,000 of fuel internal and external - on the old engine. The new engine allows 3,000lbs more payload, more fuel than the stealthy F-35 carrying just 4,000lbs of bombs. The comparison is not quite fair, because it only allows the F-35 to operate without drop tanks or external weapons - but then that's the entire F-35 pitch and battle plan. If you're going to operate the F-35 like a gen 4.5 plane, then just buy the gen 4.5 plane.

[Edited 2012-03-15 15:33:19]

[Edited 2012-03-15 15:34:49]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19293 times:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

The root of these survivability problems in the Joint Strike Fighter design is that it provides robust stealth and robust jamming capabilities only in the sector under the aircraft’s nose. Its stealth capability from other angles, and in most bands, is poor or very poor, and without a proper internal jamming suite capable of covering all four quadrants around the aircraft, it is severely restricted in its choices of defensive tactics.

Why the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office and manufacturer opted to disregard the well proven stealth shaping techniques used in the F-117A, B-2A, A-12A, YF-23A and F-22A remains an open question.

The Russian and Chinese technological strategy for dealing with penetrating all aspect stealth aircraft has been to develop a new generation of VHF band radars, including multistatic forward scattering radars. These will reduce opportunities for undetected penetration, especially by fighter sized aircraft, as the VHF radars defeat shaping measures and materials designed for S-band and X-band threats.

The US Air Force technological strategy for dealing with this counter-strategy is the use of the F-22A Raptor, armed with the GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb, for lethal suppression of such radars. A pair of F-22As, armed with sixteen SDBs in total, can overwhelm the point defence SAM systems defending critical search radars.

The inferior “single aspect stealth” capability of the Joint Strike Fighter denies it the option of penetrating a modern IADS SAM belt. The depth of the IADS simply makes it geometrically impossible to find a path between search radars where the combination of distance and relative aspect would allow it to penetrate unseen. This is exacerbated by the increasing availability of modern digital VHF, UHF and L-band search radars, especially radars with 3D capability and the accuracy to guide long range area defence SAMs.

The most generous description of the stealth design used in the Joint Strike Fighter is that it is 25% VLO, in the nose sector, 25% LO in the tail sector, and 50% “reduced observable” in the beam sectors, with a strong threat operating frequency and angular aspect dependency in stealth performance. It is clearly not a stealth design in the same sense as the F-117A Nighthawk, B-2A Spirit, YF-23A and F-22A Raptor, and to label it a “VLO design” is at best a “quarter-truth”, quite indifferent to the physical realities of the design and the threat systems it will need to defeat in future conflicts.


[Edited 2012-03-15 16:46:06]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 39, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 19275 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 34):
No one is stupid enough to buy what Boeing is selling in their F18I or F15SE when Lockheed has a true 5th gen F35 just around the corner.

              

Countries identify the tactical need for an airplane, then look at what they can afford. With all the garbage you need to hang off your F-35, it is no longer stealthy. Nor does it have the range.

The F-35 has a combat range of 584 nm, compared to the F-15SE combat range of 800 nm. The difference is one tanker that is not needed. The F-35 has a max speed of 1.6M, if it gets in trouble, the F-15SE can get out of town at 2.5M.

Neither aircraft will fly this type of mission with a max combat load, typically it is loaded at about 75%-80% so the airplane can be it its best "fighting weight" in the combat area. That is best manuvering weight and best acceleration weight.

The F-35 may be sexier than the F-15SE, Rafal, Typhoon, etc. but these others can get the job done. I get to see the F-35 flying everyday, it is built just about 2 miles from my home in Fort Worth. It is less empressive looking than the F/A-18C/Ds and F-16C/Ds stationed across the runway from the LM plant (USAF Plant #4) at Fort Worth NAS/JRB (formerly Carswell AFB). Believe me the F-35 has a very loud and unique sound to it. You know when it is coming.

Canada is what is called a "level 3" partner in the F-35 program. That means they are among the countries who have contributed the least amount towards the F-35 developement costs. They also have little say over the final configueration, ECM, ECCM, avionics, and navigation suites. Canada has an order that could be up to 65 F-35As, which are tentitively called CF-35As, although they will be little different from the USAF F-35A. To date, Canada has contributed some $490M USD to the program. However, the Canadian MOD would not publicly say just what the F-35 is costing, and as I understand it, lead to a lot of political turmoil.

Today's estimates of $200M (average) for each one may, or may not ever come down. It is still thought by the US DOD eventually F-35s will cost in the $110M to $130M price range. That is still up to 30% more expensive than other more suitable aircraft, for LESS capability.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19259 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
You're right, because 4 Rafale's could deliver even more lbs of bombs than that over that distance, especially with the newer M88-4E engines. You should look up the range/payload of the Rafale rather than going off the seat of your pants. The Rafale is very close to the F-15.

You're missing the point, with the Rafale its either/or on max fuel/max payload, the sales bumf charts might indicate that it is capable of combining them but the hard point plumbing and rating will say otherwise. Manufacturers have been creative with the truth in this regard since the first competetive tender. I wonder do you still believe that the F-15 is a Mach 2.5 fighter?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
You are assuming only internal fuel used for F-15/Rafale - why? I never assumed that. Of course they both carry external drop tanks, Rafale more so tha the F-15SE - so what?

The 'so what' is that the Rafale cannot carry its max weapon load while carrying tanks, this is where internal fuel capacity is vital to range/payload trade off. Unless its up against a very docile enemy the Rafale will have to drop its tanks to engage in combat, there are all sorts of G limitations on tanks. It now has 10,000lbs of fuel max to fight its way in and out of its target area and make its way home, otherwise it will have to bug out. Not a lot of burner time in that. Obviously CFT's will help this situation a lot but the Rafales are not near as big as the F-15 (4,000lb total I believe)

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
The raw number are: With 12,000lbs of bombs, the Rafale can carry 20,000 of fuel internal and external - on the old engine. The new engine allows 3,000lbs more payload, more fuel than the stealthy F-35 carrying just 4,000lbs of bombs.

This is where my 'seat of the pants' analysis is at odds with your sales bumf. Where exactly are you going to hang 12,000lbs of weaponry off the Rafale while carrying max fuel. As far as I can see, with the 3 long range tanks required for max fuel the Rafale has 2 meaningful hard points left for AtoG weaponry. Unless the Fench have cleared a few 6,000lb bombs for the Rafale I'll take a bit of convincing on this one. I'm standing by my 'seat of the pants' assessment in that I can't see the Rafale combining much more than 4,000lbs weapons with max fuel. And we haven't really gone into the effects of drag on range and speed.

By my reckoning even giving the Rafale 20,000lbs of fuel including CFT's, its still only going to bring 4,000lbs to the party and that in a very draggy suit so its going to need all of that 2,000lbs extra fuel and more it has over a clean F-35 to get there.

And with regard to going non stealth with the F-35, you've got the argument backwards. The Rafale has no alternative but to go in as it is, it has no stealth option. Its weapons will always be out there annoucing its coming. Its hard points will always be there adding drag. Regardless of how good/poor the stealth on the F-35 turns out to be (or maybe more importantly, how maintainable its stealth level is) its a quality that the alternaitive fighters simply don't have. Sticking external weapons and fuel on it for the purpose of this argument is valid because it is an option with the F-35. You obviously (and maybe rightly so) don't believe that that quality is worth double the price of altenative fighters. But I don't think you'll find too many strike fighter pilots who'll agree with you on that one.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19249 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
The F-35 has a max speed of 1.6M, if it gets in trouble, the F-15SE can get out of town at 2.5M.

It might be able to reach that speed but if it does it will have to land straight away as 1, it'll have no fuel left and 2, the engines need to be changed. And I very much doubt that an F-15SE will reach that speed at all with FAST packs on and definitley not with any weapons pylons.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19236 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
Countries identify the tactical need for an airplane, then look at what they can afford.

True. Except not one country has identified either the Silent Eagle nor the SH international as a viable replacement. I'll bet you a Toonie that not one will see any real production run. No one is buying what Boeing is trying to pitch.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19238 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
The Zero outclassed the Warhawk in speed, manuverability, rate of climb, and armorment (until the M-2 .50 calibers were added). The P-40 had an advantage in rate of desent, which is what the AVG used. They would attack from above, one pass through the Japanese fighter formation, then keep on going.

No, the general consensus was that the P-40 was faster at lower altitudes, was better in a dive, was more maneuverable at higher speeds, coupled with a better roll rate coupled with a more durable aircraft. If the pilot had sufficient altitude, the P-40 could out turn a Zero. The Zero was more maneuverable at a slower speed. The aircraft were very evenly matched otherwise.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 28):
You are an expert in this field, yes? Please describe your credentials so we can all judge your comments according to your credentials, thanks.

In the meantime, can you refute the following with your knowledge in signal engineering?

http://tech.mit.edu/V121/N63/Stealth.63f.html

John Hansman, a professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, explains, “Some stealth aircraft, like the F-117, are specifically designed to have a low radar cross section to monostatic, or conventional, radars. They are not stealthy to some bi-static configurations.”

Conventional monostatic radar places the transmitter and receiver in the same location, making it simple to locate a plane when spotted. Bi-static, or multi-static radar, would position the receiver at a different position from the transmitter. This makes it more difficult to compute the location of the aircraft. (Multiple Grippens have multiple receivers in multiple locations with data link -Edited).

However, since stealth aircraft do reflect some radar, but away from the transmitter, bi-static radar could conceivably receive the reflection and detect the stealth aircraft.

I deffer to the work of Christian Wolff, who is a radar engineer. I also defer to the work of Nicholas J. Willis, and Hugh D. Griffith, whom published a book called "Advances in bistatic radar" All three radar engineers have noted the technical issues that you keep dismissing.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 29):
The Aussies ? They'll be flying their Rhinos into the '30sor even later.

Not likely. The Aussies consider their Rhinos to be interim aircraft, and they only have 24. They will probably look to divest by 2030 at the latest.

Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
You're using the Rafale and F15 in the one statement as if they are equal when they are clearly not even in the same ball park for range/payload capability. An F-15E has internal capacity for 22,900lbs fuel including the FAST packs. The F-15SE will have less as some of the internal fuel is traded for weapon bays. The Rafale has 10,000lbs internal fuel. There is no way they are comparable for range/payload. 4 F-15E's might be able to get 24,000 lbs ordnance 500 miles between them but not the Rafale. To get 500miles it will need external tanks, in all likelhood this will take up 3 of its main hard points leaving 2 for ordnance. I think it would be lucky to get 4,000lbs out that far on a combat mission, based on what I've read about real combat, I don't believe it could. Even at 4,000lbs you're still looking at probably a minimum of 8 aircraft to get 24,000lbs out 500 miles when you include ECM, more if you have to escort them.

Don't forget you need to carry targeting and datalink pods as well... that will take away 1 pylon at least. F-35 doesn't need one; they have one already integrated into the aircraft. The only other modern aircraft with an integrated targeting pod in production is the F-16 Block 60.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
The F-35 has a combat range of 584 nm, compared to the F-15SE combat range of 800 nm. The difference is one tanker that is not needed. The F-35 has a max speed of 1.6M, if it gets in trouble, the F-15SE can get out of town at 2.5M.

The F-35's range is based on internal fuel only. Once you start hanging external fuel tanks, the range increases.

Also, you based your range for the F-15SE upon the F-15E's range. The CFT's with internal weapons bays that were developed carry a fraction of the fuel the regular CFT's for the F-15's normally carry. And you still need to hang a targeting and a navigation pod off two pylons...

Also, I will also point out that the F-15 is only a transonic aircraft when configured in an air to air configuration, and if you were to load it up with bombs, it is a subsonic fighter. F-35 will be able to reach Mach 1.6 with a pretty sizable internal weapons load alone, and sustain it. In fact, I will further point out that the F-15 rarely if ever exceeds Mach 1.5 in service, and only under certain conditions. The amount of time spent by the worldwide F-15 fleet since the F-15's introduction spent at speeds in excess of Mach 1.5 can be measured in a few hours, not even long enough to watch the Lord of the Rings.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
Canada is what is called a "level 3" partner in the F-35 program. That means they are among the countries who have contributed the least amount towards the F-35 developement costs. They also have little say over the final configueration, ECM, ECCM, avionics, and navigation suites. Canada has an order that could be up to 65 F-35As, which are tentitively called CF-35As, although they will be little different from the USAF F-35A. To date, Canada has contributed some $490M USD to the program. However, the Canadian MOD would not publicly say just what the F-35 is costing, and as I understand it, lead to a lot of political turmoil.

A level 3 partner that has somehow managed get a 300% ROI on the F-35 program currently, and that can increase.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
Today's estimates of $200M (average) for each one may, or may not ever come down. It is still thought by the US DOD eventually F-35s will cost in the $110M to $130M price range. That is still up to 30% more expensive than other more suitable aircraft, for LESS capability.

Actually, if the run the numbers, the competitor's aren't better off, if you calculate based upon a APUC context:

According to recent newspaper reports, Dassault put forward a counter offer to supply Switzerland with 18 Rafale jets for 2.7 billion Swiss francs instead of an original demand of 4 billion francs for 22 jets.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...defence-jets-idUSL5E8DE6DK20120214

A. 22 Gripens: Swiss francs 3.1 billion = $ 3.4 billion
Per Gripen: $154.5 million

A. 22 Rafales: Swiss Francs 4 billion = $4.33 billion
Per Rafale (22): $196.8 million

B. Second probable offer by Dassault (without A2G equipment)
18 Rafales: Swiss francs 2.7 billion = $ 2923.21
Per Rafale: $162.9 million

And none of these prices include things that the F-35 comes with, such as targeting and navigation pods... etc. I would argue based upon this that F-35 still represents a major bargain.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19231 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):

Is that your main source of info? APA?      


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 45, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19241 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 43):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 29):
The Aussies ? They'll be flying their Rhinos into the '30sor even later.

Not likely. The Aussies consider their Rhinos to be interim aircraft, and they only have 24. They will probably look to divest by 2030 at the latest.

The Aussies, actually, according to my late friend Baroque, are considering more Rhinos, as their confidence in the F-35 wanes. Including some 'G's.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19252 times:

22 Gripens @ 3.4 billion $ for a 30-year life-cycle cost (incl purchase) = 154.5million$/plane

vs

22 Rafales @ 4.33 billion $ for a 30-year life-cycle cost (incl purchase) = 196.8million$/plane

vs

and these are the most conservative costs by the Canadian MoD and the Pentagon for 20 year lifecycle costs.

9 billion purchase price (very unlikely to stay this low) + 14~19 billion additional life cycle costs

pipedream numbers from Canada MoD =
65 F35 @ 16 billion $ for a 20 year life cycle cost (incl purchase) = 307.70 million$/plane
More realistic numbers partially from the Pentagon
65 F35 @ 23-28 billion $ for a 20 year life cycle cost (incl purchase) = 353.85 - 430.77 million$/plane

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03.../f35-julian-fantino_n_1342043.html

Quoting from the link:
The cost for 20 years' of in-service support remains a matter of debate, with the air force insisting it will only run in the neighbourhood of an additional $7 billion — a figure the Parliamentary Budget Officer disputes.

Even Pentagon estimates suggest the maintenance bill could run between US$14 billion and US$19 billion.



PS Norway has budgetted for 51 planes a sum of +40 billion $ for purchase and a 30 year lifecycle cost amounting
to the astonnishing total of no less than almost 800 million$/plane........................ and the overseeing commitee
has stated that there still could be some substantial price increase in the following years.

All this without taking into account that all the extra noise will lead to even more expenses in heavily populated Europe and the jet drinks about 50% more fuel than its predecessor , the F16.

[Edited 2012-03-15 19:39:06]


[edit post]
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19245 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 46):
22 Gripens @ 3.4 billion $ for a 30-year life-cycle cost (incl purchase) = 154.5million$/plane

vs

22 Rafales @ 4.33 billion $ for a 30-year life-cycle cost (incl purchase) = 196.8million$/plane

vs

and these are the most conservative costs by the Canadian MoD and the Pentagon for 20 year lifecycle costs.

9 billion purchase price (very unlikely to stay this low) 14~19 billion additional life cycle costs

pipedream numbers from Canada MoD =
65 F35 @ 16 billion $ for a 20 year life cycle cost (incl purchase) = 307.70 million$/plane
More realistic numbers partially from the Pentagon
65 F35 @ 23-28 billion $ for a 20 year life cycle cost (incl purchase) = 353.85 - 430.77 million$/plane

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03.../f35-julian-fantino_n_1342043.html

Quoting from the link:
The cost for 20 years' of in-service support remains a matter of debate, with the air force insisting it will only run in the neighbourhood of an additional $7 billion %u2014 a figure the Parliamentary Budget Officer disputes.

Even Pentagon estimates suggest the maintenance bill could run between US$14 billion and US$19 billion.


Sigh...

Compare apples to apples. I used APUC costs for all calculations. You are comparing total ownership costs to APUC. There is a BIG difference between total ownership costs and APUC in terms of the basket of potential costs.

The basic unit of analysis is the recurring flyaway costs which include program management, hardware, airframe, vehicle and mission systems, propulsion and engineering change orders. Procurement costs are frequently expressed per aircraft as average procurement unit costs (APUC). The acquisition costs of the JSF include procurement costs, plus research, development, test and evaluation and cost of facility construction. Finally, total ownership costs include all the preceding costs, plus operations and support, improvements and modifications.

[Edited 2012-03-15 19:34:02]

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19243 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 47):
Compare apples to apples. I used APUC costs for all calculations. You are comparing total ownership costs to APUC.

With the F35, the highest cost estimate is generally the most accurate one.  


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 49, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19237 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 40):
The 'so what' is that the Rafale cannot carry its max weapon load while carrying tanks

12,000lbs in weapons load in my example is not anywhere near max weapons load for the Rafale. I never used a max fuel that combo.

Quoting spudh (Reply 40):
Where exactly are you going to hang 12,000lbs of weaponry off the Rafale while carrying max fuel.

Not in my example, I never said that - you assume I said that. With 12,000lbs weapons Rafale can not carry max fuel and I never said it could. Neither can the F-15. But it can carry 20,000lbs of total fuel and 12,000lbs bombs, for a max take off weight of 54,000lbs.

Quoting spudh (Reply 40):
I can't see the Rafale combining much more than 4,000lbs weapons with max fuel

I never said Rafale nor F-15 can carry max fuel and 12,000lbs of bombs. My example mission is to deliver 12,000lbs of bombs over 500 miles and come back empty - that it can do. The F-35 is the one limited to 4,000 lbs of bombs, no matter the fuel load.

Quoting spudh (Reply 40):
But I don't think you'll find too many strike fighter pilots who'll agree with you on that one.

Perhaps your are right. But you will be exposing twice as many pilots and planes to do the same mission as using gen 4.5 planes. This makes it 4 times as expensive and with less flexibility. The other issue is the inability of the F-35 to carry big things internally like cruise missiles - which the gen 4.5 planes can - several of them at once, such as the storm shadow or the long range Exocet and Harpoon anti ship missiles - which the F-35 can not carry at all, not even externally.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19226 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
Perhaps your are right. But you will be exposing twice as many pilots and planes to do the same mission as using gen 4.5 planes. This makes it 4 times as expensive and with less flexibility. The other issue is the inability of the F-35 to carry big things internally like cruise missiles - which the gen 4.5 planes can - several of them at once, such as the storm shadow or the long range Exocet and Harpoon anti ship missiles - which the F-35 can not carry at all, not even externally.

