Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-22 Raptor Revival?  
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2727 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 15587 times:

The Republican President candidate Mitt Romney is quoted on an AviationWeek blog that he will restart the Raptor production if he is elected president of the United States of America.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...bbb840-e3ce-4c81-95e3-fe8e9720178a

It comes at a tremendous cost to restart the F-22 line. It will cost 900 million USD. Now how many is he likely to buy?

According to the DewLine blog it was believed 15 years ago that they would buy 339 jets when the Raptor flew for the first time. According to the same article it was originally envisioned 750 F-22 raptors.

As an aviation geek, I would love for a restart of the mighty F-22. If it is the best for the world economy and the U.S economy I do not actually know 


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
108 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15585 times:

A totally bonkers idea. The F-22 is a great airplane but you will get a good portion of its performance out of the F-35 (particularly once it can carry 6 internal AMRAAM's) and it will have far fewer of the problems the F-22 had. To justify bringing the F-22 back you would need to remake it to have more in common with the F-35 I think so your maint. cost and time are not so high.

If the US decides to spend a lot of money on a new fighter I think you will see something of a cross between the F-35 and F-22 and it has to be good for the Navy and Air Force. You are not going to spend that kind of scratch to build another hundred or so F-22A's.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15487 times:

Nothing more than election talk.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 15380 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 2):
Nothing more than election talk.

Agreed. And no way he could get the support for this even if he tried after all the groundings/problems the F-22 has had in the last few years. I'm a huge fan of the F-22 and would love to see more of them, but that was just election talk, nothing more.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 15280 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1):
The F-22 is a great airplane but you will get a good portion of its performance out of the F-35 (particularly once it can carry 6 internal AMRAAM's)

The plan is eventually to carry 4 internal AIM-120's...that's it. There is not sufficient space to carry 6.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 15254 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 4):
The plan is eventually to carry 4 internal AIM-120's...that's it. There is not sufficient space to carry 6.

Wrong, F-35 has the internal space to carry 6. The Block 5 upgrade of the F-35 will include new rails to convert the 2 internal bomb pylons into twin launchers for AIM-120.

The reality of the F-22's production was that the USAF could not produce more using the current configuration. Basically the Raptors utilize an avionics architecture based on the i960MX processor that was never upgraded in the expectation that they would be replaced after 2010. So in 2003 they bought up all the remaining MX chips from Intel (before they closed their line) and used that stock to complete the current production flight of aircraft. The new avionics suite was to be based on the F-35's architecture, but that too was cut somewhere between 2004 and 2006. So in order to produce more F-22s the USAF would be on the hook to pay for a major avionics upgrade program. To get from increment 3.1 to 3.2 (which is just updating the current architecture) the USAF is looking at $8 billion dollars in development. Introducing a full fledged new avionics suite would be far more than that.

Finally I get the sense that the USAF brass would rather go with F-35s than F-22s. Raptors are horrendously expensive to operate and maintain. Starting up the production line would be extremely expensive as well; you could be looking at costs where you could buy 2.5 to 3 F-35s for each F-22.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15116 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
Wrong, F-35 has the internal space to carry 6. The Block 5 upgrade of the F-35 will include new rails to convert the 2 internal bomb pylons into twin launchers for AIM-120.

First, there is NOTHING funded to get 6 AIM-120's inside the F-35.

Second, I can see where you're confused. There is technically space to do that and have six missiles internal. There is not sufficient clearance to actually fire them without hitting others on the way out. Just have a look at what I mean...



User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15042 times:

IF they offered the F-22 for export to allies... might make it worth it, but really, once the F-35 is in service in numbers, the hi-lo mix of F-22 to F-35 will be sufficient imo.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12341 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15034 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 2):
Nothing more than election talk.

Who knows? IIRC Reagan campaigned on putting the B1 bomber into production after Carter had cancelled it, and that's what happened.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
To get from increment 3.1 to 3.2 (which is just updating the current architecture) the USAF is looking at $8 billion dollars in development.

It'd be easier to just build a new chip foundry. Fabs of that generation cost $1B - $2B max and chances are good that the equipment is available used cheap, because there ain't much to do with obsolete chip making gear.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 14993 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1):
The F-22 is a great airplane but you will get a good portion of its performance out of the F-35 (particularly once it can carry 6 internal AMRAAM's) and it will have far fewer of the problems the F-22 had. To justify bringing the F-22 back you would need to remake it to have more in common with the F-35 I think so your maint. cost and time are not so high.
Quoting checksixx (Reply 4):
The plan is eventually to carry 4 internal AIM-120's...that's it. There is not sufficient space to carry 6.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
Wrong, F-35 has the internal space to carry 6. The Block 5 upgrade of the F-35 will include new rails to convert the 2 internal bomb pylons into twin launchers for AIM-120.

Correct, the F-35 is not funded to carry 6 AMRAAMs. If it did, it could not perform the attack mission it is designed to do, as there would be no space left for advanced bombs.

I still think the F-35 is a dog we should not buy. Replacing its mission can be done by the current F/A-18E/F, F-16E/F, or the proposed F-15SE (which can have frontal stealth capabilities).

The F-35 is rapidly approaching the costs of the F-22A. An improved F-22B/C/D would be a good buy, and some models should be two seaters for training and/or a WSO. The F-22 should also be exported to our friends in Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, and the UK. The F-22s problems are known and will eventually be fixed, while not all of the F-35s problems are known yet. They won't so up until the F-35 gets to operational squadrons.

The F-35B/C mission can be replaced by Rafales and F/A-18E/Fs.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16820 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14960 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The F-22 should also be exported to our friends in Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, and the UK



After Israel tried to sell the Chinese AWACs aircraft with technology we shared with them ? They had to cancel that sale after pressure from the Clinton administration. Can they be trusted as much as say Britain or Australia? Also why does Israel need such technology when they already have a clear advantage militarily over everyone else. The next closest militarily to Israel in the Middle East are US allies (Saudi Arabia). There's no need for Israel to have the F-22.

Now Japan and Australia have a need for an aircraft like the F-22, they are at a huge numerical disadvantage to China. Exporting F-22s to Japan and Australia can be justified as a way to help buffer China's huge military expansion.

As for restarting the F-22 production, while I think it's a great idea, I also think the funds might be better spent in other areas such as increasing production of Virginia Class attack submarines, increasing F-35 production for the Air Force, Navy and Marines , an Ohio class SSBN/SSGN replacement, additional Zumwalt (DDG-1000) Destroyers, maintaining a fleet of 11 Carriers by increasing Ford Class production, America class amphibious assault ships, and restarting the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle production.

Also maintaining US combat forces levels in the Army and Marine Corps, especially by relocating more forces to the Pacific (particularly Western Australia and Hawaii).

[Edited 2012-09-12 08:54:20]


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14742 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 6):
First, there is NOTHING funded to get 6 AIM-120's inside the F-35.

Second, I can see where you're confused. There is technically space to do that and have six missiles internal. There is not sufficient clearance to actually fire them without hitting others on the way out. Just have a look at what I mean...

Block 5 upgrade is funded and is part of the upgrade spiral for F-35. Block 5 includes new maritime radar modes (ISAR, Infrared Search and Track, EW upgrades and integration of six AIM-120D AMRAAM missiles. Not to mention that Block 5 is a critical upgrade for a number of foreign customers, such as Norway.

F-35's weapons bay volume is far larger than that of the F-22, which carries 6 internal AAMs. The main weapon station wide enough to hold two staggered AIM-120s. It is also more than long enough -- the AIM-120 is 3.66 m long, the F-35 bay is 4.2 m long.

Clearance is not a big issue. With pneumatic ejectors the missile will be released at the end of the stroke and by that time they will be past or very nearly past the level of the door mounted missile. The F-22's LAU-142 for example has a stroke of 9 inches and the missiles will have a vertical velocity of 27 fps by the time they are freed. The chances of them colliding with the rail missile is essentially zero even under extreme maneuvering.

However, fitting more AAMs in the F-35 will require a new ejector to be developed. There are currently two -- the LAU-120 for single stores up to 2500 lbs and the BRU-61 for 4 x SDBs -- and neither will accomodate an AMRAAM much less two.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):

It'd be easier to just build a new chip foundry. Fabs of that generation cost $1B - $2B max and chances are good that the equipment is available used cheap, because there ain't much to do with obsolete chip making gear.

However, the avionics will still be out of date, and integrating any new capabilities would be a total nightmare. Remember, there was talk of actually replacing F-22's avionics with systems developed from F-35 because F-35's avionics systems are inherently easily upgradable.