Wrong.

F-35 will be integrated with AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon, the AGM-158 JASSM, the Turkish SOM, Storm Shadow, and the Norwegian Joint Strike Missile. F-35 most notably will carry the JSM internally.

Four of the F-35's hardpoints (including two internal ones) have limits of 2500lb apiece, and two have 5000lb apiece, which adds up to 20000lb even without adding the remaining four with their lower limits.


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19226 times:

You say....

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 47):
Sigh...

Compare apples to apples. I used APUC costs for all calculations. You are comparing total ownership costs to APUC. There is a BIG difference between total ownership costs and APUC in terms of the basket of potential costs.

The basic unit of analysis is the recurring flyaway costs which include program management, hardware, airframe, vehicle and mission systems, propulsion and engineering change orders. Procurement costs are frequently expressed per aircraft as average procurement unit costs (APUC). The acquisition costs of the JSF include procurement costs, plus research, development, test and evaluation and cost of facility construction. Finally, total ownership costs include all the preceding costs, plus operations and support, improvements and modifications.

Eventually all this comes down to how much yoy pay for it all and again , on a 1 to 1 base, avg.acquisition price
+ maintenance&support+ upgrades+facilities&logistic the price of both the Gripen and the Rafale is a well known defined number namely respectively 3.4 and 4.3 billion$ over a period of 30 years for 22 planes.

Using the same conditions ; avg.acquisition price + maintenance&support+ upgrades+facilities&logistic, the numbers
for 65 F35's was estimated @ 29.3 billion$ for a 20 year period by your own Parliamentary Budget Office 1 year ago in March 2011 (see, even higher than my numbers !!).
1 year later according to both the Norwegians and the Dutch the costs have been on a steady rise.

But with official Canadian numbers provided by your own budget office the price per plane has gone up to no less than
450 million$ per plane.

All your accounting wizardry won't change reality one bit.

edit for link
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/03/15/a...-now-colin-horgan-defence-fantino/

Quote:
n March 2011, the Parliamentary Budget Officer thought the cost, totalling $29.3 billion, would breakdown more like this:

Acquisition: $9.7 billion
Initial logistics: $1.7 billion
Operation and support: $14 billion
Overhaul costs: $3.9 billion

But the reality is that nobody knows what the F-35 will cost until it comes time to sign a contract. The numbers at the moment are speculative, and will ultimately change, largely depending on how many planes the U.S. decides to buy. The latest from the Pentagon was the decision to delay purchase on 179 planes over the next five years to cut costs — not necessarily a good thing for the program. It’s perhaps for this reason that DND has said it is “continually assessing the implications of decisions resulting from uncertain global economic realities on the Canadian Forces future readiness.”


[Edited 2012-03-15 20:08:18]


[edit post]
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19189 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 51):

Eventually all this comes down to how much yoy pay for it all and again , on a 1 to 1 base, avg.acquisition price
+ maintenance&support+ upgrades+facilities&logistic the price of both the Gripen and the Rafale is a well known defined number namely respectively 3.4 and 4.3 billion$ over a period of 30 years for 22 planes.

Using the same conditions ; avg.acquisition price + maintenance&support+ upgrades+facilities&logistic, the numbers
for 65 F35's was estimated @ 29.3 billion$ for a 20 year period by your own Parliamentary Budget Office 1 year ago in March 2011 (see, even higher than my numbers !!).
1 year later according to both the Norwegians and the Dutch the costs have been on a steady rise.

But with official Canadian numbers provided by your own budget office the price per plane has gone up to no less than
450 million$ per plane.

All your accounting wizardry won't change reality one bit.

edit for link
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/03/15/a...tino/

It DOES matter when you are doing comparisons. You have to compare costs that are calculated in the same manner. Your comparison is akin to comparing the costs of two cars; one car is priced using the MSRP. The other is MSRP plus maintenance, fuel, and other related costs (such as paving the driveway or building a new garage). These two costs cannot and should not be compared because they are calculated in different manners have have a totally different basket of items included.


David Perry is a defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations Institute. His excellent paper, Canada’s Joint Strike Fighter Purchase: Parsing the Numbers (in CDA Institute, On Track, Summer 2011), details the cost of the F-35:

The basic unit of analysis is the recurring flyaway costs … [which] include program management, hardware, airframe, vehicle and mission systems, propulsion and engineering change orders. Procurement costs are frequently expressed per aircraft as average procurement unit costs (APUC). The acquisition costs of the JSF include procurement costs, plus research, development, test and evaluation and cost of facility construction. Finally, total ownership costs include all the preceding costs, plus operations and support, improvements and modifications.
DND’s announced program states that the unit recurring flyaway cost (URF) is $70 to $75 million.

Perry insightfully notes that DND’s URF cannot be meaningfully compared to the GAO’s $133 million estimate. The GAO’s figure is an average procurement unit cost (APUC), and this includes spare parts, logistics, and other cost figures, and is an average cost for all three variants of the aircraft. However, Canada is purchasing the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) version – the cheapest of the three variants. Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) accounts for other costs separately.

These seemingly contradictory figures even have Ottawa’s Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) questioning DND’s estimates. PBO estimates the total acquisition costs for the 65 fighters to be $9.7 billion, and $1.7 billion for logistic set-up, plus 30 years of operating and support costs ($14 billion), plus $3.9 billion in overhaul and upgrade costs.

This is an astounding and confusing series of figures to be included in the procurement package, but the ‘bottom line’ is that whichever aircraft Canada purchases will have follow-on costs associated with training, storage, operations, maintenance, and armament purchases for the fighter. Whatever we buy will require retooled and redesigned facilities at the two fighter bases. We can expect that these costs will probably increase from those associated with the CF-18 fleet.

For a more realistic figure, one should look at the acquisition costs of the aircraft as it will exist in the Canadian context, which DND stipulates will be approximately $75 million per airplane, or $4.55 to $4.88 billion in sum. The remaining funds in the budget envelope will, as DND’s Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel Dan Ross wrote in a 15 June letter to the Ottawa Citizen, be used for “...weapons, supporting infrastructure, initial spares and training simulators.” Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino and Dan Ross reconfirmed these estimates on 14 June 2011 in their joint remarks to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The GAO estimates the APUC to be $133 million, which is the average unit cost of for all three variants over the entire production line, including the very expensive aircraft at the earliest production period. By way of comparison, and using this measurement yardstick, Boeing’s F-18E/F Super Hornet would cost about $5 to $10 million more per aircraft than the F-35.

Canada’s acquisition of the aircraft is expected to begin in 2016, when the production line has been in operation for several years, and when the unit cost will be at its lowest. Production lines are most expensive as they begin construction of aircraft and decrease quite dramatically once the assembly line has been fully established. DND says it will be able to adjust the purchase date to coincide with the start of the multi-year production, if desired, to take advantage of the reduced price point.

When all these factors are considered, David Perry notes: “... [that] DND’s cost estimates for the F-35 (CTOL) appear very similar to the GAO’s when expressed in comparable terms, although the PBO’s estimates are significantly higher.”


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 19183 times:

Pointblank,

I understand what you are trying to say or explain , you think that we don't understand how the
total financial package is build up for the F35 and how it compares with its competitors and granted, it
is not always easy to understand because different people work with different tools to establish a final price.

However I do know where you and your source are comming from and right at the beginning he is already making
assumptions that cannot be maintained.
First he cites the flyaway (this means with engine !!! ) price the Canadian are expecting to pay in 2016 , when the line is at its cheapest at 75 million $, this is a number almost no other government is using anymore , the 2016 cheap price is already way past 100 million$ for the A version, let alone the B and C ., the 9.7 billion $ flyaway cost (remember we are speaking 2016 and up dollars) is a very reasonable estimate.
The 14 billion $ support and operation cost for 20 years (and not 30 like Mr Perry suggest ) are Pentagon numbers for the USAF, not the Navy and the MARINES, it are the estimated costs for the F35A over a timeframe of 20 years.
The upgrades are also not in the flyaway costs , they represent another cost namely 3.9 billion$ , again for the A version, not B or C (but they are likely within the same vicinity).

All this means that it still comes down to over 29 billion$ for 65 planes on a 20 year plan.

Mr Perry can only make his numbers stick if he uses old and completely outdated costestimates, something non of the
US services or most of the other partners believe in anymore.

Basically even at its cheapest when the lines are pumping out F35's at steady pace it is never gonna get down to
anywhere near 75 million dollars.
Even the General overseeing the financial situation of the F35 program stated recently that it would take a 50% pricedrop in predicted production costs (meaning 50% cheaper than the currently predicted production costs when the line goes at full speed) before the F35 would be back on track to be anywhere near affordable to keep
the initially planned production volumes.

I read some of Mr Perry's articles and 1 thing strikes me as odd , he doesn't give a definitive number on how he sees the F35 evolving pricewise.
Maybe you could link something definitive with real numbers, maybe we can see where our (the fans vs the scepticks   ) strains of reasoning go apart.

It could very well be that I see some things wrong or base my assumptions on wrong numbers , I'm always happy to learn.



[edit post]
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 54, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19125 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
For a more realistic figure, one should look at the acquisition costs of the aircraft as it will exist in the Canadian context, which DND stipulates will be approximately $75 million per airplane, or $4.55 to $4.88 billion in sum. The remaining funds in the budget envelope will, as DND’s Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel Dan Ross wrote in a 15 June letter to the Ottawa Citizen, be used for “...weapons, supporting infrastructure, initial spares and training simulators.” Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino and Dan Ross reconfirmed these estimates on 14 June 2011 in their joint remarks to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The GAO estimates the APUC to be $133 million, which is the average unit cost of for all three variants over the entire production line, including the very expensive aircraft at the earliest production period. By way of comparison, and using this measurement yardstick, Boeing’s F-18E/F Super Hornet would cost about $5 to $10 million more per aircraft than the F-35.

I think this long slow dance about the 'real' cost of the F-35 is about to come to an end:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...o-deliver-scathing-report-on-f35s/

Clarity at last !

It also seems quite evident that senior DND officials, both in uniform and out, have consistently misled Parliament about the actual cost of the F-35 (not to mention the Chinooks, the subs, and more). They have consistently used old, outdated numbers provided by LockMart. This amounts to deceit and those who have participated in this deceit, not just of parliament but the Canadian people as a whole, should have their careers terminated. Possibly they should face prosecution.

I am not sure if the F-35 is DOA, but I think it is definitely now on life support.

And a good thing, too.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 19121 times:

Oh yeah, you're right ThePointblank, so let's look a little further:

AGM-154 - is a glide bomb, not a missile or cruise missile

AGM-158 JASSM - External only - so what's the point of buying F-35 to fire it? F-15E already carries it
Turkish SOM -Only for the Turkish F-35's and under development by Turkey for Turkey. But has potential, IMHO
Storm Shadow - External only, so what's the point of buying F-35s to fire it? Rafale already carries it
Norwegian Joint Strike Missile - The U.S. DoD has not decided to integrate it onto the F-35 - but I think it will be allowed eventually. This wrangling just shows how badly the F-35 program is run.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-deal-is-critical-for-f-35-362407/

So apart from maybe the SOM, no, the F-35 is not currently planned to be able to carry any of the the of types of weapons that I mentioned in stealth internally - only externally and then what's the point of the F-35?

Thanks for making it clear how poor the F-35 program and it's politics are.

[Edited 2012-03-16 01:51:45]

[Edited 2012-03-16 01:54:36]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 56, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 19011 times:

More on Canada possibly backing out of the F-35 program:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-abandoning-lockheeds-f-35-369577/

Personally, I think we should be looking at Global Hawk and/or Raytheon Sentinel, currently in service with the RAF for patrol/surveillance missions. In fact, one of the reasons so many CF-18s fatigued out was the requirement to carry that really big fuel tank under the centre line while on patrol flights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Sentinel

IMHO I don't think there is a snowball's chance that the Russians will be coming over the Pole to attack either Canada or the USA. If they did, we'd have bigger problems than the F-35 could solve.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 57, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 18965 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
ThePointblank

Pointblank, my friend, many of us here actually know what we are talking about. We have been in this business, in many cases, for decades. We have "been there, done that and got the t-shirt".

Nations buy weapons systems based on what the total cost will be over the lifetime of that weapon. The "fly away" cost is insignificant in the total cost of, in this case, the F-35As, expected life of 30 years.

No nation has an unlimited defense budget, including Canada. As you know, Canada has the second largest land mass to protect in the world. It is bigger than the US. Even though the total population of Canada is smaller than some US states, it still has natural resources it needs to protect in the vast northern areas, including above the Arctic Circle.

Canada, like most nations, buys weapons for defense of the homeland first, and offense operations that, hopefully, can be conducted on someone else's soil. But it needs to balance these needs and stay within the budget it can afford. As has been pointed out to you, there are many fighters that can fill Canada's needs, the F-35 is not the only one. In fact, as has been pointed out it is on the lower end of defensive and offensive capabilities compared to other aircraft. But in terms of costs, it is on the upper end. It is by far the sexiest of all the competing airplanes, but if we only wanted sexy airplanes the A-10 would never have been bought. The Rafal, F-15, F/A-18, Typhoon, and F-16 have all proven themselves in combat, the F-35 is still having trouble climbing out of the developement phase.

Unlike other countries who may eventually buy the F-35 (if it survives the upcoming budget axe in the US), Canada's choice effects me too. Canada and the US have a mutual defense pact and work together in the North American Defense Command.

BTW, the P-40 did not begin out performing the A6M until the later models with the improved engines, from the P-40F/K/N models and beyond. The P-40A/B/C/D/E models were outclassed.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18921 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
Not in my example, I never said that - you assume I said that. With 12,000lbs weapons Rafale can not carry max fuel and I never said it could. Neither can the F-15. But it can carry 20,000lbs of total fuel and 12,000lbs bombs, for a max take off weight of 54,000lbs.

I'll try one last time just for completness, but this time I'll include pictures because obviously words are not getting through. Here is what a Rafale with potentially 20,000lbs of fuel is going to look like


Where do you propose to put 12,000lbs of ordnance. Feel free to start knocking off tanks in your explanation but remember to deduct range for each tank replaced by hardware.

You don't seem to get the difference between 'top trump facts' and real combat conditions. All fighters have a combat weight, that is the weight they are designed to be able to maneouvre at in a combat scenario. The quoted combat weight of a Rafale is 30,900lbs. At weights above this their performance is severely degraded by structural and aerodynamic limits. A Rafale entering a combat zone with 12,000lbs of ordnance hanging off it is dead as it can only fly in a straight line, it can't turn, can't climb, it won't be able to pull out of a dive unless it drops about 8,000lbs of that weight. Pointblank mentioned a book above, Robert L. Shaw, "Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering", it would be well worth your while having a read of such a book, it might teach you to ignore most of the sales hype and concentrate on whats real.

I'll give you an example, KC135 (who should know better  ) quoted the banner top speed of the F15SE as being Mach 2.5. Of course it is, everyone knows that the F-15 does mach 2.5. Lets look at that. The design requirement for the F-15 was mach 2.5 and it met its design requirements so its top speed must be 2.5M, it has to be, thats what all the books say. But that was a design requirment that had to be met by hook or by crook. What's never quoted in books is that it had to fill its tanks at altitude before it did that speed run and the pilot had to had to hit an engine limit over ride switch at 2.3M to allow it to continue to overspeed the engines. On reaching the magic 2.5M it had to immediately land as it was out of gas and its engines were overstressed. Now the little known fact about that speed run was that it was completely unarmed, they even had to remove the gun to get it light enough. So yes the F-15 is a Mach 2.5 aircraft but its not a 2.5M fighter. In its standard air superiority load out of 4 AIM-7and 4 AIM-9 the F-15 has a top speed of mach 1.8. The F-15SE has extra weight and drag in terms of conformal tanks so might in fact be lower still. 'Top trump facts' versus reality!

Don't get me wrong here, I think the Rafale is a top class fighter and for certain JSF partner countries I think it is a better fit but I think you're doing it a disservice with the way you are arguing its case.

The F-15 is a legend and doesn't need any help from me, I can't believe it is being totally overlooked in every competition.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
AGM-158 JASSM - External only - so what's the point of buying F-35 to fire it?
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
External only, so what's the point of buying F-35s to fire it?
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
only externally and then what's the point of the F-35?

Repeating the point doesn't make it any more valid.

On the one hand you laud the flexibility of rival gen 4.5 fighters, promoting stand off weapons and external tanks as a viable alternative to stealth (which is probably true) but then deride the F-35 for offering that same level of flexibility while still having the ability to fight in stealth mode. That is a curious bubble of logic and reasoning in which you've chosen to exist.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 59, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18907 times:

In your picture with 3 large tanks, I assume they are all 2,000 liter each, but that would be a little more than 20,000lbs of fuel with full internal. But there is another way to get there.

If you leave off the center tank, you are left with only two 2,000 liter tanks = 7,106lbs of fuel+ 10,222lbs of internal = 17,228lbs of fuel. In addition, you forgot that the Rafale can carry two conforming fuel tank on top of the wings, carrying 2,039lbs of fuel each, for a total of 21,306lbs of fuel. This would still leave room for the center line hard points and the wing hard points, less two for the tanks. How much weight it can still carry with so much fuel? - I defer to higher knowledge. But there is room.

In your second picture you can clearly see that without the center tank, you can carry quite a load. with all the available hard points except the two taken up by the tanks on the wings, you have 12 hard points available.

The max take off weight of the Rafale is listed at 54,000lbs. So it can obviously climb at that weight or it wouldn't take off. As it burns fuel it gets lighter and your worries about not being able to go into combat due to weight I think are laid to rest. The same logic you mention applies to all combat aircraft operating at their max weights on take off.

5 Hard Points with 2x2,000 Liter tanks


Quoting spudh (Reply 58):
On the one hand you laud the flexibility of rival gen 4.5 fighters, promoting stand off weapons and external tanks as a viable alternative to stealth (which is probably true) but then deride the F-35 for offering that same level of flexibility while still having the ability to fight in stealth mode. That is a curious bubble of logic and reasoning in which you've chosen to exist.

I never said the F-35 does not have the capability to carry external fuel or ordinance. I do hammer the point home of comparing The F-35 operated as intended - in full stealth, to justify it's cost and the cost using that capability, to drive home the point of how expensive it really is.

I also think the F-15SE is head and shoulders the top performer. But the advantage of the Rafale is that it is flying right now - it is not a paper plane. The F-15SE is a paper plane and who knows if the price will stick or not. Past experience shows the first quoted price will not stick. So there is risk there on that front.

[Edited 2012-03-16 12:31:04]

[Edited 2012-03-16 12:35:52]

[Edited 2012-03-16 12:37:42]

[Edited 2012-03-16 12:47:49]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 60, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 18885 times:

Another thing we are forgetting - Since the F-35s do not have anti radar missile capabilities, is that they have to go in under full stealth and carry their loads internally, when there are radars looking for it.

So F-35 can't go in with stuff hanging off the wings because the SAMS will get them for sure, unless they are escorted by Gen 4.5 wild anti radar planes. This thing makes less and less sense to me. Our capabilities will be severely degraded if we get it in numbers.