Basically to restart the aircraft it would cost $70 million per aircraft on top of $137 million that they already cost. That's when they have all the toolings and manufacturing knowledge preserved and ready to go. So you have a production run of $207 million dollar Raptor's; I would probably argue and many in the USAF and the Pentagon would agree that it would make more sense to buy more F-35's and fund various upgrades of that verses restarting F-22 production.

The F-22 is basically a millstone around the USAF's neck, one we should count our graces that we in Canada avoided. Even comparatively minor upgrades to the avionics (like integrating the AIM-9X or JHMC) are costing billions. Its experiencing serious corrosion problems, its skin easily delaminates, and that doesn't even go into the whole oxygen problem. Flyaway cost through FMS for a final production F-22 would have been around $157.7 million (137.7 million +15% fms.) That's basically two F-35s for one F-22.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
The F-22 should also be exported to our friends in Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, and the UK.

Fat chance. First off there is the legal challenge of overturning the Obey amendment. There is a lot of opposition against this, especially given the current austerity budgets. And yes, countries have tried. The Japanese basically tried every single lever they could pull, in Congress, through the Bush and Obama Administration(s) and the US Military's FMS program: it was an emphatic no from everyone. I'm sure the Israelis were just as active and they got nowhere, despite the large Israeli lobby.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14479 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
F-35's weapons bay volume is far larger than that of the F-22, which carries 6 internal AAMs.

If you think that, then there is no point in continuing my postings. Its flat out wrong. But don't take it from me, I just worked with Raptor's in the Air Force. Take it from what you think you know from what you've read.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 14438 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 12):
If you think that, then there is no point in continuing my postings. Its flat out wrong. But don't take it from me, I just worked with Raptor's in the Air Force. Take it from what you think you know from what you've read.

F-35 in the A and C model have bays that are sized to hold a 2,000lb class weapon. I can concede that the F-35B probably won't get 6 internal AIM-120's, as the F-35B's bays are smaller in size. F-22 at best holds 2 1,000lbs JDAM's, and was designed around the AIM-120's size. As such, it is not a deep nor as long as F-35, while F-35's bays, while not as wide, are deeper and longer.

It wasn't so long ago that the F-22 was designed to fit only 4 AIM-120B's only. It was only until late in the development phase that they got 6 AIM-120's in F-22 and modified F-22 to carry bombs, but that was after the fact. They got 6 AIM-120's into F-22 through using the AIM-120C, which was smaller by virtue of its clipped fins, and through staggering the missiles.

A new launcher will be required for F-35 to carry 6 AIM-120's. But that's down the road.


User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 14428 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
IIRC Reagan campaigned on putting the B1 bomber into production after Carter had cancelled it, and that's what happened.

That was my thinking as well. The Air Force says they needed 350 or so to efficiently stop China.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
An improved F-22B/C/D would be a good buy, and some models should be two seaters for training and/or a WSO.

This was my thinking as well. In 1993 they talked about replacing the F-14 tomcat with a carrier version of the F-22    I am sure that an improved F-22B/C could reduce some of the production costs and operating cost associated with the current F-22



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14361 times:

If they roll a FB-22 into this reactivation, it would help cover the costs of a 2 seat F-22 and reactivating the line.


I think they need a F-22 lite. Same air frame, no stealth coating, cheaper guts, no thrust vectoring. Bring the price way down on par with 4+ gen fighters, but keep it capable of being upgraded to the full F-22A standard.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14362 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 12):

If you think that, then there is no point in continuing my postings. Its flat out wrong. But don't take it from me, I just worked with Raptor's in the Air Force. Take it from what you think you know from what you've read.

Bill Sweetman hates the F-35 but put this up several years ago.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...04259d-8fca-4e42-8e17-44f5dca7edf4

I don't have inside program knowledge but it sure seems like the weapons should fit in the space depending on how you play with the space. Even if you can't it is not that big of a deal either way as it relates to the original question. An F-35 with 4 AMRAAM's is still potent enough to make restarting F-22 production a waste of money right now.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14357 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):


I think they need a F-22 lite. Same air frame, no stealth coating, cheaper guts, no thrust vectoring. Bring the price way down on par with 4+ gen fighters, but keep it capable of being upgraded to the full F-22A standard.

I am fairly sure this would be impractical and pointless. I am not sure how you make the guts cheaper. No thrust vectoring just means you have to rewrite the control laws for the avionics most likely which would cost you more than it would save. The coatings are really not the expensive part of the plane to begin with, they are just a pain in the ass to maintain.