Radar jammers alone don't cut it as the new SAMS are getting very capable in resisting jamming, using varying frequencies, etc....and do nothing against SAMS that can also use IR signatures to lock on.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 18838 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 59):
The max take off weight of the Rafale is listed at 54,000lbs. So it can obviously climb at that weight or it wouldn't take off. As it burns fuel it gets lighter and your worries about not being able to go into combat due to weight I think are laid to rest. The same logic you mention applies to all combat aircraft operating at their max weights on take off.

Take off is a 1G environment, no problem there as long as your runway is long enough to allow the plane get fast enough to allow lift exceed weight. Climb out and Level flight 1G again, so no problem. Excess weight is only an issue as you try to turn. That 2,000lb bomb hanging on the outer pylon is a 6,000lb bomb in a 3G turn, try and turn any harder and it will either break the wing off or stall the airplane. Of course the FBW system won't allow that so you will be flying to the weakest link in the lift map for the airframe. Asymetric loading will be huge issue too, so if you're carrying big bombs on outer pylons you will have to drop them in pairs whether you like it or not. At 12,000lbs under the wings the max G will be less than 2.5 with any reasonable amount of fuel (very roughly = 54,000lb divided by (airframe + fuel +load), in real terms there will be a graph extending from MTOW (1Gish) to the 9G design combat weight). The tactical designation of an attack aircraft with 2G manouvre capabilty in theatre is 'target practice'.

BTW the same applies to the F-35. Pointblank says that 3 of the pylons are rated at 5,000lb but as you can see there will be a severe tail off in maneuvre capability if these are utilised and the two non centreline ones will have to be employed either together or in a sub 3G maneuvre

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 59):
I do hammer the point home of comparing The F-35 operated as intended - in full stealth, to justify it's cost and the cost using that capability, to drive home the point of how expensive it really is.

Welcome back on argument. Thats the nub of the issue, is the added capability of stealth and sensor fusion compared to a current fighter worth the extra cost. If so what is that factor, is it 1.5 or 2.0. The bitterness about the F-35 for most is not that it doesn't offer added capability its that it was tendered as a lower cost replacement whereas its going to come in significantly more expense than the alternatives.

I know you don't agree Tommy but for me even if someone found a way to defeat stealth in morning the F-35 has enough other attributes that it will be the best attack fighter available so if it cost the same as an F-18E, late F-16 or Rafale then it would still win such an open competion. The question then becomes, how much extra is stealth and sensor fusion worth, is it a factor of 1.2, 1.5? The answer to that question is in force numbers. How many aircraft do I need to do defend my country.

To my mind, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands have no business buying the F-35. Italy cannot afford to buy the F-35 even if they had a need for it, which they don't, they would be far, far better off with a Gripen even as a stopgap to fulfil attrition/obsolesence requirements. They have 10 years of economic turmoil to go through, they need to forget about Nato missions etc. Denmark and the Netherlands just need good home defence. I think the Dutch are in it or the technology transfer. I've no idea what the Danes are buying it for.

Norway is rich and neutral and probably wants the technology so Nokia can get back at Apple. I'd say its one of the more solid orders.

Australia on the other hand is a perfect fit for the F-35 and the deterent of long range stealth strike capability is exactly what Austrailia needs. I think Australia is the country at most risk of serious invasion. It might sound daft but you've several billion people crammed into India, Pakistan, Indonesia and China. Across the sea you have a continent rich in natural resources with 22 million people sunbathing on it. Funnily enough I think force reduction due to cost increase wont hit them as hard as others since geography will allow them the luxury of force concentration.

Turkey too are a good fit for the F-35, regardless of how many they can afford they will procure it as long as they can field a strong enough force' 60 or 70 airframes.

Israel is Israel and will always be Israel, 100% there will be F-35 flying with Davids stars on them.

I think the Brits will just bite that famous lip, cut their cloth to suit their pockets, and get on with it. They'll adapt their force structure to suit whatever variant in whatever numbers they can afford.

Which leaves Canada. Canada should buy the F15SE, they've no business buying a single engined fighter regardless of whether they believe they need stealth or not. Their primary needs are multi engines, range and more range. And if there are any options left tick the range box.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 62, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 18837 times:

If a tanker is available? All these aircraft can take-off with full weapons loads and partial fuel up to MTOW, then on-load fuel from the tanker to full tanks. All aircraft can fly at a heavier weight than their MTOW.

[Edited 2012-03-16 16:31:11]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 63, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 18780 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 61):
Take off is a 1G environment

In order to begin a climb you must exceed 1G. But I am not going to split hairs here. The max take off weigh is what it is and every aircraft has one. I assume that allows for safe flight, otherwise it would be lower. If you are saying the max take off weight published for all aircraft is excessive, the same would apply to the F-35 and F-15, etc...So I assume the same for all aircraft and take the max weights at face value.

Quoting spudh (Reply 61):
Thats the nub of the issue, is the added capability of stealth and sensor fusion compared to a current fighter worth the extra cost. If so what is that factor, is it 1.5 or 2.0.

I've already shown it is easily a factor of 4 and maybe even more than that if tankers are involved. Let's say the F-15 or Rafale take off with 20,000lbs of ordinance and 10,000lbs of fuel and tanker in the air to make up for the lower amount of fuel carried. In that case it's almost a factor of 9 times more expensive to use the F-35 in a "stealth" attack, with it's 4,000 pounds. We already have 500 tankers, so there is no added acquisition costs to do that. And the B version only carries 2,000lbs. It gets ridiculous.

And some of that 20,000lbs can be in the form of cruise missiles, fired from 200 miles out, not only allowing them to strike multiple targets at once, but from safe firing locations. Once the Gen 4.5 approach a primary target - they are then at combat weight, having shed missiles. There are so many ways to plan such a mission with Gen 4.5, while with the F-35 you are more limited with targeting one target at a time from much closer in without cruise missiles.

And let's be clear, in order to be safe, the F-35 must operate in stealth, carry everything internally, as it has no anti radar capability, were as the Gen 4.5 do.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 18743 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 61):
Canada should buy the F15SE,

I don't think we can afford to fund the development costs of a paper airplane which has questionable stealth characteristics. The whole single engine myth needs to go, we didn't choose the F-18 over the F-16 way back when because of the second engine. Speaking to Canadian fighter pilots, none have said they will have an issue flying around on one engine. We have no issues with using USAF tankers on Arctic patrols when our own are unavailable. A F35 with EFT has more than enough range for Arctic patrols. The US uses EFT's on their Raptors to intercept Bears, and we will do the same. I'm confident that the F35 project in Canada is too big to fail now as it's too late to find an alternative. The CF-18's need to be replaced NOW.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 65, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 18703 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 64):
I'm confident that the F35 project in Canada is too big to fail now as it's too late to find an alternative.

"Too big to fail" ..... hmmmm .....seem to remember they said that about Bank of America and Goldman-Sachs. But they failed.

It will be interesting to see what effect DND's deceitful actions vis-a-vis House Defence Committee and Parliament in general (therefore the Canadian public) will have on this project. Certainly Harpo et al have put a "pause" on the F-35, which means likely the CF-18s will be with us a little longer.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7827 posts, RR: 5
Reply 66, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 18669 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 61):
Norway is rich and neutral and probably wants the technology so Nokia can get back at Apple. I'd say its one of the more solid orders.

Norway is rich I'll give you that one, but it's not neutral, it's a fully paid up NATO member, Nokia is from Finland, I'd say the order is completely unnecessary, rather like Denmarks, the Gripen is all the fighter Norway needs. Norwegians are becoming concerned at the cost of the F-35, every article you read in the paper about F-35 mentions the rising and unknown final cost for the planes.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 18651 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 62):
If a tanker is available? All these aircraft can take-off with full weapons loads and partial fuel up to MTOW, then on-load fuel from the tanker to full tanks. All aircraft can fly at a heavier weight than their MTOW.

Come on KC135, you are of course factually 100% correct but you know the duplicity of that statement in the context its been made. A B-52 or C-117 (upto max landing weight) can use that facility to get a super load into the air, a figher might even do it on a ferry run but thats not relevant to a strike fighter package. A fighter at MTOW will have an extremely tight flight enevelope in which it can re-fuel. At reasonably heavy weights (but still a fraction of MTOW) F-14A's needed a/burner to refuel at certain altitudes during OEF. That was an excercise in futility that was resolved pretty quickly.

The proof is in the strike packages we know about:

Operation El Dorado canyon, the bombing of Libya. 18no. F-111F's fully supported by tankers over the mediterannean. MTOW 100,000lbs with a max weapon load of 31,500lbs. What did they go over the beach with, 8,000lbs each.

Operation Orchard, the Israeli bombing of Syrian Nuclear Facility. 10 no. F-15E, MTOW 81,000lbs with a max weapon load of 23,000lbs. They attacked with 5,000lbs of bombs each.

Operation Opera, The Israerli bombing of Iraqi nuclear facilities. F-16I (I don't have accurate date on the I's) but they attacked with 4,000lbs of bombs

Data should be available or F-4's and F-105's from Vfietnam but I'll wager that not a single one went over the beach with a max loadout.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 63):
I've already shown it is easily a factor of 4 and maybe even more than that if tankers are involved

You've said it but that doesn't make it true and all you've shown is illogical reasoning.
A simple analogy is to compare a 4 door saloon car to a Porsche 911 and say that to carry 4 people, not alone is the 911 more expensive per car (this part is true) but that you need 4 times as many of them to carry four people 'because its a sports car so should only be allowed to carry its driver' despite the fact that it has four seats (this line of logic is borderline stupid). The problem being that if for some bizzare reason your life depended on lapping the Nurburgring in under 9 minutes, the 911 can do it with at least one passenger whereas your saloon car does not have that capability in any scenario so you are dead.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 18543 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 65):
"Too big to fail" ..... hmmmm .....seem to remember they said that about Bank of America and Goldman-Sachs. But they failed.

Let me know of a viable alternative to the RCAF, then I'll listen. All these doom and gloom projections for the F35 program are along the same lines of the end of the world predicitons by the fanatics. Still waiting for the world to end.  


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 69, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 18520 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 68):
Let me know of a viable alternative to the RCAF, then I'll listen. All these doom and gloom projections for the F35 program are along the same lines of the end of the world predicitons by the fanatics. Still waiting for the world to end.

F-18E/F/G can do an adequate job. We don't necessarily need to have the absolute shiniest vehicle in the valley, but we do have to have one we can afford, that is proven, and that can be contracted for with a stipulated delivery date. Unlike the F-35.

Remember, we are never going to go into battle alone, but as part of a coalition. As well, we are never going to attack a 1st-rate defense, we are going to go after some shit 3rd world target that can barely stand up. The Aussies seem convinced.

As the American military are finding out, we have to live within our means, not our dreams.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7827 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 18495 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 67):
The problem being that if for some bizzare reason your life depended on lapping the Nurburgring in under 9 minutes, the 911 can do it with at least one passenger whereas your saloon car does not have that capability in any scenario so you are dead.

Daft analogy, there are a fair number of saloon cars that can lap the Ring 4 up under 9 minutes  


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 71, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 18492 times:

Just talked to my brother, who has returned from a month in Australia - actually a month in Sydney.

As a former Army NCO he takes an interest in things military. Talking to some of the local uniforms, they are really rethinking the F-35. Too expensive, unproven, no firm schedule. Preferred solution by many is more F-18E/F/Gs, and total withdrawal from F-35 program.

Also interesting to note is their submarine woes. Swedish design, built in Oz (6). Apparently they can only keep one at sea at any time. So maybe we're not that badly off....



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 18491 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 69):
F-18E/F/G can do an adequate job.

While that may be true for now, are whatever savings we will get, maybe 20million per, is it worth it over the long term? You satisfied for the RCAF to fly the SH into 2050 when everyone else will have retired them decades ago? I won't be. Considering both are very close in terms of price, the F35 will be far superior in technology and will be flying long after the SH is up on pedestals.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 73, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 18492 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 67):
A simple analogy is to compare a 4 door saloon car to a Porsche 911

That explanation of yours is not an analogy to the Gen 4.5/F-35 comparison. We are talking about the survivability of the planes in SAM territory, both Gen 4.5 and F-35 deal with it differently.

Gen 4.5 deals with this through suppression/destruction of the SAM radars with anti radar planes/missiles. F-35 does it by being Stealthy, B-2 style and slipping through. Neither the B-2 nor the F-35 have anti radar suppression capability nor anti radar weapons. They rely on stealth. Only problem is that the B-2 much more stealthy than the F-35.

You go on to suggest that the F-35's should operating unstealthy with stuff hanging off it's wings, without radar suppression abilities at the same time - and that this would be OK. Yes, it can do that. Suicide is also doable. SAMS and SAM radars have just gotten too sophisticated and numerous. Remember the F-117 that was shot down by lowly Serbia SAMS, years ago. It's only gotten worse and many countries are more sophisticated than the Serbs were.

But what about the wunder jammers? Well they're less and less wunder as the SAMS get more jam resistant all the time and the SAM missiles can be now fired to ride the jamming signal to the source and also lock on via the IR signature. Besides the jaming pods are carried externally in the F-35, so if the jamming pods are not effective - you're a dead F-35 pilot because you don't have anti radar missiles and are not stealthy either due to the external pod.

One of the biggest mistakes in the F-35 program has been to leave off the anti radar missile capability. Stealth is being relied on almost exclusively against SAMS.

Gen 4.5 operates with anti radar planes being the sharp end of the spear paving the way for those behind and escorting the bomb trucks. This has worked traditionally in IRAQ, Libya and everywhere else very very well. Hat's the first thing you do is conduct anti radar missions. And it's seen in the success rate: How many fighters have been lost on their attack missions? Not many.

Since the F-35 is to replace all the planes that now have the Wild Weasel capabilities, that capability will fall to the side altogether. But sure spudh, you want to send F-35s in an unstealthy configuration and without SAM suppression against enemies with SAMs - do you want those F-35 pilots to wear white bandanas around their heads?

I do not understand why you argue this point. Stealth is the entire F-35 philosophy. Going into hostile territory without anti radar missiles to suppress/destroy SAMS and clearly visible to radar is suicide. You seem to think stealth is optional for the F-35 to survive.

[Edited 2012-03-17 12:53:26]

User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 18484 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 70):
Daft analogy, there are a fair number of saloon cars that can lap the Ring 4 up under 9 minutes

   

Accepted, but its a daft argument deserving of a daft analogy and I was thinking in terms of american sedan rather than WRX's, Evo's, M5's and their ilk.

On a complete aside have you seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KiC03_wVjc


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 75, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 18480 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 71):
Too expensive, unproven, no firm schedule.

You mean just like every fighter ever produced?


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 18433 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
You go on to suggest that the F-35's should operating unstealthy with stuff hanging off it's wings, without radar suppression abilities at the same time - and that this would be OK. Yes, it can do that. Suicide is also doable.

Thats not what I said

This is what I said:

Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
You're then comparing external carriage of weapons to internal carriage based on one type having an ECM escort and the other not. If you want to do that let the F-35 carry external fuel and weapons and send the same ECM and escort aircraft with it if you believe that is a safe level of protection.


BTW the 1.2,1.5 or 2.0 factors I mentioned earlier were not force ratios as you were calculating, these were price differnetials in relation to alternate fighters. An F-35 at 1.2 times the price of a Rafale or an F-16 would seem good value as the force reduction for a fixed budget would be offset by the uplift in capability (you obviously would not agree with this since you believe the Rafale is 4 times better than the F-35). At a factor of 2.0 this would no longer be acceptable to my mind. Each partner country will have to make up its mind what ratio is acceptable.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
Remember the F-117 that was shot down by lowly Serbia SAMS, years ago. It's only gotten worse and many countries are more sophisticated than the Serbs were.

I do remember, I've used that example many times as an example of OVER reliance on stealth but that doesn't mean you completely abandon it. The F-35 has very different attributes and will be employed very differently to the F-117.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
Since the F-35 is to replace all the planes that now have the Wild Weasel capabilities, that capability will fall to the side altogether. But sure spudh, you want to send F-35s in an unstealthy configuration and without SAM suppression against enemies with SAMs - do you want those F-35 pilots to wear white bandanas around their heads?

Again, not what I said, see above.

And the truth about counter SAM aircraft is a bit different: A-6 intruder, retired 1997, EA-6B in the process of being retired 15 years after its 'regular' sibling. Just because the F-35 is to replace a platform in its primary role does not mean it will replace all (I hope I'm right here as I would be very disappointed to see QF-16's replaced by QF-35's after such a short service). The EA-18G is coming on line now, it will serve alongside the F-35 for many years. And as far as I know the F-35 was planned to carry out the SEAD role. Whether it still will after budget cuts is anyones guess or if a one man aircraft will be as effective as a multi seater is a valid concern but even if it is dropped entirely (which I doubt) that will be done in the context of maintaining other wild weasal type platforrms

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
I do not understand why you argue this point. Stealth is the entire F-35 philosophy

You're the only one who thinks stealth is its entire philosophy, it is central to its capability advantage over current platforms but most on here argue about whether stealth is even needed after day 1 of a campaign and the argument is about if stealth has degraded the F-35 for the 90% of the time when it will be a bomb truck, with external weapon/tanks.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 77, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 18458 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 72):
While that may be true for now, are whatever savings we will get, maybe 20million per, is it worth it over the long term? You satisfied for the RCAF to fly the SH into 2050 when everyone else will have retired them decades ago? I won't be. Considering both are very close in terms of price, the F35 will be far superior in technology and will be flying long after the SH is up on pedestals.

Yes. One thing you need to understand is that Canada (and particularly the air force) will never be "the tip of the spear". We haven't done that for 70 or so years now and I don't see that changing. Our military is for 2nd-level and rearguard assignments. They do their job well, too. But we are simply never going to be an 82nd Airborne-type force, if I can mix my metaphors.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 75):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 71):
Too expensive, unproven, no firm schedule.

You mean just like every fighter ever produced?

No, I mean like something that no one knows if it will ever deliver. Let's face it, the program began in 1990, it's 22 years now. Unlike the SH, which does have a proven record with more than one service.

And I go back to the old adage that we only have so many defense dollars, we need to rebuild the navy, the army will need new kit because not much will come back from Afghanistan (and that type of op we will not be visiting again in our lifetime). The Avro Arrow might have turned out to be a wonderful interceptor, but with so much uncertainty surrounding the program, both technical and schedule, and costs out of control (sound familiar ?) our people killed it themselves.

I find it interesting that both of you guys (?) fileonly regarding the F-35. Nowhere else, as far as I can see. Whereas almost everyone else in A.net is commenting about just about everything. One track mind(s) ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 78, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 18451 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 67):
spudh

Somewhat correct. The strike aircaft are all loaded with different because each aircraft has a seperate target. So, some went over the beach heavier than others in the same flight. Refueling with a burner goning is not a problem as the tanker can off-load faster than the engine afterburner can burn it. Tankers are the key to almost any strike package.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 72):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 69):F-18E/F/G can do an adequate job.
While that may be true for now, are whatever savings we will get, maybe 20million per, is it worth it over the long term?

It is not just the price difference in fly away costs, but the entire life cycle costs. Stealth is very expensive to maintane, just ask the USAF. You won't have that costs with the F-18E/F, or any of the other fighters. All are fine machines.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
Remember the F-117 that was shot down by lowly Serbia SAMS, years ago. It's only gotten worse and many countries are more sophisticated than the Serbs were.

They sent up a large barrage of missiles to get that F-117, they were also looking for the smallest thing on their radar, at night most small birds don't fly, so they guessed it had to be an F-117.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
I do not understand why you argue this point. Stealth is the entire F-35 philosophy.

Which is about the only feature that seperates the F-35 from the others. In most cases any of the others are much more capable, as many here have pointed out.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 79, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 18425 times:

I should have included in my previous post, regarding the Avro Arrow. One of the problems that bedeviled that aircraft was the attempt to integrate several new concepts/technologies all at once:

- fly by wire flight control system (I believe the 1st)
- widespread use of titanium, particularly in the hot section (again I believe the 1st) - titanium is difficult to work with, although 50 years of experience makes it a little easier these days
- internal weapons carriage
- advanced, for the day, airfoil
- high pressure, again for the day, hydraulic system
- very high power engine (Iroquois, 18K lbst dry, 30K in afterburner)

As well, an op requirement was to be able to pull a 1.5G turn at FL500 without losing altitude. Another was to be able to change an engine in 30 min.

These requirements and new concepts put severe pressure on the program and helped contribute to it becoming a goat. Just like the F-35.

As I earlier commented, you have to live within your means, not your dreams. And Canada's means are fairly limited in the defense area, given our other commitments. And that is after a 50% rise in defense spending over the previous 8 years.

Ciao,



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 80, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 18411 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 76):
This is what I said:

Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
You're then comparing external carriage of weapons to internal carriage based on one type having an ECM escort and the other not. If you want to do that let the F-35 carry external fuel and weapons and send the same ECM and escort aircraft with it if you believe that is a safe level of protection.

1. I did not say Gen 4.5 aircraft are being escorted by ECM aircraft, please read what I said. They are escorted by Wild Weasel Aircraft (anti radar)
2. The F-35's will displace all Wild Weasel capable aircraft, so there will be no such aircraft to escort the F-35 with, so this type of mission will not be possible if the fleet planning is carried out.

Quoting spudh (Reply 76):
I do remember, I've used that example many times as an example of OVER reliance on stealth but that doesn't mean you completely abandon it.

Of course you do not abandon stealth in the case of the F-35, that's why you don't operate it with stuff hanging off of it. We agree then.

Quoting spudh (Reply 76):
Just because the F-35 is to replace a platform in its primary role does not mean it will replace all (I hope I'm right here as I would be very disappointed to see QF-16's replaced by QF-35's after such a short service). The EA-18G is coming on line now, it will serve alongside the F-35 for many years. And as far as I know the F-35 was planned to carry out the SEAD role.

1. How is the F-35 going to carry out the SEAD role without anti radar missiles?
2. The EA-18 will not operate along side anyone but the U.S. Navy and only as long as that plane is in service. Then what? And how about other F-35 nations? By the time the F-35 is operational on a carrier it will be at least 2020 and even the newest F-18 will be 8 years old already. And I dount they will keep just a handful of them around just to do Wild Weasel duty.
3. As far as I know, it will replace all Wild Weasel capable aircraft, especially in small nations planning on the F-35, Should we call on the French Rafale's to escort the F-35 strike planes?

Quoting spudh (Reply 76):
You're the only one who thinks stealth is its entire philosophy, it is central to its capability advantage over current platforms but most on here argue about whether stealth is even needed after day 1 of a campaign

Even over lowly Serbia, the F-117 shot down and most if not all of the other planes shot down there, where shot down way after day 1. If you think stealth is only needed on day 1, 90% of the time, I can only shake my head as that is naive. The SAM threat will not be taken out in 1 day, even in small countries much less against capable countries.

Without any wild weasel aircraft or capabilities, Stealth is a must for the F-35 operating over enemy terrain. That means no external stores or pods. Sure, once the area is clean, it can - but not in the most important begging phases. At that phase you are limited to stealth configuration and only 4,000lbs of bombs each.

Same mission with Gen 4.5 planes allows several times more bombs on target within the same time frame. It's just obvious that in the most critical phases of a conflict, the F-35 will deliver much less punch, unless you are prepared to expose the F-35s to very large risks.





[Edited 2012-03-17 18:28:04]

[Edited 2012-03-17 18:33:13]

[Edited 2012-03-17 18:36:37]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 81, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 18389 times:

I am left wondering, without Wild Weasel capable aircraft, as the F-35 can't do it, how are the SAM radars ever going to get removed?

Once the Meteor missile is ready for anti radar SEAD missions, it will prove more effective than the U.S. HARM missile, because the Meteor will travel at Mach 4, twice as fast as the HARM missile and still have the same range of about 60 miles. This will make the Typhoon, Rafale, Grippen and other aircraft very potent SEAD planes.

At MACH 4, the missile will travel 60 miles in 1 minute 11 seconds. Even if they turn off the SAM radar immediately, it's too late, as the Meteor will already know the radar position. What normally happens, is that the enemy is too afraid to turn on their radars when they suspect the anti radar planes are around, which they often are.

[Edited 2012-03-17 20:11:43]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 18368 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
We are talking about the survivability of the planes in SAM territory, both Gen 4.5 and F-35 deal with it differently.

Correct, they do it very differently and with different weapons. It is worth examining how. The F-35, given it is low observable when operating in areas with a significant SAM threat, will use SBD, JDAM to suppress SAM sites. The legacy 4.5 Gen aircraft need support aircraft to suppress the sites first.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
Gen 4.5 deals with this through suppression/destruction of the SAM radars with anti radar planes/missiles. F-35 does it by being Stealthy, B-2 style and slipping through. Neither the B-2 nor the F-35 have anti radar suppression capability nor anti radar weapons.

The F-35 does not yet have a ARM capability yet but will arrive with the new HARM version,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...idUS152956+21-Jan-2009+PRN20090121

Let us be clear as well. Neither the Rafale or the F-15SE which you are proposing as better than the F-35 have the capability to launch an ARM. You therefore will require a third aircraft type, which means either an F-16, F-18 or Tornado. The new HARM version listed above will only be compatible with the F-18, Tornado and F-35.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 81):
Once the Meteor missile is ready for anti radar SEAD missions

There is no funding yet for this development, if it occurs it will benefit both the Rafale and the F-35 as both these aircraft will carry this missile. The F-35 will probably carry a version internally!

Let us also now talk and provide sources that you seem to think are credible. You have quoted APA several times and therefore I quote from one of their articles now. "Defeat of highly mobile air defence weapons remains a problem, as demonstrated in 1999. While 743 HARMs were fired, only 12 percent of Serbian mobile 9M9 / SA-6 Gainful SAM systems were destroyed. " APA-2008-09.html" target="_blank">http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-09.html
If looks like your HARM missile is not the magic bullet and did not provide the Coalition in 1999 with the ability to suppress mobile sam systems. What else can you use to defeat these high tech SAMS? Perhaps an aircraft that is designed to defeat these systems by reducing detection?

So let us look at the systems in question. Russian S-300 and S-400 are the obvious types. According to the APA link above both these systems use an X-band radar to engage aircraft. Irrespective of how many VHF radars (according to above link 200m radar resolution cell) they have around them, they REQUIRE an X-band system for the engagement. That is why the key radar system used by the S-400 is the Grave Stone (again quoted by APA in above link).

APA goes on to look at the Pantsir 1 with an engagement radar developed from a fighter jet, which just happens to be in X-band. How about the TOR M2E, still a radar with a high frequency but the missile only has a range of 7.5nm so can disregard anyway. How about the SA-17, yes also uses an X-band radar, SA-17.29" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-17_Grizzly#9K37M1-2_Model_.28SA-17.29

Looking at aircraft they all have radars at the X-band range.

The F-35 is designed to defeat X-band radars. So the reality is it does not matter if you can be seen by the VHF radars, it is the X-band radars that are used to engage you!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
and also lock on via the IR signature.

You need to provide a source for this as I have not been able to find a single SAM that combines both an IR and a radar capability in the missile seeker?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 73):
Only problem is that the B-2 much more stealthy than the F-35.

I won't bother asking you for a source for this as you don't have one. The data does not exist in the public domain as both numbers are classified. Using a little common sense though I would assess that the F-35 has a smaller signature than the B-2 for two reasons, first it is almost 5 times smaller and second it uses a stealth technique that was developed 25 years later.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 63):
I've already shown it is easily a factor of 4 and maybe even more than that if tankers are involved. Let's say the F-15 or Rafale take off with 20,000lbs of ordinance and 10,000lbs of fuel and tanker in the air to make up for the lower amount of fuel carried.

You need to provide a source for how you can fit 20,000lbs of ordinance on a Rafale, even an F-15SE would struggle to physically fit that much on! Here is the best I could find and not surprisingly it matches very well with what spudh has been saying all along. http://rafalenews.blogspot.com.au/p/rafale-weapon-load-out.html
It does not matter how much mass you can carry, the hardest part is matching that weight in actual physical weaponry!


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 18310 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 66):
Norway is rich I'll give you that one, but it's not neutral, it's a fully paid up NATO member, Nokia is from Finland, I'd say the order is completely unnecessary, rather like Denmarks, the Gripen is all the fighter Norway needs. Norwegians are becoming concerned at the cost of the F-35, every article you read in the paper about F-35 mentions the rising and unknown final cost for the planes.

Doh

Sorry Kiwi, in my blind frustation of trying to argue a logical point with Tommy    I missed this post!

I completely messed that up, Norway was a founding member of NATO   and people of Finland, as an avowed Nokia head, that was inexcusable, please accept my apology, I'm just jealous that you're a world leader in an exportable technology, please continue to put it up to apple   

My personal opinion is that Gripen should be enough of a fighter for almost any country, the one thing about Norway (now that I've woken up a small bit and put a semblance of a geography hat on) is that it does have a huge expanse of coastline and defence of its oil industry will demand a long legged fighter. Defence against who is probably a pertinent question, but I'd still put them in the same boat as the UK with regard to pushing through with their order. The fact that they only operate a single type of fighter might make a significant difference in their overall budget considerations.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 18303 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
Nations buy weapons systems based on what the total cost will be over the lifetime of that weapon. The "fly away" cost is insignificant in the total cost of, in this case, the F-35As, expected life of 30 years.

Thats an interesting point in terms of the maintainability and cost thereof of stealth features. I don't know much about the technicalities of maintaining stealth save that its difficult, expensive and likely to only get more so as an aircraft ages. This begs the question, do you maintain stealth across your fleet or do you just keep a tactical percentage of your fleet fully stealthy while allowing the rest to degrade to varying degrees of war readiness. I'm thinking along the lines of canopies and other 'wear' features such as engine inlets, special paints, door seals etc.

Such a suggestion will meet with derision from certain quarters I know but in real life terms would knock a huge amount off the amortized 30 year cost for 60% of the fleet.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 85, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18237 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 84):
This begs the question, do you maintain stealth across your fleet or do you just keep a tactical percentage of your fleet fully stealthy while allowing the rest to degrade to varying degrees of war readiness.

The entire fleet of stealth aircraft needs to fully maintane that capability. Allowing stealth to degrade subjects each degraded stealth airplane to a unique RSC due to different aircraft stealth coatings degrading in different areas. For the USAF maintaning the F-22 and B-2, and before the retirement, the F-117 was a huge cost. Most of the time these aircraft are not flying, they are kept in hangers just so weather, sun, rain, snow, ice don't degrade the material to much. Most have to be closely examined after each flight to assure stealth coatings intregity, and repairs made if needed. I don't know how the USN and USMC are going to protect and repair F-35B/Cs at sea. I'm sure they have worked it out, but what the extra cost is I don't know. From what I understand the F-35 will not be a stealthy as either the F-22 or B-2, due to some features that are left out of the design due to weight, or size. I also understand the F-15SE will have the same frontal RSC as a fully maintaned stealth quality F-35 does, but not as good as the F-22.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 86, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 18110 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 82):
The F-35, given it is low observable when operating in areas with a significant SAM threat, will use SBD, JDAM to suppress SAM sites. The legacy 4.5 Gen aircraft need support aircraft to suppress the sites first.

Any F-35s doing SEAD duty for the F-35 bomb trucks are escort aircraft. You are describing an escorted mission. In addition, comparing gravity bombs for SEAD to MACH 4 (Mach 2 in case of Harpoon) anti radar missiles that go 60 miles - is interesting.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 82):
The F-35 does not yet have a ARM capability yet but will arrive with the new HARM version,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...90121


Wrong. There is no plan for the F-35 to carry it:
"AARGM is a supersonic, air-launched tactical missile that will be integrated
on the FA-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G and Tornado ECR aircraft. The missile is
also designed for compatibility with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, EA-6B
Prowler and U.S. F-16 Falcon aircraft."
http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defense/cs_ms_w_sw_aargm.asp

Quoting Ozair (Reply 82):
So the reality is it does not matter if you can be seen by the VHF radars, it is the X-band radars that are used to engage you!

So let me understand: Are you and spudh saying that if SAM radars can see you, it doesn't matter, even though you have no anti radar missiles? If yes, you are sending the F-35s on suicide missions. Are you aware that SAMS missiles can lock onto an aircraft using multiple methods including IR signatures? Once the missile is fired and is close enough, it will lock on. Do you know how fast SAMS are?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 82):
I won't bother asking you for a source for this as you don't have one. The data does not exist in the public domain as both numbers are classified.

Stop making false assumptions about me personally, I would appreciate it:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

To note is that these figures are only from the front - were the F-35 excels and in the X band. From the side or at other frequencies, it's a totally different picture. That's why the defense strategy is to point the nose at SAM radars, enemy planes and incoming missiles (which use X band). This would work to a degree. But when there are multiple radars, it's not so easy. An incoming missile loose radar lock (not IR lock), but then the SAM site radar will lock on as you're not pointing the nose at it, and it will steer the missile....
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

Quoting Ozair (Reply 82):
You need to provide a source for how you can fit 20,000lbs of ordinance on a Rafale, even an F-15SE would struggle to physically fit that much on!

I don't need to do anything. But you are right in saying that it is a space problem, not a weight lifting problem. One mission I've read the Rafale can do is 6 x 2,200lb bombs and 2 Micras and 2 Meteors. That's just under 15,000lbs. Carry a total of 10,000lbs of fuel internally and you're at 47,000lbs take off weight. Perhaps there is a heavier configuration, I don't know. But it's a hell of a lot more than 4,000lbs for the F-35 in stealth. You'll need more tan 3 times as many F-35's to carry the same tonnage of bombs VS. the Rafale and probably more compared to the F-15SE.

The meteors will be anti radar capable, so the bomb trucks can suppress the SAMS themselves to a degree, but IMHO it would still be better to have anti radar only planes pave the way, loaded with only with Meteors or HARM (F-15SE). This flexibility is especially good on patrols close to or over enemy territory, as you can always have anti radar missiles along with an assortment of other bombs/cruise missiles/missiles, which is far more limited on the F-35 internal bays.

Unless I understand you and spudh correctly in that you guys are happy to operate without stealth and without anti radar missiles over hostile territory.

Spud: care to answer my questions put to you before?
1. How is the F-35 going to conduct SEAD without anti radar capability in the entire fleet, (besides the U.S. Navy for a little while)?
2. Do you not agree that doing SEAD only with JDAMS is an far less effective than with anti radar missiles?
3. Do you suggest flying over hostile territory in an F-35 with both 1) an unstealthy configuration, and 2) without anti radar missiles.
4. Are you saying that in order to drop the same number of tonnage over hostile territory, the number of F-35s needed is not greater compared to the number of Gen 4.5 aircraft needed, keeping risks to a minimum?

This should be an interesting response.

[Edited 2012-03-18 15:22:45]

[Edited 2012-03-18 15:23:34]

[Edited 2012-03-18 15:36:58]

[Edited 2012-03-18 15:38:17]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 87, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 18107 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 82):
Let us be clear as well. Neither the Rafale or the F-15SE which you are proposing as better than the F-35 have the capability to launch an ARM. You therefore will require a third aircraft type, which means either an F-16, F-18 or Tornado. The new HARM version listed above will only be compatible with the F-18, Tornado and F-35.

Wrong again. Rafale will be able to launch the Meteor, by 2020. The F-15SE, will surely be able to launch the HARM missile if they want it to. But the Harm missile is being phased out, as the all mighty F-35 will make this missile and tactic obsolete, so they say.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 88, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 17998 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
Any F-35s doing SEAD duty for the F-35 bomb trucks are escort aircraft. You are describing an escorted mission. In addition, comparing gravity bombs for SEAD to MACH 4 (Mach 2 in case of Harpoon) anti radar missiles that go 60 miles - is interesting.

When operating with a stealth configuration the F-35 is able to penetrate close enough to use SBDs and JDAMs to suppress SAM sites. Being able to destroy a site is a hell of a lot better than forcing it to cease emitting for a short period of time.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
Wrong. There is no plan for the F-35 to carry it:
"AARGM is a supersonic, air-launched tactical missile that will be integrated
on the FA-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G and Tornado ECR aircraft. The missile is
also designed for compatibility with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, EA-6B
Prowler and U.S. F-16 Falcon aircraft."
http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defe...m.asp

Compatibility with F-35 is good enough for me.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):

So let me understand: Are you and spudh saying that if SAM radars can see you, it doesn't matter, even though you have no anti radar missiles? If yes, you are sending the F-35s on suicide missions. Are you aware that SAMS missiles can lock onto an aircraft using multiple methods including IR signatures? Once the missile is fired and is close enough, it will lock on. Do you know how fast SAMS are?

A SAM site will have different radars for different portions of an engagement. There are acquisition radars, commonly very low in frequency to initially find an aircraft. They then provide a rough location and cueing to the tracking/engagement radar (almost universally an X-band system) which is used to guide missiles to the target. If the X-band radar struggles to detect you what does it matter if the low frequency acquisition radar can see you, the engagement radar does not have a solution to fire on you.

I have already asked you to provide a source for the statement that a SAM missile has a seeker head with multiple methods, please again provide a source for this or accept the fact that these do not currently exist. How will the missile know where to find you to lock on? How will be X-band radar tell the missile you are somewhere if it can't see you or you drop in and out of detection?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
Stop making false assumptions about me personally, I would appreciate it:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s.htm

Did you actually read the link? There are three different RCS numbers for the B-2 so which one do we believe. Perhaps instead we can believe the text lower in the link that says the following, "The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117." This is why talking about the RCS of an aircraft is a waste of time, especially when you talk about VLO. The figures are kept classified and neither you nor I will never know them.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):

I don't need to do anything. But you are right in saying that it is a space problem, not a weight lifting problem. One mission I've read the Rafale can do is 6 x 2,200lb bombs and 2 Micras and 2 Meteors. That's just under 15,000lbs. Carry a total of 10,000lbs of fuel internally and you're at 47,000lbs take off weight.

You claimed the Rafale was capable of lifting 20,000lbs of ordinance. Surely we can both agree that is not possible with its current weapon suite and pylons. While your 75% load is possible has the above load ever been used operationally? Going on all the pictures of the Rafale flying missions in Libya I highly doubt it. Interesting to note of all the shots taken not one had a Rafale with conformal fuel tanks and every single one had the Rafale with at least two drop tanks. We also know the block times for their sorties. We can probably make a rough calculation for fuel used over the duration as well but the result will reflect a fuel usage that is very similar to most other single seat fighter aircraft and the reason they all (bar the 5th gen) use drop tanks.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
But it's a hell of a lot more than 4,000lbs for the F-35 in stealth

Sure 15,000lbs is more but the weapon loads that I previously linked to, as well as evidence from Libya, shows that operationally the Rafale will carry around 4,000lbs or less. A very similar load to an F-35 except the F-35 does in with VLO and two less short range missiles which aren't a great factor given again its VLO. If the Rafale wants to carry more that is fine but then so can the F-35 on its external hard points in a scenario where they both appear very similar with the F-35 having a greater fuel load.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 87):
Wrong again. Rafale will be able to launch the Meteor, by 2020. The F-15SE, will surely be able to launch the HARM missile if they want it to. But the Harm missile is being phased out, as the all mighty F-35 will make this missile and tactic obsolete, so they say.