If you were going to do anything with the F-22 what you do is re-skin it with the stuff they are using on the F-35 to save maint. cost.


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14185 times:

So what else could they do with a F22B? Will F135 Engines fit? It seems like they have 20% more thrust - are they better on fuel?

Adapt F35 avionics?

In several articles it talks about how the last F22 off the line were much better built than the first with stealth coatings that much more durable as well.

Build another 200 for the Airforce - scrap the F35 and build another 1,000 or so F16's and restart A10 production while your at it for the Marines to replace the F-35B.

Then build 200 F22 for the Navy for Air Dominance (11 Carriers x12 = 132 plus 68 for training/deep maintenance) and keep the the Super Hornet line going with the AESA Radar new Cockpit and 20% more thrust, as a flying bomb truck with the way paved by the the F22C

The Navy doesn't need a single engine warplane.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14174 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):
Then build 200 F22 for the Navy for Air Dominance

Not that easy! It would essentially end up being a different jet once navalized for carrier operations.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 17):
I am fairly sure this would be impractical and pointless.

I doubt the airframe is what makes the F-22 expensive. The F-22 has a lot of bells and whistles it could do without if being used as a secondary fighter or bomb truck.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14151 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
I doubt the airframe is what makes the F-22 expensive. The F-22 has a lot of bells and whistles it could do without if being used as a secondary fighter or bomb truck.

Why not just build the F-35 if you want a bomb truck since it was designed to carry bombs?

Doing all the change work on the F-22 would drive the price up, not down.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 14117 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):
The Navy doesn't need a single engine warplane.

You speak for the Navy now?

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 20):
Doing all the change work on the F-22 would drive the price up, not down.

People like the F-22 mostly due to fanboism. Never-mind facts.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 14108 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):
So what else could they do with a F22B?

Nobody is ever going to know now. The JSF was a generally poor idea which should have been known after the F-111, but we're too far down that road now to turn back. The industry should be commended for the F-35 not being worse off than it is.

Sure, the smarter thing ten or fifteen years ago would have been further development of the F-22 followed by the FB-22, but that's all water under the bridge now.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14075 times:

Well the idea of the UK having the F-22 is a non starter, way too expensive and even if they were given away the operating costs would be too onerous.
The future fast jet fleet is settled on two types, Typhoon and F-35.

It's also notable how weirdos like Romney and Ryan have this blind spot with Israel's less than stellar record with sensitive US military technology and China.
It could be said that previous episodes with this are in the past, however that's never stopped people like them citing other nations 'issues' with the US from further back in the past, real or imagined.
Israel did these things because they felt they had immunity from criticism, much less the prospect of any action, from the US body politic. Why else would they apparently risk their absolutely vital equipping and funding from the US?
So the real fault lies on Capitol Hill.

I agree this is all just electioneering, file alongside Gingrich's 'put a base on the Moon by 2020'.
Isn't it a bit odd also to on the one hand go on about the deficit but also say you want the already massive US defence expenditure increased even more?


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14031 times:

There was an FB22 idea but it was cancelled. I fail to see how a F35 would have more capacity than the F22 to carry ordnance, I just cant get around the physical difference.

The F22 is dead and will stay that way, we have to live with the compromised F35 as a compromise in its 3 different roles. The F35 program actually has overtaken the F22 program in cost per unit now   Great!

The F35 is a bad replacement of the combined F16 and F15 roles against gen5 enemies. The few F22s will not do any difference IMO.

I am sorry all F35 lovers, I just don't see it being the answer to all questions and the solution to all problems. And it will too get cut in numbers, ending up way short to deter an enemy in the future.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12341 posts, RR: 25
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14290 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
Not that easy! It would essentially end up being a different jet once navalized for carrier operations.

Depends on how hard you try. After the YF-17 lost to the YF-16, the Navy told the designers they had to make the F-18 landing gear fit through the same aperture as the YF-17, and they did.

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
The F22 is dead and will stay that way

Yes, despite this pleasant chat, that is true.

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
The few F22s will not do any difference IMO.

Interesting. In anyone else's air force, 185 Gen5 A/C would be seen as making a difference, so why not the USAF?

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
The F35 program actually has overtaken the F22 program in cost per unit now

Good news for you: above we read that you need to add $70M to the cost of each F22 if we restart the line.