Let me again show you what I wrote.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 82):
There is no funding yet for this development, if it occurs it will benefit both the Rafale and the F-35 as both these aircraft will carry this missile. The F-35 will probably carry a version internally!

What is the difference between the Rafale carrying the Meteor and the F-35 carrying the Meteor. As I said above, if one can carry it so can the other.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 87):
The F-15SE, will surely be able to launch the HARM missile if they want it to. But the Harm missile is being phased out,

"Surely be able to launch" is not the same as currently capable of launching. It is not integrated on the airframe. To integrate it on the F-16 it required the Harm targeting system. The F-15SE does not have this. Sure you can put it on but it would cost more and the F-15SE is not being sold/advertised/marketed etc with the capability to shoot HARM.

You are also right that HARM is being phased out for the AARGM, which is being purchased by the US Navy for their F/A-18C/D fleet http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...dUS152956+21-Jan-2009+PRN20090121, the very same aircraft the F-35 is replacing. The AARGM also just happens to be compatible with the F-35......


User currently onlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 89, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 17963 times:

However, if the F35 is bombing SAM sites, then that leaves less ordance for it's primary target.

Surely once external hardpoints are used, then stealth ends?.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 17966 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 88):
"Surely be able to launch" is not the same as currently capable of launching. It is not integrated on the airframe. To integrate it on the F-16 it required the Harm targeting system. The F-15SE does not have this. Sure you can put it on but it would cost more and the F-15SE is not being sold/advertised/marketed etc with the capability to shoot HARM.

Partially true. While a normal F-16 is able to carry HARM and employ it, only the F-16CJ/DJ Block 50D/52D have the HARM avionics/Launcher Interface Computer (ALIC) resulting in a full autonomous employment capability of the HARM missile. Coupled with the AN/ASQ-213 HTS pod, it allow for completely independent targeting of the HARM missile. Without the pod, F-16CJ's need a RC-135 flying in support to provide targeting.

F/A-18's utilize the CP1001/AWG-25A CLC, however, the system is limited in capabilities as it is coupled to the ALR-67 RWR, and can support only range unknown modes (TI).

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
1. How is the F-35 going to conduct SEAD without anti radar capability in the entire fleet, (besides the U.S. Navy for a little while)?

SEAD does not require anti-radiation missiles. Practically any air to ground weapon can be employed for SEAD missions. With the F-35's sensor suite, especially the AN/APG-81 radar, it can create a SAR map of the ground and find SAM sites autonomously and target them with SDB's.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
Do you not agree that doing SEAD only with JDAMS is an far less effective than with anti radar missiles?

No, because SEAD missions can utilize any weapon that is employed for ground attack. Anti-radiation missiles are just a specialized tool that is available.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
Do you suggest flying over hostile territory in an F-35 with both 1) an unstealthy configuration, and 2) without anti radar missiles.

See above. Don't get stuck in the mindset that SEAD missions require anti-radiation missiles.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
Are you saying that in order to drop the same number of tonnage over hostile territory, the number of F-35s needed is not greater compared to the number of Gen 4.5 aircraft needed, keeping risks to a minimum?

That is the argument. For the current 4.5 gen aircraft, you will need other supporting players, such as the Wild Weasel aircraft, other fighter escorts, etc flying along side or in support of a bombing mission. You won't need as many supporting players with the F-35 because the F-35 has the systems to do the roles the supporting players used to do.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 89):
However, if the F35 is bombing SAM sites, then that leaves less ordance for it's primary target.

Surely once external hardpoints are used, then stealth ends?.

We've moved toward miniaturization of weapons. More than likely, F-35's will be flying with SDB's during bombing missions, and we can fit 8 of them internally on all variants of the F-35. Lots of bombs to go around with 8 SDB's available internally.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 91, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17948 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 88):
I have already asked you to provide a source for the statement that a SAM missile has a seeker head with multiple methods, please again provide a source for this or accept the fact that these do not currently exist. How will the missile know where to find you to lock on? How will be X-band radar tell the missile you are somewhere if it can't see you or you drop in and out of detection?

Here you go, please do this yourself the next time. The information is easy to find:

S-300 SAM

1. Method - Active seeker on the missile
2. Method - Radar guidance from the main radar
3. Method - Guidance from multiple ground radars
- you can only point the F-35 nose at one radar at a time - that's the problem

HQ-9B
Reportedly tested in February 2006. According to Jane's Information Group, this missile has a dual seeker that incorporates both SARH & imaging IR mode

FT-2000
A derivative which is fitted with an anti-radiation seeker and intended for engagements against AEW&C/AWACS and stand-off jamming aircraft, operating with a ground based AESA radar.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 88):
Did you actually read the link? There are three different RCS numbers for the B-2 so which one do we believe.

That must be a typo for the B-1. There are other sources out there than roughly are in line with these. In any case, the RCS can not remain such a big secret as those planes fly around and as such are tracked by radar. The F-117 was top secret for years, I guess for this reason.

BTW, the F-35 is most visible on radar from the rear. Once they pass SAM radars, F-35 pilots might see SAMS racing at them from the rear.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 88):
Sure 15,000lbs is more but the weapon loads that I previously linked to, as well as evidence from Libya, shows that operationally the Rafale will carry around 4,000lbs or less

The weapons loads you previous linked to are far from all the possible loads the Rafale can carry. Your failure to find the combination above 4,000 lbs does not mean it does not exist. Your link proves nothing. Provide some proof to what your saying. You're just posting personal opinions as fact, which are wrong in any case.

You may want to look into a more authoritative source:

The Rafale is designed for day or night covert low-level penetration, and can carry a maximum of 9.5t of external ordinance, equal to the much larger F-15E. With a basic empty weight of 10.3t, an internal fuel capacity of 4.7t and a maximum take-off weight of 24.5t, the Rafale can lift 140% of additional load, above its own empty weight, into combat.

It is worth remembering that stealth-optimised, or fifth-generation fighters such as the Lockheed F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are not only likely to be hugely expensive, but they can only preserve their stealth characteristics by carrying a very limited weapons load in their internal weapon bays.

Therefore, in the current and predicted financial defence climate, it could well be that so-called fourth-generation fighters will remain the aircraft of choice for most nations - perhaps even including the UK.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ault-rafale-rampant-rafale-334383/

Quoting Ozair (Reply 88):
What is the difference between the Rafale carrying the Meteor and the F-35 carrying the Meteor.

For one thing, the U.S. DoD has no plans of buying the European Meteor for the F-35s. More importantly, if you are going plan missions were you send in unstealthy attack F-35s that need to be escorted by wild weasel F-35s, you've just argued against using the F-35. There is no reason to get the F-35 if this is the type of way it will be operated. The small percentage of missions were it may be useful to go in full stealth and sneak in at high risk to sophisticated radar belts, can more easily be done by firing a salvo of long range stealth cruise missiles from beyond detection range or submarines.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 88):
The AARGM also just happens to be compatible with the F-35......

Wrong, there are no plans for the F-35 to carry it. the AGM-88E AARGM was supposed to be replaced with the new Joint Dual Role Air Domination Missile - but it was cancelled this February by the DoD. No ARM missiles are planned to be carried by the F-35, for sure not the U.S. ones. Maybe the European ones with the Meteor. But as I explanied above, why bother buying the F-35 if they're going to be operated unstealthy or if it is determined that the F-35 is not as stealthy as advertised, thus needing escorts?

You keep trying to argue that the figures are not as limited as they actually are: But it is a fact that F-35 attacks will be limited to 4,000lbs of munitions on each F-35, if operated as intended - period - very limited choice of Air to Ground Missiles and Cruise missiles too, if any. Even if the advertised Stealth capability is there - that's the bomb hauling limitation. Again, I don't know why some here don't want to accept this fact. Baseline for factual discussion is accepting reality.

I can see why F-35 supporters are struggling with this, because it shows how extremely expensive the F-35 really is Vs. alternatives - even if the F-35 works as advertised, which is another issue altogether.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 92, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 17947 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 90):
SEAD does not require anti-radiation missiles. Practically any air to ground weapon can be employed for SEAD missions. With the F-35's sensor suite, especially the AN/APG-81 radar, it can create a SAR map of the ground and find SAM sites autonomously and target them with SDB's.

The range of the SAMS is far greater than the SDBs and infinitely slower. You'd also have to get high and get close to the SAMS to throw off those SDBs, and then the newer SAMS can shoot down those gliders, as they're slow and predictable. Read up on it. You can find that information yourself.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 90):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
Do you not agree that doing SEAD only with JDAMS is an far less effective than with anti radar missiles?

No, because SEAD missions can utilize any weapon that is employed for ground attack. Anti-radiation missiles are just a specialized tool that is available.

Arguing that limited range and slow SDBs are as good as MACH 4 ARM missiles with a 60 mile range, is well......beyond me. You're denying reality with that.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 90):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
Do you suggest flying over hostile territory in an F-35 with both 1) an unstealthy configuration, and 2) without anti radar missiles.

See above. Don't get stuck in the mindset that SEAD missions require anti-radiation missiles.

You are going on the premise that SDBs are as good as ARM missiles. False.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 90):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
Are you saying that in order to drop the same number of tonnage over hostile territory, the number of F-35s needed is not greater compared to the number of Gen 4.5 aircraft needed, keeping risks to a minimum?

That is the argument. For the current 4.5 gen aircraft, you will need other supporting players, such as the Wild Weasel aircraft, other fighter escorts, etc flying along side or in support of a bombing mission. You won't need as many supporting players with the F-35 because the F-35 has the systems to do the roles the supporting players used to do.

Kindly do the comparison on a mission carrying say, 24,000lbs of bombs. How many F-35s and how many Gen 4.5 planes would be needed? Thank you.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 90):
We've moved toward miniaturization of weapons. More than likely, F-35's will be flying with SDB's during bombing missions, and we can fit 8 of them internally on all variants of the F-35. Lots of bombs to go around with 8 SDB's available internally.

The Gen 4.5 planes can carry anything the F-35s can carry, and a lot more of them. So you're not making an argument in favor of the F-35 by saying this. Your arguments smack me of desperation, frankly.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 93, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 17936 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 90):
uoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
Do you suggest flying over hostile territory in an F-35 with both 1) an unstealthy configuration, and 2) without anti radar missiles.

See above. Don't get stuck in the mindset that SEAD missions require anti-radiation missiles.

Is this a yes? If so, you do realize that you have just argued against acquiring the F-35 for these missions. Operating the F-35 on attack missions over enemy territory unstealthily can be done by Gen 4.5 planes - better and cheaper - than the F-35, regardless of the SEAD method. And no, SDBs are no where near as effective as ARM missiles.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 94, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 17756 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 82):
You have quoted APA several times and therefore I quote from one of their articles now. "Defeat of highly mobile air defence weapons remains a problem, as demonstrated in 1999. While 743 HARMs were fired, only 12 percent of Serbian mobile 9M9 / SA-6 Gainful SAM systems were destroyed. " APA-2008-09.html" target="_blank">http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-09.html
If looks like your HARM missile is not the magic bullet and did not provide the Coalition in 1999 with the ability to suppress mobile sam systems. What else can you use to defeat these high tech SAMS? Perhaps an aircraft that is designed to defeat these systems by reducing detection?

That is the main problem everyone is trying to solve. The argument for stealth is that this solves the problem. Maybe - but many are skeptical. The SAM batteries are countering this with multiple seekers, having much more powerful radars, using multiple ground radars to produce a composite radar picture, using multiple frequencies from multiple angles simultaneously, using anti radiation missiles themselves against jammers, shooting down incoming missiles and SDBs with guns and short range missiles, etc....

The APA also suggests that the most effective way to get through is likely the old fashioned way with very low level terrain following missions, flying below most radars and greatly reducing their detection ranges and response windows. We also have the stand off cruise missiles available that can overwhelm these batteries by sheer numbers at once and find their way to their targets and avoid risking planes altogether.

It is true that anti radiation (ARM) missiles do not destroy many SAM batteries. But it does force them to shut down. Once they see an ARM missile coming their way, they shut down and move locations quickly. Even if they successfully defend against the 1st attack, they are more likely to move to another location. The Gen 4 planes carrying ARM missiles can also simultaneously carry plenty of SDBs and destroy the SAMS while they're moving, or before they move, if that is the objective.

If the SAM batteries know it is only F-35s they are up against, they will also know there are no ARM missiles around and so they will never shut down, except when they are destroyed. You only encourage SAM batteries to light up the sky with Radars, because they need the radar to defend against the SDBs. Even if they don't see the F-35, they do see the SDB gliding at them, slowly and predictably.

A Mach 4 ARM missile is something else for SAM batteries to deal with. Especially fired from low level. The British ALARM ARM missiles can pop up to over 40,000 feet and then down again. It pop a parachute and loiter if it loses the radar signal and start up again once a signal is acquired and continue to the radar. The planes are long gone, but the missile is still there, waiting. SAMS know this and stay off. SEAD.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17742 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):
S-300 SAM

1. Method - Active seeker on the missile
2. Method - Radar guidance from the main radar
3. Method - Guidance from multiple ground radars
- you can only point the F-35 nose at one radar at a time - that's the problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29

Instead of just saying things Tommy you could provide a link? Above is the S-300 page on Wiki which outlines the different missile types used by the S-300. TVM and SARH guidance both require a seeker on the missile head, and they both also require the X-band guidance of the FLAP LID engagement radar. By the way, the missile's seeker is probably X-band as well given the nature of SARH and TVM guidance.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):
HQ-9B
Reportedly tested in February 2006. According to Jane's Information Group, this missile has a dual seeker that incorporates both SARH & imaging IR mode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9

I have provided a link above that says it is active seeker guided. Other than the Janes article (which you didn't provide a link to so here it is, http://articles.janes.com/articles/J...nd-RF-9-HHQ-9-and-S-300-China.html )do you have any evidence that the HQ-9B missile with a dual mode seeker is in service? Was the tst even successful?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):
That must be a typo for the B-1. There are other sources out there than roughly are in line with these. In any case, the RCS can not remain such a big secret as those planes fly around and as such are tracked by radar. The F-117 was top secret for years, I guess for this reason.

Again ask did you actually read the link you provided. The B-1 is already in the table but the B-2 is listed three times and the text clearly does not agree with you. If you think there are other sources out there then provide them.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):

The weapons loads you previous linked to are far from all the possible loads the Rafale can carry. Your failure to find the combination above 4,000 lbs does not mean it does not exist. Your link proves nothing. Provide some proof to what your saying. You're just posting personal opinions as fact, which are wrong in any case.

You may want to look into a more authoritative source:

The difference is I have provided a source that supports the operational loads of Rafale aircraft, that same source has an extensive photo report on Libyan operations. You have not provided a source, you did not even provide a source for your 75% load.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):
You may want to look into a more authoritative source:

The Rafale is designed for day or night covert low-level penetration, and can carry a maximum of 9.5t of external ordinance, equal to the much larger F-15E. With a basic empty weight of 10.3t, an internal fuel capacity of 4.7t and a maximum take-off weight of 24.5t, the Rafale can lift 140% of additional load, above its own empty weight, into combat.

It is worth remembering that stealth-optimised, or fifth-generation fighters such as the Lockheed F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are not only likely to be hugely expensive, but they can only preserve their stealth characteristics by carrying a very limited weapons load in their internal weapon bays.

Therefore, in the current and predicted financial defence climate, it could well be that so-called fourth-generation fighters will remain the aircraft of choice for most nations - perhaps even including the UK.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...4383/

But the above still does not provide any evidence that the Rafale can actually fit 20,000lbs of ordinance on the aircraft. No one has said the Rafale cannot lift 20,000lbs, what we have said is that it cannot lift 20,000lbs of weaponry as the weapons and pylons don't exist to allow that combination.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):
For one thing, the U.S. DoD has no plans of buying the European Meteor for the F-35s.

So? If a need exists in the future and the US does not develop a system domestically then there is no reason they could not purchase the Meteor, especially given it will already be integrated on the aircraft.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):
There is no reason to get the F-35 if this is the type of way it will be operated. The small percentage of missions were it may be useful to go in full stealth and sneak in at high risk to sophisticated radar belts, can more easily be done by firing a salvo of long range stealth cruise missiles from beyond detection range or submarines.

Well I think you making a case for a stealth aircraft! You continue to wave the HARM/ARM flag and yet do not acknowledge the limitations of the missile. As per the APA link I quoted previously, 743 HARMs were fired during 1999 and yet Serbian air defences still weren't eliminated (only 12% of Serbian SA-6 systems were destroyed). That seems to me to indicate that there was no first day of the war, the SAM threat was present throughout the conflict.

So within the above scenario the F-35 conducts missions 24 hours a day seven days per week in a stealth configuration, it drops 4,000lbs in a combination of weapons depending upon the target or multiple target type. It does all of this either by itself or with one or two more F-35s for support. It shouldbe noted the F-117 conducted strike missions in Serbia all by itself and your RCS link indicates the F-117 has a worse RCS than the F-35.

If we follow your current rationale that some of your Rafale/F-15SE package are flying as bomb trucks and some as escorts then you need enough escorts to provide air to air coverage and enough escorts to suppress SAM systems (this is the minimum requirement). So add one aircraft for A2A coverage (you really need two in case of multiple axis engagements at the same time and to cover all that airspace) and probably two to four more aircraft for SAM coverage. Using the F-16CJ you have a max payload of four AGM-88 but that removes the two drop tanks and will significantly reduce your range. If you read about how F-105 and F-4 aircraft conducted SEAD during Vietnam you will see that SAM suppression aircraft need fuel to provide adequate coverage. The reality then is you fly with two AGM-88. One F-16 is not enough and I would argue that two is not enough either, so four provides you with two aircraft to cover each axis.

By the way, the above weapons loads for the F-16 come from the following link, http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file9.html

It really is a great source of factual information from PACAF. Interesting to note that in all the configs for the F-15E, which I must say is very comprehensive, (and the F-15SE will have exactly the same stores configuration) not one loadout goes above 10,000lbs of A2G ordinance, even though you said the F-15E is capable of lifting

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
one F-15 carrying 24,000lbs of munitions



I am not sure what PACAF are thinking but they are clearly under utilising the jet, unless of course they actually have a very good idea of what they need to carry as weapon and fuel loads. Interesting to note as well that 10,000lbs compares nicely to two and a half F-35s in stealth configuration that could fly all day or night without escort. Your F-15SE will require at least two HARM shooters to escort one aircraft to cover both axis and have enough HARM missiles to be effective.

So your comparisons start to loose its grip on reality when you require one aircraft as a bomb truck and at least two as HARM shooters.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 88):
The AARGM also just happens to be compatible with the F-35......

Wrong, there are no plans for the F-35 to carry it. the AGM-88E AARGM was supposed to be replaced with the new Joint Dual Role Air Domination Missile - but it was cancelled this February by the DoD. No ARM missiles are planned to be carried by the F-35, for sure not the U.S. ones.

Hold on, so the F-15SE can be modified to carry the AARGM (even though there are no plans for it to) but the F-35 can't? This is despite the "FACT" the manufacturer of the missile has already indicated that the AARGM is compatible with the F-35?

I agree that currently no ARM is planned for the F-35, it was going to carry the JDRADM which as you say has been cancelled. Given the very recent cancellation of the JDRADM the odds of the F-35 being fitted with the AARGM, or a new air to air missile that is also capable of ARM like the JDRADM (the US will not soldier on with the AIM-120 forever) are very high.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):
can more easily be done by firing a salvo of long range stealth cruise missiles from beyond detection range or submarines.

What if the target is mobile?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 96, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 17706 times:

Ozair, Please please please, answer the basic question I have been asking, repeatedly:

Kindly compare how many planes are needed on a mission to carrying, say 48,000lbs of bombs to targets, assuming similar risk profiles. How many F-35s and how many Gen 4 planes would be needed? Thank you.

I am not saying F-35s are not effective, just that they are extremely expensive for the job, by several factors - even if they work as advertised.

When answering the principal question, please keep in mind that the F-35s are not too hard to see on radar from the rear. If you say GEN 4 will need fighter escort, then so would F-35s, as the SAMS will know they are there without SEAD as you suggest and direct the enemy fighters their way if they can't lock on. On the other hand if the GEN 4 do effective SEAD as in the past, that does wonders in shutting off radars, as past conflicts have shown. Both GEN 4 and F-35 do carry A2A missiles with their bombs, so this should really be enough in both cases, if they encounter any fighters.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 95):
But the above still does not provide any evidence that the Rafale can actually fit 20,000lbs of ordinance on the aircraft.

You keep saying that. What is your source that the RAFALE is limited to 4,000lbs due to lack of space or whatever amount you claim is the limit? Source please. Providing pictures of your choosing is not a source. I have provided multiple sources for my figures. Thank you. Rafale will be able to carry a lot of Meteors, as they are not heavy.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 95):
s per the APA link I quoted previously, 743 HARMs were fired during 1999 and yet Serbian air defences still weren't eliminated (only 12% of Serbian SA-6 systems were destroyed).

And how many planes were lost? Seems like the SEAD missions with ARM missiles did their job exceedingly well. And despite this, one plane shot down by SAMS was a stealth plane operating on its own at night with very primitive SAMS.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 95):
So your comparisons start to loose its grip on reality when you require one aircraft as a bomb
truck and at least two as HARM shooters.

So you are comparing F-15SEs missions with Wild Weasel SEAD capability to F-35s missions without any SEAD at all not even SDBs and claiming the risk profile is about the same? I don't think so.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 95):
Hold on, so the F-15SE can be modified to carry the AARGM (even though there are no plans for it to) but the F-35 can't?

I never said that. But these types of missiles can only be carried externally by the F-35 in any case - even if the USAF chooses to do that - for which there are not plans, as they are way too big. So what's the point of having an F-35 with AARGMs when the F-15 can do it better and cheaper (carry more, go farther, go faster, etc..) if both light up the radars with external stores? But please answer the question above and then you'll see how expensive it is.

And go ahead and limit the F-15SE/Rafale to 10,000lbs of A2G ordinance against the 4,000lbs for the F-35.

[Edited 2012-03-19 17:57:44]

User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 17692 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):
Baseline for factual discussion is accepting reality.

This from a guy who kicked off this barny claiming a Rafale could realistically attack a hostile target 500nm away with 23,000lb of ordnance in combat

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
1. How is the F-35 going to conduct SEAD without anti radar capability in the entire fleet, (besides the U.S. Navy for a little while)?
2. Do you not agree that doing SEAD only with JDAMS is an far less effective than with anti radar missiles?
3. Do you suggest flying over hostile territory in an F-35 with both 1) an unstealthy configuration, and 2) without anti radar missiles.
4. Are you saying that in order to drop the same number of tonnage over hostile territory, the number of F-35s needed is not greater compared to the number of Gen 4.5 aircraft needed, keeping risks to a minimum?

1. Again we differ completly here. You seem to believe that that as soon as a new type hits the fleet they just park up the previous type when that is patently not the case. The F-16 began replacing the F-4 in USAF inventory in 1978, but guess what, in the Gulf War, F-4's were still flying, as wild weasels, and continued to serve in the Wild Weasel role upto 1996, I've already given you the example of the EA-6B flying SEAD 15years after retirement of the primary type. There will be a long transition and I believe that the SEAD aircraft will be one of the last to go. They will go when there is a suitable replacement, be it F-35, UCAV or whatever.

2. Thats an interesting question, Tommy, the real life answer is that if the JDAM hits its target and the anti radar missile misses its target then, I'd have to say that the JDAM was in fact far more effective. A more pertinent question is if I believe that JDAM will be the only weapon available to the F-35 to carry out the SEAD role in which case the answer is no. As per 1 above I believe that the F-35 will have as many arrows in its quiver as possible, its integration with several anti-radar missiles has been discussed above already.

3. Yes, but not at the same time. This is what gets to me about your line of agruments, its all or nothing with you, there is no allowance for variability in combat, the fog of war. Our arguments hinge around original assumptions. You assume that an unstealthy F-35 cannot have SEAD escort as there wont be anything to escort it with. I assume the opposite, there will either be other platforms to perform the role or the role will have been fully integrated into the F-35. Either way, the F-35 has the latent capability to go to war dirty if the mission requires it, the level of escort required will be dictated by risk present in the mission profile. Every mission flown in Iraq, Afghanistan did not have a direct SEAD escort with it.

4. It all depends, are you going to get realistic about what a payload actually is or are you going to continue to spout sales talk. To aid a discussion I've compiled a chart of some key metrics for some past and present attack aircraft. Now unfortunately I've used wikipedia for most of the info (and there are some glaring errors in it, prime example being the internal fuel load of the Rafale being given as 4,700kg and 10,000lb. Also there are some wildly different figures knocking aroung for the empty weight and fuel capacity of the Gripen, and the internal fuel capacity of the Eurofighter, 4,996kg is a very exact figure I've come across but I used the wiki one of4,500kg for consistency) and I've had to cross calculate some figures where say a combat weight was not given but a T/W ratio was. Anyone with any better info please feel free to point out and correct.

Now I don't have figures for an F-15SE but its going to be somewhere between the F15C and E. I'm not sure if you consider an F-15C/E gen 4.5 or not.

One of the surprising things that jumped out at me while I was compiling this was an apparent change in philosophy in some of the newer fighters. The combat weight for all the old fighters was max internal fuel plus meaningful armnament. But only the Eurofighter does of the modern ones and if the 4,996kg figure is the correct figure then it doesn't either. So to start out with, an armed Gen 4.5 fighter at combat weight does not have full fuel. The table is sorted according to fuel fraction, highest to lowest, as most military commentators say its the most telling factor when considering payload/range capabilities. Its not the only one, drag and fuel consumption obviously have a huge role too.

Not surprisingly the F-111 comes out top. But we knew no Gen 4.5 could get close to that anyway.

Very surprisingly the F-16 is bottom. But drag, SFC and normailising for weapon carraige will correct that.

The Rafale does really well on this metric, but then remember that fuel fraction is calculated using combat weight and the Rafale has to give up fuel for bombs at its combat weight. If you normalise the combat weights of Rafale and F-18C so that they are both carrying weapons their fuel fraction is quite close. The reason I picked that out is that during their test and evaluation work up The Marine corps found that an F-18 with three external tanks and 4,000lbs of bombs couldn't get beyond 350nm in their test attack profile. If the Rafale has less drag and more efficient engines it'll do better, but by how much?

What is clear is that the F-15E has very strong range/payload characteristics but again we already knew that. The F-35 has a higher fuel fraction but less payload at that fraction. Whether the drag and SFC characteristics of the F-35 are good enough to match the F-15 only time will tell. What's also quite clear is how much of the F-35 design has been skewed towards ground attack. There is a penalty to be paid for such a high fuel fraction in terms of A2A capability.

So to summarise Tommy I believe the F-35 has better range/payload than most but not all Gen 4.5 fighters (assuming the F-15E is 4.5) which is pretty much what I said 40 or so posts ago.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 98, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17671 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
This from a guy who kicked off this barny claiming a Rafale could realistically attack a hostile target 500nm away with 23,000lb of ordnance in combat

I never claimed that. Please don't put false word in my mouth, thank you. This is what I said:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
I never said Rafale nor F-15 can carry max fuel and 12,000lbs of bombs. My example mission is to deliver 12,000lbs of bombs over 500 miles and come back empty - that it can do. The F-35 is the one limited to 4,000 lbs of bombs, no matter the fuel load.

and

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
The raw number are: With 12,000lbs of bombs, the Rafale can carry 20,000 of fuel internal and external - on the old engine.

and

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
The Rafale can carry 20,900lbs today and with the new M88-4E engines up to 23,000lbs.

But not what you falsely attribute to me. Please stop it. It's not the 1st time you have done this. Thank you.

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
1. How is the F-35 going to conduct SEAD without anti radar capability in the entire fleet, (besides the U.S. Navy for a little while)?

Failed to answer. You gave a history lesson, not an answer.

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
2. Do you not agree that doing SEAD only with JDAMS is an far less effective than with anti radar missiles?

Failed to answer. You rephrased the question to your liking. Please answer the question I asked.

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
3. Do you suggest flying over hostile territory in an F-35 with both 1) an unstealthy configuration, and 2) without anti radar missiles.

Failed to answer. You said "Yes, but not at he same time"??? Yes but no? That's an interesting answer. So which is it?

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
Every mission flown in Iraq, Afghanistan did not have a direct SEAD escort with it.

There were hundreds of ARM missiles fired in Iraq. What are you talking about? SEAD was an integral part of the campaign. You are denying reality.

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
4. Are you saying that in order to drop the same number of tonnage over hostile territory, the number of F-35s needed is not greater compared to the number of Gen 4.5 aircraft needed, keeping risks to a minimum?

That was a very long winded response that did not answer the question. Yes or no?

The question was not what you answered to. Again you are not answering the question posed. I did not ask to compare range/payloads or fuel fracttions and T/W ratios, etc.....answer the question as posed. Thank you.

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
So to summarise Tommy I believe the F-35 has better range/payload than most but not all Gen 4.5 fighters (assuming the F-15E is 4.5) which is pretty much what I said 40 or so posts ago.

Perhaps you believe Flight Global as a source, which actually test flew the plane?
Flight Global


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17668 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 92):
The range of the SAMS is far greater than the SDBs and infinitely slower. You'd also have to get high and get close to the SAMS to throw off those SDBs, and then the newer SAMS can shoot down those gliders, as they're slow and predictable. Read up on it. You can find that information yourself.

However, with stealth technology, the engagement range of enemy SAM's is heavily reduced, meaning that a SDB more than has the range to engage a SAM site. Add in a heavy electronic jamming and attack capabilities of the F-35 (the AN/APG-81 AESA radar forms a part of the F-35's EW suite), the ability of SAM's to respond effectively is heavily reduced.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 92):
Arguing that limited range and slow SDBs are as good as MACH 4 ARM missiles with a 60 mile range, is well......beyond me. You're denying reality with that.

See above. SAM engagement ranges will be heavily degraded due to jamming and due to the smaller radar signature of the F-35. What maybe a 60 mile SAM range might well turn into a 10 mile SAM engage range after everything is considered. The radar signature of the F-35 is classified, so the public can't make that final call there.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 92):
You are going on the premise that SDBs are as good as ARM missiles. False.

If you are trying to destroy the radar emitter, both will work. SDB will probably be more effective as SDB II will have the availability of either millimeter-wave radar, uncooled imaging infrared, and semi-active laser guidance all in one system, so even if the radar turns itself off, it will still be targeted via one of three ways. With HARM, if the radar emitter stops emitting, you are left with INS guidance, and that's no use if the target moves. While AARGM will offer millimeter radar guidance, will probably be a limited issue weapon compared to SDB, which the USAF, USN, and USMC will procure in the tens of thousands. SDB is also cheaper to employ, as the targeted price of SDB II is at most $81,000 per bomb, vs $870,000 for AARGM. You could essentially buy 11 SDB II's for 1 AARGM.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 92):

Kindly do the comparison on a mission carrying say, 24,000lbs of bombs. How many F-35s and how many Gen 4.5 planes would be needed? Thank you.

I think Ozair has countered here, so I defer to his argument.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 96):
You keep saying that. What is your source that the RAFALE is limited to 4,000lbs due to lack of space or whatever amount you claim is the limit? Source please. Providing pictures of your choosing is not a source. I have provided multiple sources for my figures. Thank you. Rafale will be able to carry a lot of Meteors, as they are not heavy.

The Rafale only has fourteen external stores attachments: two on the fuselage centreline, two beneath the engine intakes, two astride the rear fuselage, six under the wings and two at the wingtips. The Naval variant looses an attachment point, so it is down to 13 pylons.

Of these 14 attachment points, only five (the center-line plus the two inner wing pylons) are rated to carry any heavy ordinance, and of those, only three are rated to carry very heavy ordinance or large fuel tanks. These five pylons are the only ones that are plumbed for underwing fuel tanks, so you are looking at a situation where there is a trade off between range and ordinance (to fly further, you will need to leave bombs behind for range, and vice versa.

And of the remaining attachment points, the rest are rated for light weapons only. I've uploaded the Rafale's hard point chart so you can look over it and see the limitations.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 100, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17651 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 99):
I think Ozair has countered here, so I defer to his argument.

Still waiting for a side by side mission comparison and plane count. Come on guys, I know you can do it!

And what you say about the SDB:

1. GEN 4 planes can carry them too and ARM missiles as well, which U.S. F-35s will not.
2. Even if the SAM radars don't see the F-35, the self protection units do see the SDBs coming in at them at subsonic speeds from a distance and shoot at them with guns or missiles as a defense before they hit.

The latest Pantsir S1 / SA-22 Greyhound and Tor M2 / SA-15 Gauntlet systems are equipped with phased array engagement radars, very fast SAMs, and are designed to rapidly react to incoming PGMs and destroy them before they hit their targets.

From a force structure planning perspective, such point defence systems will over time render non-stealthy subsonic PGMs irrelevant, as these will be easily tracked and engaged. The future lies in PGMs which are stealthier and faster than existing designs.


As an aside they offer an opinion:
It is important to note that no F/A-18 variant, nor the Joint Strike Fighter, were designed to penetrate the coverage of the S-300P/S-400 systems. The survivability of these aircraft will not be significantly better than that of legacy combat aircraft.

It is perhaps ironic that the only reliable defence for aircraft lacking top tier all aspect stealth capability is high speed low altitude terrain masking using Terrain Following Radar, supplemented by offboard near-realtime ISR data, support jamming and standoff missiles.


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 99):
The Rafale only has fourteen external stores attachments

Good find. I didn't know the Rafale already carries the ALARM anti radar missile.

One config from your chart
3x 2,200lbs bombs each
8x 550lbs bombs each
4x Micas (Weight not counted)
Total 11,000 lbs of bombs and 4 x A2A missiles

Another:
3x Apache 2,706 lbs each
8 x 550lb bombs each
Total 12,518lbs and 4 x A2A missiles

The anti radar SEAD planes can carry 5 ALARM anti radar missiles and 4x 550 guided bombs

How does that compare to the number of Rafales needed with the number of F-35s needed limited to 4,000lbs of bombs to maintain stealth? None of you guys seem to want to make this comparison. Again, I am not saying the F-35 will not be effective in striking the target. Both would be able to if operated properly and with as low a risk profile as possible. The Gen 4 flying fast at very low level, terrain hugging with ARM missiles to do SEAD, while the F-35 flies at 25,000ft unseen or not lockable by SAMS due to stealth from any angle.

I'll leave the plane count to you.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 17641 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 100):

And what you say about the SDB:

1. GEN 4 planes can carry them too and ARM missiles as well, which U.S. F-35s will not.
2. Even if the SAM radars don't see the F-35, the self protection units do see the SDBs coming in at them at subsonic speeds from a distance and shoot at them with guns or missiles as a defense before they hit.

The latest Pantsir S1 / SA-22 Greyhound and Tor M2 / SA-15 Gauntlet systems are equipped with phased array engagement radars, very fast SAMs, and are designed to rapidly react to incoming PGMs and destroy them before they hit their targets.

The SA-22 And SA-10 systems did nothing for the Syrian air defence network when the Israeli's came in and bombed a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor back 2007. In fact, the Syrians didn't even know the Israeli's were coming until the bombs started to fall, and the Israeli's were comfortably back in their own airspace.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 100):
Good find. I didn't know the Rafale already carries the ALARM anti radar missile.

One config from your chart
3x 2,200lbs bombs each
8x 550lbs bombs each
4x Micas (Weight not counted)
Total 11,000 lbs of bombs and 4 x A2A missiles

Another:
3x Apache 2,706 lbs each
8 x 550lb bombs each
Total 12,518lbs and 4 x A2A missiles

The anti radar SEAD planes can carry 5 ALARM anti radar missiles and 4x 550 guided bombs

How does that compare to the number of Rafales needed with the number of F-35s needed limited to 4,000lbs of bombs to maintain stealth? None of you guys seem to want to make this comparison. Again, I am not saying the F-35 will not be effective in striking the target. Both would be able to if operated properly and with as low a risk profile as possible. The Gen 4 flying fast at very low level, terrain hugging with ARM missiles to do SEAD, while the F-35 flies at 25,000ft unseen or not lockable by SAMS due to stealth from any angle.

I'll leave the plane count to you.

You are trading range for weapons. The Rafale in a cruise configuration (Mach 0.9, no afterburners, no weapons, no external loads) has a fuel flow of 2,933 lbs/h, which means to 45 minutes of fly in such condition require 2,200 lbs of fuel. As the Rafale only has an internal fuel capacity of 9,400 lbs, you are limited to around 3.2 hours of flight. Add in external weapons, and your drag coefficient increases, meaning you burn more fuel to fly at the same speed, which means your range only goes down.

As I don't have the Rafale's flight manual, I'll have to pull out the one that's for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. See below:
http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/1228/superhornetspeed.jpg
It shows pretty nicely what external weapons, tanks and sensors do to its top speed. Quite significant.

There is also this paper on how external loads affect fuel consumption of fighter jets:
http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2002/Sep/02Sep_Young.pdf

Doing the comparisons (difficult because everyone is not quoting based upon the same mission profiles and payloads, The F-35 loaded up with internal weapons to max internal weight will fly just as far as a Rafale in the most optimistic air to air configuration. And the wonderful thing is that the F-35 will achieve its full range of speed unlike Rafale, which will be Mach 0.9 limited with the large external fuel tanks it will have to carry.

To perform the same strike mission the Rafale must carry 2 bombs, 2 AAM, 1 jamming pod, 1 targeting pod and 3 of the 2,000 liter tanks to match the F-35's 2 bombs, 2 AAM, no jamming pod and targeting pod and no tanks. In this configuration the Rafale does not travel quicker than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks and weapons or uses afterburners which it cannot sustain.

And that's of course, excluding any other aircraft flying in support of the Rafale because it will need Wild Weasel, ECM, and fighter escorts...


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 17658 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 96):
Kindly compare how many planes are needed on a mission to carrying, say 48,000lbs of bombs to targets, assuming similar risk profiles. How many F-35s and how many Gen 4 planes would be needed? Thank you.