Too bad we didn't do a round of flying prototypes for the F35 so we'd be sure we knew how to build them and so their costs wouldn't go crazy. Oops - we did do that, and the costs still went crazy!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14144 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):Then build 200 F22 for the Navy for Air Dominance
Not that easy! It would essentially end up being a different jet once navalized for carrier operations.

I believe it's universally understood that you can modify a carrier airplane and make it a good ground based plane, but you have to design an airplane from the ground up to make it a good carrier based plane.

As I recall, General Dynamics in the early years offered a navalized F-16 and it turned out to be so heavy and underperforming the Navy rejected it. France produced a navalized version of the Jaguar but its development coincided with development of the ground based model and I suspect some of what was learned building the carrier based prototype was utilized in the ground based model as well.

Technology being what it is today, I may be wrong about having to design a carrier based airplane from the ground up, but given the demands on a carrier based attack plane versus those on a ground placed attack bird, I doubt it.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1598 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 14334 times:

You could just buy the chinese knock-off of the thing.  http://i.imgur.com/1x4fg.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/D0Guf.jpg

And help pay the debt, lol.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 14282 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 27):
You could just buy the chinese knock-off of the thing.

Is that the J-20 second prototype or another jet? it looks more like a F-35 than the J-20 did. The photos are low quality, but I dont see the canards either. This looks more like an air superiority fighter than the J-20. Different markings too.


::edit::

It is a new Chinese stealth fighter! OMG!

[Edited 2012-09-15 18:25:15]

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1060 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14259 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 28):
Quoting Acheron (Reply 27):
You could just buy the chinese knock-off of the thing.

Is that the J-20 second prototype or another jet? it looks more like a F-35 than the J-20 did. The photos are low quality, but I dont see the canards either. This looks more like an air superiority fighter than the J-20. Different markings too.


::edit::

It is a new Chinese stealth fighter! OMG!

It's the same A/C as seen in earlier photo's... Nothing new to see here, please move along.  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 14047 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 29):
It's the same A/C as seen in earlier photo's... Nothing new to see here, please move along.

No its not, it is a smaller jet, here is a pic that surfaced today. The J-20 does not have stabilator or rudders.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z5dNEFlfhBI/UFVyn7ZVrwI/AAAAAAAARQ8/XBPxF1Spbkc/s1600/1347776830_63681.jpg


User currently offlinewacopolumbo From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13370 times:

It would be great to see more Raptors built. We could finally replace the final 3 Eagle Squadrons on Active duty - Origionally there were 5 squadrons left and for budget reasons, they prematurely shut down the guys here at Langley (71FS) and at Mountain Home (390FS). I have read these forums for years and don't post, mainly becuase most military stuff is sensitive or classified. But I can tell you that anyone who is read-in on both the F-22 and F-35 would NEVER agree that the F-35 can do the F-22 mission. There are too many limitations to the F-35 in the Air Dominance mission. It is the same as saying the F-16 could equally perform the F-15 Air Superiority mission. The F-15 has guys targeted and sorted well before the F-16 gets solid contacts.

Not meant as a flame to anyone, but the F-35 is no F-22. Then again, the F-35 has some unique mission profiles not able to be performed by the F-22.

If the F-35 is going to carry external oridinace after the first few days of the war, then why not buy a mix of F-35s and Block 60 Vipers. The Block 60 is basically an F-35 in F-16 clothing and much cheaper. Once LO is not needed, and the F-35 is hauling ordinance externally, why not a Block 60?

Back to the subject, the price of the F-22 has gone down with every airplane produced, the last one we brought to Langley (194) had a bill of just over $100 million. While, at the same time the F-35 price tag is going through the roof. Since production was cut to such a silly number, we could really use more....



wacopolumbo
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13239 times:

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 31):
If the F-35 is going to carry external oridinace after the first few days of the war, then why not buy a mix of F-35s and Block 60 Vipers. The Block 60 is basically an F-35 in F-16 clothing and much cheaper. Once LO is not needed, and the F-35 is hauling ordinance externally, why not a Block 60?

The Block 60 Viper is extremely expensive; 87 million dollars per copy back in 1998. With inflation, that rises to well over $117 million dollars a copy.