You have been provided with authoritative sources on F-15 and Rafale load outs. Tell me what they will be carrying? Even if I had that, a range required, the number of targets and what you consider a similar risk profile you would probably move the goal posts again and prevent me from comparing two equal sets of data.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 96):
You keep saying that. What is your source that the RAFALE is limited to 4,000lbs due to lack of space or whatever amount you claim is the limit? Source please. Providing pictures of your choosing is not a source. I have provided multiple sources for my figures. Thank you. Rafale will be able to carry a lot of Meteors, as they are not heavy.

First I never said they were limited to 4,000lbs, merely that operationally ~4,000lbs of A2G is what they have been carrying. Seeing as an operational deployment is the most accurate way to determine what an aircraft actually does in combat it is a reasonably accurate source. Second, I think Pointblank has proven my point adequately on the loading of ordinance.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 96):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 95):
Hold on, so the F-15SE can be modified to carry the AARGM (even though there are no plans for it to) but the F-35 can't?

I never said that.

Actually you said this,

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 87):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 82):
Let us be clear as well. Neither the Rafale or the F-15SE which you are proposing as better than the F-35 have the capability to launch an ARM. You therefore will require a third aircraft type, which means either an F-16, F-18 or Tornado. The new HARM version listed above will only be compatible with the F-18, Tornado and F-35.

Wrong again. Rafale will be able to launch the Meteor, by 2020. The F-15SE, will surely be able to launch the HARM missile if they want it to. But the Harm missile is being phased out, as the all mighty F-35 will make this missile and tactic obsolete, so they say.

You said the F-15SE could be modified to carry the HARM and by extension the AARGM (it is the AGM-88E after all) and subsequently said the F-35 will not carry a ARM.

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
I've compiled a chart of some key metrics for some past and present attack aircraft

Love the chart!

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
What's also quite clear is how much of the F-35 design has been skewed towards ground attack. There is a penalty to be paid for such a high fuel fraction in terms of A2A capability.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in practise. Given what we are hearing from the test program regarding F-18 like performance WVR it appears there is little compromise especially given it is a 9G airframe. Any WVR combat would probably be between 75-25% fuel load but the fuel and weapons load will always alter the characteristics.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 99):
I've uploaded the Rafale's hard point chart so you can look over it and see the limitations.

Thanks for finding that. It adds clarity and realism to the discussion.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 100):
Good find. I didn't know the Rafale already carries the ALARM anti radar missile.

Neither did I and it is interesting since Dassualt don't market the aircraft as such. http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/...e/rafale/advanced-weapons.html?L=1


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 17652 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 102):

Neither did I and it is interesting since Dassualt don't market the aircraft as such. http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/...l?L=1

Well, if a customer demanded integration with a certain weapon type and were willing to pay for it, I'm sure Dassault will oblige. The chart isn't mine, so I don't take responsibility for the accuracy of the chart's listed weapons, but everything else matches what is known about the Rafale.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 104, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 17626 times:

Lots of facts and figures guys. But still no plane count comparison. So let me do one for you: Full fuel missions, similar risk level (Stealth for the F-35 and SEAD escorts for the others):

Quoting Ozair (Reply 102):
You have been provided with authoritative sources on F-15 and Rafale load outs. Tell me what they will be carrying?


RAFALE:
Full fuel mission, like F-35:
1 centerline fuel tank carrying 5,280lbs of fuel
2 overwing conforming fuel tanks with 2,000lbs of fuel each
Full internal fuel of 10,300lbs of fuel (4.7 tons)
Total Fuel 19,580lbs

2 2,200lbs bombs (could be also be 2 large Apaches at 2,700 each, but want compare apples to apples)
7 550lbs bombs
1 targeting pod
4 MICAS A2A missiles
Total Bombs 8,250lbs

F-35:
Total fuel 20,000lbs internal fuel
Total bombs 4,000lbs internal bombs
2 A2A missiles

To then carry 48,000lbs of these to target, you would need 6 Rafales and 2 SEAD escorts, total 8
To then carry 48,000lbs of these to target, you would need 12 F-35s, total 12

Back of the envelope accounting: F-15SE/Rafale - At $100 million a copy, the other two (F-15se/Rafale) cost $800 million in this example and require 4 less pilots and planes to feed and operate. Indians are getting the Rafale for less than $100 million each.

Compared with the F-35: $150 million a piece for the F-35 and you are looking at $1.8 billion in planes for this mission and extra costs for 4 more pilots and planes to feed and operate not even included.

The F-35 is very cost inefficient, even in a best case mission scenario like this one, where the F-35 can exploit it's massive internal tanks to the max.

And let's not even dream of comparing this with the F-35B. Is it true it can only carry 2,00lbs internally? If so, it just makes no sense.

By the way, the Thales SPECTRA is internal to the Rafale. No pods are needed to do SEAD and fire ARM missiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_SPECTRA

[Edited 2012-03-20 00:34:41]

[Edited 2012-03-20 00:44:29]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 105, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17607 times:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

1. Either we go with F-15SE with 23,000lbs of internal fuel capability, or
2. We go with F-22s

The F-35 is such a compromise, it's dangerous, unproductive and expensive. There report ;inked is a bit older, but the predictions have panned out....The main problem is nations without F-22s, like everybody but the U.S. - what do they do? They should save their money or hope their is no conflict while the F-35 is in service.

I think the future is very fast, very high flying, very stealthy bomb throwers, similar to F-22 or SR-71 (recon), where even Mach 8 SAMS can't get you, believe it or not. Or, FAST, low level, terrain hugging bombers to limit detection and interception - if they're stealthy, even better.

But the F-35 is a compromise of everything - not very fast, doesn't fly low nor high (25,000feet) mission profiles (normally), not as stealthy as F-22 or B-2, can't outrun many Russian fighters, can be detected by lower band radars and fighters vectored in close enough, or SAM missiles, etc......too many compromises. Heck, the F-22 can even carry more ordinance - and it's supposed to be a fighter.

It's a good read. I am surprised the same company built both. Is seems like the C people got on the F-35 and the A people on the F-22.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 106, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 17583 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 98):
I never claimed that. Please don't put false word in my mouth, thank you.

So this wasn't you:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
So let's do the math:

To equal one F-15 carrying 24,000lbs of munitions, you would need 6 F-35s in full stealth to make a difference. And the only difference would be stealth.

1F-15 VS 6 F-35s

The Rafale can carry 20,900lbs today and with the new M88-4E engines up to 23,000lbs.

That's about the same as the F-15.

You said the F-15 could carry 24,000 lbs = 6 F-35s
You then said the Rafale could carry 23,000lbs and was about the same as the F-15

In any brand of logic but yours you've said:

1 Rafale = 1 F-15 = 6 F-35's for the purpose of delivering (24)23,000lbs of ordnance

You did the math, not me so, I'm not putting words in your mouth. You then continued to use the F-15/Rafale as an equal entity for the rest of your arguments.

Your words not mine.

That is what brought me into the argument.

I don't want to knock the Rafale, its an excellent fighter with a very good balance of capabilities and does it at the lower end of the cost market. It deserves to be winning competions and it is. But it is not equal to the F-15. And no matter how you try and dress it up it does not have the same range/payload capability that the F-35 is designed to have. If the drag characteristics of the F-35 turn out to be poor then that situation may change but right now based on the data available to me I see things completely opposite to you and can't see the Rafale out-ranging the F-35 in any real life combat situation.

In every post since then you've squirmed around trying to justiffy a poor opening statement. After you were challenged you split the load 12,000lb each between two Rafales despite repeated efforts to impart a realistic perspective on what real life combat demands of an aircraft. In any circumstance that a Rafale can go into combat at a weight far in excess of its combat weight then an F-35 will be able to complete the same mission with external stores at the equal or lower level of risk. Your only arguments against the F-35 operating in that manner have been the very well thought out 'whats the point!' and the equally logical 'if we procure the F-35 we will lose all stand off SEAD capability'.

I'll try another car analogy, your car has a quoted combined fuel economy figure and a range based on that. If you're lucky you may achieve that figure with gentle highway driving on flat ground. But you will be at a small fraction of that range racing up a mountain pass with the car fully loaded.

Ozair has displayed much more patience than I can muster. I've tried to use historical references instead of opinion because:
1. Its an uncontentious way of comparing real life situations with all the conflicting concerns of a tactical strike analysis resolved into a an actual strike package with a defined load out and number of aircraft by actual military planners, not armchair enthusiasts such as some of us. The vast array of historical data is against your argument about weight of ordnance carried into battle by a tactical fighter. But you choose to cling to the sales brochure data.
2. if I expressd my opinion my post would be immediately deleted.

If you came down to earth you would see that even if the you conceded some degree to reality and you proposed the aircraft carried an equal bomb load, at current LRIP the escorted Rafale strike package would still be cheaper than the stealth F-35 package which is the point you originally started making in the thread starting post. The F-35 proponents would then be on less firm ground as the F-35 is unproven and I for one would not be arguing so strongly. As long as you keep using unrealistic load outs your argument is meaningless and all the specific questions you are asking answers to are trite until you demonstrate the founding principles of your argument are sound. Right now they are not.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 107, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 17542 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
spudh

I see in your chart, if I am reading it correctly, the F-15E carries about 4.5 times the fuel and weapons, combined, as the F-35A. Yet, the MTOW difference between the same two airplanes puts the F-15E only about 5,000 kg heavier. What would be interesting would be if you included the combat range in your chart, and also the critical field lenght (standard day at sea level) between the two. I think you will find the F-35A with this configueration, and only one engine will need in excess of 9,000' (about 2700 m) of runway. That puts sever limitations on just where you can base the F-35As.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 99):
However, with stealth technology, the engagement range of enemy SAM's is heavily reduced, meaning that a SDB more than has the range to engage a SAM site. Add in a heavy electronic jamming and attack capabilities of the F-35 (the AN/APG-81 AESA radar forms a part of the F-35's EW suite), the ability of SAM's to respond effectively is heavily reduced.

You do know that SAMs are much cheaper than airplanes? During Linebacker II, the NVA did not turn on their radars, because of the SEAD threat, and just sent up a barrage of AAA and SAMs to get the B-52D/Gs, which were masked by their own ECM as well as from EB-66Es. The shoot down of the F-117A was also with a barrage of SAM missiles and AAA.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 104):
Lots of facts and figures guys. But still no plane count comparison.

I did post this comparison back in my reply #31 of the current CF-18 capabilities (Gen 4), the planned capabilities of the F-35A (Gen 5), and the planned capabilities of the F-15SE (Gen 4.5), all from their wiki pages.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Here is the current capability of the CF-18;Data from CF-18 Specifications[52] General characteristics Crew: 1 or 2 Length: 56 ft 0 in (17.07 m) Wingspan: 40 ft 0 in with Sidewinders (12.31 m) Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.66 m) Wing area: 400 ft2 (37.16 m2) Airfoil: NACA 65A005 mod root, 65A003.5 mod tip Empty weight: 23049 lb (10455 kg) Loaded weight: 37150 lb (16850 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 51550 lb (23400 kg) Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F404-GE-400 turbofans, 16000 lbf (71.2 kN) each Performance Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1127 mph, 1814 km/h) at 36100 ft (11000 m) Combat radius: 330 mi (290 nmi, 537 km) on hi-lo-lo-hi mission Ferry range: 2070 mi (1800 nmi, 3330 km) (range without ordnance) Service ceiling: 50000 ft (15000 m) Rate of climb: 50000 ft/min (254 m/s) Thrust/weight: 0.89 Armament Nine Weapon/ Store Stations (5 pylons: 1 Under Fuselage and 4 Wing Stations) (2 LAU 116 located on sides of fuselage: deploys AIM 7 Sparrow and AMRAAM Missiles)(2 LAU 7 located on the wing tips: Deploys AIM 9 Sidewinder Missile), carrying up to 13700 lb (6215 kg) of missiles, rockets, bombs, fuel tanks, and pods 1 × 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan internal gatling gun with 578 rounds, with a firing rate of 4000 or 6000 shots per minute Missiles: Air-to-air: AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-7 Sparrow Air-to-ground: AGM-65 Maverick, CRV7 rockets Bombs: Paveway, Mk 82, Mk 83, Mk 84, GBU-10, -12, -16 and -24 laser guided bombs.Avionics Raytheon AN/APG-73 radar BAE Systems AN/APX-111 IFF Rockwell Collins AN/ARC-210 RT-1556/ARC VHF/UHF Radio General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems AN/AYK-14 XN-8 mission computer Smiths Aerospace AN/AYQ-9 Stores Management System

The planned capabilities of the F-35A;General characteristics Crew: 1 Length: 51.4 ft (15.67 m) Wingspan: 35 ft[N 5] (10.7 m) Height: 14.2 ft[N 6] (4.33 m) Wing area: 460 ft²[162] (42.7 m²) Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg) Loaded weight: 49,540 lb[123][N 7][335] (22,470 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[N 8] (31,800 kg) Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[336][N 9] (125 kN) Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[336][337] (191 kN) Internal fuel capacity: 18,480 lb (8,382 kg)[N 10] Performance Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[157] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) Tested to Mach 1.61.[338] Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel Combat radius: 584 nmi[339] () on internal fuel[340] Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[341] (Tested to 43,000 ft)[342] (18,288 m) Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available) Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²) Thrust/weight: **With full fuel: 0.87 With 50% fuel: 1.07g-Limits: 9 g[N 11]Armament Guns: 1 × General Dynamics GAU-22/A Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 4-barreled gatling cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[N 12][157] Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[157][162] and 2 internal bays with 2 pylons each[162] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)[124] and provisions to carry combinations of: Missiles: ** Air-to-air missiles: AIM-120 AMRAAM AIM-9X Sidewinder IRIS-T MBDA Meteor (Pending further funding)[343] JDRADM (after 2020)[344] Air-to-surface missiles: AGM-154 JSOW AGM-158 JASSM[163] Brimstone missile Joint Air-to-Ground Missile SOM Anti-ship missiles: JSM Bombs: ***Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable Paveway-series laser-guided bombs Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) JDAM-series B61 nuclear bomb[345]Avionics Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) electronic warfare system Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system

The planned capability of the F-15SE;General characteristics Crew: 2 Length: 63.8 ft (19.43 m) Wingspan: 42.8 ft (13.05 m) Height: 18.5 ft (5.63 m) Wing area: 608 ft² (56.5 m²) Airfoil: NACA 64A006.6 root, NACA 64A203 tip Empty weight: 31,700 lb (14,300 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 81,000 lb (36,700 kg) Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-229 afterburning turbofans, 29,000 lbf (129 kN) each Performance Maximum speed: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,650+ km/h) Combat radius: 800+ nm (720 nmi for stealth A/A mission)[34] (920 miles (1,480 kilometres)) Ferry range: 2,400 mi (2,100 nmi (3,900 km)) with conformal fuel tank and three external fuel tanks Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,200 m) Rate of climb: 50,000+ ft/min (254+ m/s) Armament 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan 6-barreled gatling cannon with 510 rounds of ammunition Four internal hardpoints in conformal weapons bays for low-observable capability, or External load the same as Strike Eagle's with standard CFTs, including targeting pods and additional external fuel tanks.[35]Avionics APG-82 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar BAE Systems Digital Electronic warfare system (DEWS) Digital “Fly-by-Wire” Flight Control System (DFCS) Lockheed Martin Sniper advanced electro-optical targeting system and Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system Link-16 fighter data linkAll data taken from the respective Wiki pages.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 108, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17517 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 107):
I see in your chart, if I am reading it correctly, the F-15E carries about 4.5 times the fuel and weapons, combined, as the F-35A. Yet, the MTOW difference between the same two airplanes puts the F-15E only about 5,000 kg heavier. What would be interesting would be if you included the combat range in your chart, and also the critical field lenght (standard day at sea level) between the two. I think you will find the F-35A with this configueration, and only one engine will need in excess of 9,000' (about 2700 m) of runway. That puts sever limitations on just where you can base the F-35As.

Sorry KC135, I should have put a better header on that column. And I want to state again the disclaimer that most of the data is from wikipedia so I'm not responsible for it and in fact distrust some of it but it was all I had to hand and I wanted to be consistent across the board.

I presume you are referring to the 'Net Load' column. I calculated this in reference to Fuel fraction. Fuel fraction is fuel capacity/loaded weight. So for 'Net Load' I added empty weight plus fuel capacity and subtracted this figure from the loaded weight to give its net load capacity. This gives an indicator for what state of fuel or weapon load has been used to calculate the combat weight. At the figure in the table each aircraft has full internal fuel.


As you can see the F-15E has been designed to operate at far higher weights than anything else. It dosen't have 4.5 the times the fuel and weapons capacity of the F-35, just weapons (and pilot and anything else not included in empty weight) capacity at combat weight. But it shows that the F-15E can genuinely go into combat with a frightening amount of ordnance on board.

What immediately jumped out was the negative figure against all the newer fighters for this metric. I haven't fully digested what this means or even if it means anything. What I guess is that in the chase for better T/W ratio and wing loadings the newer fighters are treating full internal fuel as an overload recognising that by the time they get to the fight they will be down to combat weight. There is certain merit to this and it is reflected in another thread here where Eurofighters had to accept a lower structural strength fatigue factor of safety than specified. Adopting this approach means you should have a lower airframe weight so you are not lugging around the strength of an 'overdesigned' fighter at all times. Its also why you will never see them without tanks. All the teen fighers have a large usable weapon load at combat weight even with full internal fuel. On the positive side this should give them more endurance for the fight.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 109, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 17503 times:

Thanks spudh. I am glade you included the F-111F in your chart as this was nearly the standard the F-15E was originally compared to. But the real interdiction aircraft was the FB-111A/F-111G for a combination of weapons load and range (at low level) and the F-111F was a distant second to that.

But all the F-111s are history now, and since they have gone we have been trying to make up that capability.

I have noticed no one has mentioned the attack altitude when comparing the various airplanes to the F-35A, which most likely will attack from medium to high altitude, while the Rafale, F-15, etc. will most likely be attacking at low levels, on the order of 200' AGL or less. No matter what radar or SAM systems they may have, a low level attack gives them much, much less time to defend against the attacking aircraft. An F-15E coming overhead at 1.0M at 150' gives you only about 10 seconds to see the attacker and target him, even less depending upon tarrain and trees. You will not even hear the roar of the ABs until after he is gone.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 110, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 17456 times:

spudh: I never said this:

Quoting spudh (Reply 97):
This from a guy who kicked off this barny claiming a Rafale could realistically attack a hostile target 500nm away with 23,000lb of ordnance in combat

I never claimed Rafale could do that range/payload scenario you repeatedly and falsely attribute to me.

I did say Rafale can lift a lot and it can fly far - but not at the same time - not the range/payload you repeatedly and falsely put into my mouth.

The Rafale can carry 20,900lbs today and with the new M88-4E engines up to 23,000lbs.
Were do you see a 500 mile range attached in that sentence? OR in any other sentence I wrote with these high loads? Or in that context? Spud, please. just stop it already. I do not go around putting false words in people's mouths. Thank you.

An apology on your part would be nice.

I still would like to see a very simple plane count F-35 VS. any other Gen 4.5 plane for the same mission to carry 48,000lbs to a target using F-35 max fuel/range as benchmark. I think the F-15SE would beat it down into a pulp, bomb efficiency wise, even more than Rafale. You have more than enough info just in this thread. I would like to see that coming from the F-35 supporters.

The F-35 is unproven on many fronts and may change/improve. But one thing will not change in any significant way: The room available in the internal bays. This limits what it can carry stealthy. That makes a bomb efficiency comparison, fairly straight forward. All the facts and figures in the world won't change that.



[Edited 2012-03-20 11:26:42]

[Edited 2012-03-20 11:50:12]

User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 111, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 17462 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 109):
But all the F-111s are history now, and since they have gone we have been trying to make up that capability.

F-111 was an awesome interdictor. I think the Aussies in particular are going to struggle with replacing it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 109):
I have noticed no one has mentioned the attack altitude when comparing the various airplanes to the F-35A, which most likely will attack from medium to high altitude, while the Rafale, F-15, etc. will most likely be attacking at low levels, on the order of 200' AGL or less

I didn't want to go there since we couldn't even agree on something as basic as a load out. Imagine trying to compare mission profiles! OMG the pain.

I see in your above post that the CF-18 has a combat range of 290nm in hi-lo-lo-hi mission profile.
Wikipedia quoted the range of the Eurofighter as:
Ground attack, lo-lo-lo: 601 km (325 nmi)
Ground attack, hi-lo-hi: 1,389 km (750 nmi)

This illustrates how critical altitude is to range. Also illustrates the effect of SFC and drag.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 109):
An F-15E coming overhead at 1.0M at 150' gives you only about 10 seconds to see the attacker and target him, even less depending upon tarrain and trees. You will not even hear the roar of the ABs until after he is gone.

I can't remember who said 'quantity has a quality all in itself' but the same could be said for speed, you can never have enough.   


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 112, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 17440 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 110):
An apology on your part would be nice.

You know what Tommy, I am going to apologise, because between deleted and revised posts its pretty hard to follow what you are saying at the best of times and I may have misinterpreted. So I'm going to revise:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
So let's do the math:

To equal one F-15 carrying 24,000lbs of munitions, you would need 6 F-35s in full stealth to make a difference. And the only difference would be stealth.

1F-15 VS 6 F-35s

The Rafale can carry 20,900lbs today and with the new M88-4E engines up to 23,000lbs.

That's about the same as the F-15.

The lack of stealth can be compensated by escorting the bomb truck with 1 Anti Radar aircraft and 1 more loaded with 10 air to air Meteors or AIMs in the pack of 3 planes. Scale up as needed.

Or

6 F-35s to carry bombs and 2 more to carry 4 AA missiles each in full stealth - for a total of 8 AA missiles (VS 10 for the Rafale/F-15 flight of 3 planes). You don't have anti radar missiles, but you do have stealth. 8 F-35s VS 3 F-15/Rafales - that's the math, even assuming radars don't improve VS. the F-35 by 2020. And if more than 8 enemy planes show up, your 100% toast, because you'll run out of missiles. At least with the Rafale/F-15 you run out of missiles after 10.

So you'll need at least $1.2 billion worth of F-35 aircraft for the mission VS. $300 million worth using Rafales or F-15s. Even if you reduce the payload of the F-15/Rafale bomb trucks by half to only 12,000 lbs each by making it a flight of 4, that's still only $400 million worth to deliver the same amount of bombs.

This also means more pilots needed more aerial tankering, etc... the costs are astronomical - just for stealth.

Now in that post it seems relatively clear that you claimed a future Rafale with the M88-4E engine could carry 23,000lb on an attack mission in a 3 aircraft attack package but you don't mention range. I think I've got that right.

In the same post at the end you offer an alternate package of 4 Rafales with two carrying 12,000lbs each. Its offered as an alternate to the 3 ship package. I think I've got that right too.

Now then, in a post which you deleted but is quoted in my reply 36 you added a range of 500 miles to the alternate package.

Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 35):
And I made a big mistake in favor of the F-35. It really can only carry 2,000lbs of bombs internally, not 4,000, but also a few AA missiles. Escort F-35 would not be needed. So to revise, a mission to carry 24,000 lbs of bombs a distance of say 500 miles with 4 Rafale's or 4 F-15SEs, you wold need 12 F-35s - it's a joke - that's no way to deliver bombs. A fleet of 12 would cost $1.8 billion VS. $400 million + pilot training and operating expenses and logistics.

There's where I made my mistake Tommy, you never said directly that a Rafale could carry 24,000lbs, 500miles. You applied the 500 mile range to the alternate strike package, not the original, it was I who inferred that they were still on the same mission. I do apologise.

So please allow me to re-phrase:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 91):
Baseline for factual discussion is accepting reality.

This from a guy who kicked off this barny claiming a Rafale could realistically attack a hostile target with 23,000lbs of ordnance at an unspecified range and with 12,000lb of ordnance at 500nm away in combat

Now, I having apologised and made amends for my indescretion, is there any chance whatsoever you could display a shred of realism


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 113, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17420 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 112):
Now then, in a post which you deleted

Firstly, I never deleted a post of mine. Secondly, I never edited out what you somehow think you saw. In short, it was never there - ever. It is actually harder to read what I didn't write, than to read what I did write.

Quoting spudh (Reply 112):
This from a guy who kicked off this barny claiming a Rafale could realistically attack a hostile target with 23,000lbs of ordnance at an unspecified range and with 12,000lb of ordnance at 500nm away in combat

Except for the barny stuff. According to Flight Global and Dassault, that's what they say it can do. I know there might not be room, maybe there is. I am not making claim on that point one way or the other. But it's close enough to show that it blows the doors off the F-35 in bombing efficiency - which was the point and the message of the post to begin with. Arguing marginal accuracy on some data points is whacking at the weeds.

Quoting spudh (Reply 112):
There's where I made my mistake Tommy, you never said directly that a Rafale could carry 24,000lbs, 500miles. You applied the 500 mile range to the alternate strike package, not the original, it was I who inferred that they were still on the same mission. I do apologise.

Apology accepted. Let's move on.........


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 114, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17418 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 110):
I still would like to see a very simple plane count F-35 VS. any other Gen 4.5 plane for the same mission to carry 48,000lbs to a target using F-35 max fuel/range as benchmark. I think the F-15SE would beat it down into a pulp, bomb efficiency wise, even more than Rafale. You have more than enough info just in this thread. I would like to see that coming from the F-35 supporters.


I know I'm going to regret this but I've a slightly different suggestion, please see the PDF in the attached link
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/...oy_iranian_nuclear_facilities.html

Why don't we play a little war game and redo an existing strike with Gen 4.5/5 weapon systems. Anyone interested would have to agree to post the strategy at the same time a few days from now. That won't be easy with people from all round the globe and different timezones but if we want we can manage it.

Take say the strike on Libya or any of the published Israeli ones and redo it in 2018 or whatever year is realistic for F-35 operation. I don't want to do the obvious Iranian one because it hasn't actually been done so we've no baseline.

I know this is way off topic but this thread went south 90 posts ago.

I'd propose first a list of people who want to participate, we can then agree a target and a time/date for us to post a strategy. Its worthy of a week to put together. I think someone should propose a weapon list that we all choose from so we have a level playing field. Once the simultaneous post are up we can then go and fillet each other for fun. It would probably be better on a new thread if anyone is interested in doing it. Who's in?


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 115, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17414 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 113):
Firstly, I never deleted a post of mine. Secondly, I never edited out what you somehow think you saw. In short, it was never there - ever. It is actually harder to read what I didn't write, than to read what I did write.

Tommy, I really don't want to go here, we've both typed a novel on this thread and its easy to forget stuff but have a look at my post 36. Then have a look at your post 35. You originally posted 35 at 13.25 and edited it at 14.10. At about 13.30 I started to reply to your post with a quote but got called away and eventually posted my reply inclusive of a quote from your original post at 14.23. In your reply, post 37, you admit you edited your post.

What I think I saw is in the pixels on your screen in my Post 36.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 116, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 17370 times:

Yes I edited my posts, but not in a way that could have led you to say the falsehoods about me. Nothing you quoted me on in your reply 36 says I represented Rafale planes doing missions with 23,000lbs each and going 500 miles or something like that. Here is what I did say:

Quoting spudh (Reply 36):
, a mission to carry 24,000 lbs of bombs a distance of say 500 miles with 4 Rafale's or 4 F-15SEs

If you can not see the difference between what I said and what you think I said, I don't know how to help you. I am finished defending myself on this. Go ahead and say whatever you want about me....I really don't care anymore. I think poorly of people who freely go around assigning others of acts and words they did not do nor say.........have fun.

As to bomb efficiency on the F-35 VS. others - it's so poor in that department, that it severely reduces the bomb delivery capabilities of the armed forces that will acquire it, unless they are willing to spend 2-3 times more money for the same capability with say F-15SEs. It's a step backward in the sense that you get less bomb delivery capability for the same money. In the end, that's all that counts - fire power.


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 117, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 17278 times:

Things look more and more uncertain for the Canadian F35 project;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...12/03/21/pol-cp-f35-ag-report.html

Quote:
Canada's auditor general has both National Defence and Public Works in his sights when it comes to the troubled F-35 stealth fighter program, say senior government sources.

A draft copy of the scathing review, circulating in Ottawa for weeks, suggests the air force didn't do its pricing homework and government officials failed to follow procurement rules, say those who've read it.

....

Senior officials say the auditor general's harsh review is behind the Harper government's change in posture over the last few weeks, where a hard-line message of commitment has softened into skepticism about the international program, which is billions of dollars off target and years behind schedule.

...

The Conservatives have insisted the entire purchase and support costs will be between $14 billion and $16 billion, making the jets the largest defence purchase in Canadian history. But the budget officer and critics have challenged that, delivering estimates of up to $29.5 billion.



[edit post]
User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17256 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 117):
But the budget officer and critics have challenged that, delivering estimates of up to $29.5 billion.

Lets play with that figure a bit.....You would get at least 250 gripen NG to spread over your vast country for that amount  



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 119, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17130 times:

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 118):
Lets play with that figure a bit.....You would get at least 250 gripen NG to spread over your vast country for that amount

Or 2000 new-built P51's, but those too would be useless.

That $29.5b is for the entire program, not just for aircraft costs alone. Funny how only fighter jet purchases get so scrutinized in the media, while everything else like Navy ships, that cost the same for the entire program, don't get one headline. Everyone seems to have an opinion for some reason regarding fighters, no matter their employment or positions.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 120, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17134 times:

One good aspect of the F-35 acquisition is that it is akin to unilateral disarmament. It is so expensive and so bomb inefficient at the same time, that replacing almost all existing planes with the F-35 will result is far less military capability, especially for the U.S.

Even more so if the number of F-35s put in service at the same time turns out to be less than planned.

By good, I mean the U.S. already has so much power that it can create a lot of damage all by itself (Iraq, Vietnam) and make others nervous. A little less will actually be good, IMHO.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 121, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17074 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 120):
It is so expensive and so bomb inefficient at the same time, that replacing almost all existing planes with the F-35 will result is far less military capability, especially for the U.S.

Pretty strong statement against an aircraft that hasn't had the chance to prove itself. Same was said about the F-15, F-16 and F-18 and now look at them, they seem to be THE aircraft of choice in their area. Like I said already, the F-35 should have never been a public project, there are too many people who think they know what they're talking about.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 122, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 17060 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 121):
Like I said already, the F-35 should have never been a public project, there are too many people who think they know what they're talking about.


conversely, had it not been a public project it would have been killed by now.. there are just too many politicians needing re election and public jobs support to easily change it. It is also the same politicians who legislate via earmarks the procurement of weighty and questionable products made by constituents.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7827 posts, RR: 5
Reply 123, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 17017 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 121):
there are too many people who think they know what they're talking about.

Pot meet Mr Kettle.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 124, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16967 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 119):
That $29.5b is for the entire program, not just for aircraft costs alone.

No way. That is an average of $453M per aircraft, based on Canada's 65 airplane buy. The LCC alone will be that high, and that is without the costs to buy the airplane, or future modifications and upgrades.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 121):
Pretty strong statement against an aircraft that hasn't had the chance to prove itself.

The numbers don't lie.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 121):
Same was said about the F-15, F-16 and F-18 and now look at them, they seem to be THE aircraft of choice in their area.

Nothing of the kind was ever said about the F-14, F-15, F-16, YF-17/F/A-18. The F-15/F-16 combo was the USAF High/Low (price) programs, as was the USN F-14/F/A-18.

The F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 was leap years in advances over the A-4, A-6, F-4, A-7, F-8, and F-105 back in the early 1970s. The F-35 is not as great an advancement over the current F-15C/D/E, F-16C/D/E F/A-18E/F, Rafale, Typhoon, or Grippen. It carries less a shorter distance, but it only has a stealth advantage, and not as much as a stealth advantage over the Gen 4.5 F-15SE. The F-35 has yet to prove it can bomb anything accurately, or shoot down anything. To date the F-35 has proven to be a toothless dog wrapped in an expensive blanket.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8765 posts, RR: 3
Reply 125, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16927 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 124):
To date the F-35 has proven to be a toothless dog wrapped in an expensive blanket.

What did anybody expect? The vendors still got paid. I don't know about wars or airplanes. But I do know how vendors, R&D contracts, development timelines work. Without accountability, people will pay themselves handsomely and deliver nothing. If you link your national defense to such a program design, your objective will fail and you WILL be conquered someday, and your vendor will be wealthy and quite content with that.

You have to structure pay along with success. Do that, and without success, you pay NOTHING. With success, you pay, according to a set schedule. And you (the sponsor) maintain control of the intellectual property. When somebody starts failing you unemploy them and find somebody smarter to keep the project going.

We used to have the clarity of finite budgets to spur this along. Now, it is a gravy train 1st, 2nd and 3rd, and a deliverable 999th.

[Edited 2012-03-22 08:52:41]

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 126, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 16815 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 124):
The F-35 has yet to prove it can bomb anything accurately, or shoot down anything.

No shit it hasn't, it's not even in service yet. Until it enters mission sorties with squadrons people should just keep their mouths shut, because they have no clue how it performs.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 16838 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 124):

No way. That is an average of $453M per aircraft, based on Canada's 65 airplane buy. The LCC alone will be that high, and that is without the costs to buy the airplane, or future modifications and upgrades.

It's total program cost.

Canada's procurement policy is to use total life cycle cost. That cost includes estimated costs for future upgrades or modifications, tooling, spare parts, training, and infrastructure upgrades. We calculate based upon a cradle to the grave approach. We are the only NATO nation that uses this sort of accounting method for procurement.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 124):
The F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 was leap years in advances over the A-4, A-6, F-4, A-7, F-8, and F-105 back in the early 1970s. The F-35 is not as great an advancement over the current F-15C/D/E, F-16C/D/E F/A-18E/F, Rafale, Typhoon, or Grippen. It carries less a shorter distance, but it only has a stealth advantage, and not as much as a stealth advantage over the Gen 4.5 F-15SE. The F-35 has yet to prove it can bomb anything accurately, or shoot down anything. To date the F-35 has proven to be a toothless dog wrapped in an expensive blanket.

The main difference for F-35 is the avionics and sensor aspect that the F-35 brings, along with stealth characteristics. Once you have an idea of the F-35's avionics and sensor capabilities, it is a major advancement over every fighter in existence, even the F-22.

The initial design assumption was that the JSF would be a consumer of sensor data, obtaining information from specialized intelligence-gathering aircraft, satellites, and other sources. This approach promised to keep costs down. However, as the pieces began to fit together, something different emerged. That was partly due to the "bottom-up" realization that the new technologies being developed for the JSF were far more powerful than had been considered; and to the "top-down" realization that the numbers of expensive specialized intelligence-gathering aircraft would be small, while there could be thousands of JSFs.

Now the F-35 is seen more as a producer of sensor data, with each aircraft interacting through high-speed data links with other platforms to provide greater "electronic domination of the battlespace". If the other platforms are F-35s, they will be able to cooperate to provide a capability greater than the mere sum of the parts.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 128, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16771 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 127):

The main difference for F-35 is the avionics and sensor aspect that the F-35 brings, along with stealth characteristics. Once you have an idea of the F-35's avionics and sensor capabilities, it is a major advancement over every fighter in existence, even the F-22.

You've clearly read too many glossy brochures and presentations.

For instance, what does EO DAS on the F-35 do, that the Thales SPECTRA doesn't already do today on Rafale and available for other planes? Nothing.

Situational awareness?
SPECTRA already provides 360 degree, spherical situational awareness for all the things EO DAS sensors pick up and displays it as a God's eye spherical view to the pilot, today. It operates the IR, chaff and jamming counter measures automatically. I am sure all modern fighter have something like this or will have it in 2020. It will not be unique to the F-35 and neither will the helmet system F-35 drivers will be forced to wear at all times, because it is the only one without a HUD. I am sure other moderns fighters have something similar.

Datalink?
All modern fighters have datalink capabilities, today, and can share any information they wish with whomever they wish, today. Even Grippens can do it. This will not be something unique to the F-35 and certainly not in 2020.

Helmet?
Rafale uses the TopSight.
Grippen and Typhoon the Cobra HMD
F-18/16 have the JMHCS
F-22 doesn't have one at all
F-35 is under development and still doesn't work. It will be the only fighter without a HUD (Heads UP Display)

The problem, as found on the F-22, was that if you are carrying weapons internally, you can't aim and fire them quickly, like when they are carried externally. So there is little advantage. The F-22 get's along just fine without it.

Voice control?
Already operational on Typhoon, Rafale and Grippen and perhaps others and will surely get better by 2020 all around, IMHO.

The only thing the F-35 has is low observability from the front. From the rear, it's RCS is just as bad as any other fighter today. It also features a class busting limited weapons load operated stealthy including inflexibility in weapons options like the inability to carry large bunker busters or cruise missiles in stealth.

Perhaps we should discuss the F-35B's unique capability to be limited to 2,000lbs of bombs when operated in stealth. Is that a cruel joke on the marines on the ground? Even the Reaper UAV carries almost twice that load and loiters for 14 hours fully loaded supporting troops.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 129, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16719 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 128):
Is that a cruel joke on the marines on the ground?

That's a good one. Didn't realize the Marines worried that much about stealth because their planes are supposed to be used for ground support. In their case, does the F-35 carry more payload than the AV-8? If it does, then that's all they want . . . more bomb and stealth be damned.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7827 posts, RR: 5
Reply 130, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16716 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 129):
In their case, does the F-35 carry more payload than the AV-8? If it does, then that's all they want . . . more bomb and stealth be damned.

Then what is the point in making F-35 stealthy when it's going to be used as a bomb truck? Appears to be a big waste of taxpayer dollars when there are already plenty of planes available today which can drop as many bombs as an F-35 for a lot less dollars.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 131, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16692 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 126):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 124):The F-35 has yet to prove it can bomb anything accurately, or shoot down anything.
No shit it hasn't, it's not even in service yet. Until it enters mission sorties with squadrons people should just keep their mouths shut, because they have no clue how it performs.

The F-35 has already completed some weapons testing, and has scored very low in bomb delivery and the ability to fire AAMs. The weapons bay doors have a very slow speed when compared to the F-22. That is dangerous in a stealth airplane, as while the weapons bvay doors cycle and are open, there is no stealth capability.

Many people here really do understand the F-35, its apparent limitations and capabilities. We also understand that one method that could be used to reduce the costs growth is to limit the capabilities. In other words, less airplane for more dollars. The tried and tru