In addition, F-35's internal weapons capability is equal to that of a F-16 loaded wall to wall. Once stealth is no longer a primary issue, a F-35 can carry about three times (18,000lbs) the stores load of that of an F-16.
http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/f-35-and-current-weapons


User currently offlinewacopolumbo From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 12608 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 32):
The Block 60 Viper is extremely expensive; 87 million dollars per copy back in 1998. With inflation, that rises to well over $117 million dollars a copy.

In addition, F-35's internal weapons capability is equal to that of a F-16 loaded wall to wall. Once stealth is no longer a primary issue, a F-35 can carry about three times (18,000lbs) the stores load of that of an F-16.
http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlair...apons

The Block 60 was expensive because less than 100 were produced. The more you buy, the cheaper they get. Every Raptor, every jet we picked up from the factory had a cheaper price tag. However, with the R&D out of the way, it would have been able to get into the fleet faster than the F-35. Also, training (pilot and maintainer) would have faster/cheaper. Basically anyone who can fly a Viper, can fly a Block 60. It's the employment that changes slightly. Basically a TX course instead of a B course for the pilot and an FTD course for the maintainers.

As for the load-out. The F-35A in an LO configuaration will be 2x2xGun (AIM-120, Bomb, 25MM), where the F-16 is 2x2x2xGun (AIM-120, AIM-9, Bomb, 20MM). The Viper has mission flexibility for mixed loads too, ie 2 GBU-38 and 2 GBU-12 and mixing the air to air load to either 4 of either or 3 of one and one of the other. Typical night emplyment would be 4 AMRAAMs or 3 AMRAAMs and one heater. Don't discount the extra two missiles. In a turning fight, having the heaters is huge!

Granted, the F-35 does carry more weapons with pylons on the jet than a Viper, but then the LO advantage is gone and why not employ a Mud Hen with it's crew of 2 and plethera of air to ground options?

The thing that is NOT discussed when the F-35 is brought up is it's employment capabilities because that is close-hold. However, as operators, we aren't too excited about it. It is not as maneuverable as current aircraft, is slow and doesn't have much of a high show. Also, while it does have a poop-ton of internal fuel, that giant 40K thrust engine eats it at a higher rate than you would think.

I am NOT saying the F-35 is a bad aircraft. It has some great capability, but it's not the end all - be all (no single jet is). I think a mix of new 4th and 5th Gen fighters would be best from a cost, training, risk and emplyment standpoint. I would love to see a CAF made up of more Raptors, Lightnings, Strike Eagles, Block 60 Vipers and of course, re-engined A-10s. That also protects the CAF incase of a major problem with one platform, ie, the Raptor stand-down for O2 problems.

[Edited 2012-09-26 07:32:07]


wacopolumbo
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12450 times:

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33):
However, with the R&D out of the way, it would have been able to get into the fleet faster than the F-35.

Assuming F-16 production can ramp up that fast... FYI, long term lead items need to be ordered now otherwise the line is going to be shuttered in 2 years.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33):
As for the load-out. The F-35A in an LO configuaration will be 2x2xGun (AIM-120, Bomb, 25MM), where the F-16 is 2x2x2xGun (AIM-120, AIM-9, Bomb, 20MM).

F-16, even with the conformal fuel tank, will need external fuel tanks to achieve the maximum range. F-35 will achieve its maximum range on internal fuel alone, and for a slight range penalty, be loaded up with 18,000lb of nothing but weapons. With F-16, there is a trade off between range and fuel.
http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/f-35-and-current-weapons

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33):

Granted, the F-35 does carry more weapons with pylons on the jet than a Viper, but then the LO advantage is gone and why not employ a Mud Hen with it's crew of 2 and plethera of air to ground options?

Because you will only need 1 platform to do the jobs two platforms used to do; F-35 can kick down the door when loaded for low observability, and when the airspace opens up and we have achieved air superiority over the opponent, we can have the same aircraft be loaded with external weapons.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33):
. It is not as maneuverable as current aircraft, is slow and doesn't have much of a high show.

The minimum KPP of the F-35 in terms of maneuverability is F-16-like, with the best case goal being F/A-18 like. They are more than achieving the best case goal of F/A-18-like maneuverability:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...-Revealing-F-A-18-Like-Performance

Quote:
Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.

And it should be noted of the US fighters, the F/A-18 is the most maneuverable fighter in the US inventory.

F-35 also will out-accelerate any fighter in the US inventory, except for the F-22 and a clean F-16 Block 50. F-35 is designed for the transonic regime while practically every other fighter designed (except for F-22) is designed for operating at subsonic speeds. They only visit the supersonic performance range and only briefly.
http://www.livescience.com/3032-figh...et-controversial-future-fleet.html

Quote:
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.
Quote:
While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). "I don't see how that gets you an advantage" Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with existing designs.

Comparisons to the F-22 Raptor are unfair as "supersonically, the Raptor is in a class by itself. It lives there," Beesley explained. "In many ways the Raptor is the first true supersonic fighter," Beesley added, referring to that aircrafts' much publicized and unique supersonic cruise capability.


User currently offlinewacopolumbo From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 12238 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):

Again, all the references you provided are open source. Real-world is a bit different. No one in the CAF is jumping for joy for the F-35, especially the Viper drivers. The hornet is definitely NOT the most maneuverable. The hornet has advantages at low altitude and in slower flight in that it can point it's nose with authority, but lacks power to regain airspeed once in the slow fight. The Super Hornet is similar. The all-out best BFM machine we have is either a big mouth Block 30 or a Block 50/52 Viper. The Raptor is right up there too, but we don't have the helmet or 9x which are BFM essential today.

As a 20 Air Force guy that is still serving, I base these comments on experience and discussions with bros who are in the other communities.

Again, the F-35 has a place, but is not the end-all, be-all. It is primarily a bomber and heaven forbid it has to perform a primary air to air role.



wacopolumbo
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12225 times:

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 35):
Again, the F-35 has a place, but is not the end-all, be-all. It is primarily a bomber and heaven forbid it has to perform a primary air to air role.

This is based on your experience flying the F35? REAL F35 pilots say otherwise.....


User currently onlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2578 posts, RR: 17
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12175 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 36):
REAL F35 pilots say otherwise.....

Would you expect them to say anything else? Do you honestly expect any F-35 pilot to say something negative about the plane? Think about the PR effects of such a statement. I don't think the pilots are lying or anything, but you must admit they are biased and will probably only talk about what is GREAT about the aircraft. Clearly, nobody has taken other high performance aircraft in mind such as EF2000, Rafale, Su-30 etc.. and rightfully so since these pilots haven't had the chance to fly those aircraft. It would be silly for them to say "F-35 is more maneuverable than Su-30" when they can't justify the argument with experience.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12174 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 37):
Would you expect them to say anything else? Do you honestly expect any F-35 pilot to say something negative about the plane? Think about the PR effects of such a statement. I don't think the pilots are lying or anything, but you must admit they are biased and will probably only talk about what is GREAT about the aircraft. Clearly, nobody has taken other high performance aircraft in mind such as EF2000, Rafale, Su-30 etc.. and rightfully so since these pilots haven't had the chance to fly those aircraft. It would be silly for them to say "F-35 is more maneuverable than Su-30" when they can't justify the argument with experience.

I'd take the statement of a F-35 pilot 1000x over someone on the internet who thinks they know something, anything, about the program. Obviously pilots aren't going to publicly talk about the negatives of the aircraft for security reasons.

Quote:
Think about the PR effects of such a statement. I don't think the pilots are lying or anything, but you must admit they are biased and will probably only talk about what is GREAT about the aircraft.

Ya, its their jobs. I'd like to know which a.neters are involved with the JSF program, let alone military aviation. Seems to be a lot of "experts" on the net giving their opinions based on nothing. Thankfully, they don't dictate military programs or purchases.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12072 times:

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 35):
Again, all the references you provided are open source. Real-world is a bit different. No one in the CAF is jumping for joy for the F-35, especially the Viper drivers. The hornet is definitely NOT the most maneuverable. The hornet has advantages at low altitude and in slower flight in that it can point it's nose with authority, but lacks power to regain airspeed once in the slow fight. The Super Hornet is similar. The all-out best BFM machine we have is either a big mouth Block 30 or a Block 50/52 Viper. The Raptor is right up there too, but we don't have the helmet or 9x which are BFM essential today.

Considering that the USAF, the USMC, and the USN, in the Joint Strike Fighter Operational Requirements Document has instead placed F-16-like performance as the minimum required, and F/A-18 like performance as the objective, all three services will disagree with your assertion that the F-16 is more maneuverable.


User currently offlinewacopolumbo From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11508 times:

All I was trying to inject is a little real-world input into the dicussion. No I haven't flown it and don't want to. I come from an Eagle and Raptor background, with 20 years of service. Again, am NOT saying the F-35 is a bad platform. What I AM saying is that the F-35 is not the second coming. Having flown against Viper and Hornets (both legacy and Super), I can tell you the Viper is a much better BFM foe, except for the slower fight (below 330KIAS) and at lower altitudes (Below 15-18K) where the hornet can point its nose better, but struggles to regain energy.

My coments on the jet come from briefings and discussions with dudes who fly it. It IS an increible senor platform though.

This tread reminds me of the reasons over the years that I read posts (normally the airliner forum) and don't comment. I respect all of your opinions and although I have tried to shed some light on why more Raptors (OP) would be great and a mix of Lightings (we call it the pig or fat jet) and new build Strike Eagles and Vipers would be a great CAF mix. Again, based on my EXPERIENCE and discussions with bros who fly the F-35 and briefings on the jet (remember, we have to come up with a plan to integrate them into the AOB and battlespace).

Cheers,
Waco



wacopolumbo
User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 152 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11450 times:

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 40):
All I was trying to inject is a little real-world input into the dicussion

Please keep posting and don't let the snarky comments from the uninformed wannabees dissuade you. Your posts are more more informative and relevant than anything else here.

I tried to educate a few folks on some of the C-17 vs A400M threads about basic airlift realities. I wasn't that successful.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11445 times:

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 40):
What I AM saying is that the F-35 is not the second coming.

I don't think anyone is. Like already mentioned, if the USAF, USMC and US Navy thought that the F35 would be a poor performer then they wouldn't buy it, along with other international customers. I believe that later generations of fighters will be focused more on EW, Stealth and Avionics rather than who can turn the sharpest at certain conditions. Countries don't buy fighters (primarily) to wow crowds at airshows through fancy tumbling acts.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 11337 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 38):
Ya, its their jobs. I'd like to know which a.neters are involved with the JSF program, let alone military aviation. Seems to be a lot of "experts" on the net giving their opinions based on nothing. Thankfully, they don't dictate military programs or purchases.

You;'d be including yourself in that population ?

Once again, military programs and purchases, approvals and budgeting, are the purview of the civilian world, not the unis. For example, check the axe Harpo et al is taking to DND's budget ...



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11283 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 43):
You;'d be including yourself in that population ?

Somewhat.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 43):
Once again, military programs and purchases, approvals and budgeting, are the purview of the civilian world, not the unis.

That's all fine and dandy, but I was hinting more towards your average citizen in the population, not a politician. Its not like there are national votes on military purchases, that would just be foolish. Canada would probably end up with a bastardized Arrow made in Quebec because Canadians are generally dumb and pick the shiniest thing.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11168 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
Canada would probably end up with a bastardized Arrow made in Quebec because Canadians are generally dumb and pick the shiniest thing.

Like the F-35, one might suppose.  



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinewacopolumbo From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 11146 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 42):

The fact that the USAF, USMC and USN are buying the F-35 is not entirely their choice. There is a TON of politics involved in all of this. In the USAF, for example, where a Block 60 Viper or new Mudhens would be better financially and operationally in addition to the F-35 purchase it would NEVER happen because USAF leaders know the minute they acknowledge that we could use some more 4th Gen fighters, our Congress and WH would come back with the arguement that why have a 5th Gen fighter at all then. Of the three services, the Marines are the ones who are most in need of a new airplane. The Harrier has never been all that (high Pk for IR SAMS because of the central exhaust/IR source) and are a major pain for maintainers but they serve a unique USMC mission and they are now very long in the tooth and need to be retired/replaced. Hell, the Brits don't even fly them anymore. The Navy could always buy more Super Hornets and we could get Vipers and Mudhens (if you take the politics out), so its our Marines that are most in need of the F-35 and thats why they will be the first service to achieve IOC with them.

Remeber, we don't ALWAYs buy what's best, we buy what we are told to buy. The idea that one airplane can doo it all for all services has been tried before, The F-4 Phantom comes to mind. After that, SECDAF directed the USN and USAF to buy the F-111. The Navy realized the F-111 could not do it's mission and the F-14 was born, but not before a bunch of money was wasted on the Navy version of the F-111 (B Model).

The F-35 brings an incredible sensor suite to the fight as well as LO technology. Those are it's strengths. Also, for the foriegn buyers, its the only game in town. There are no other 5th Gen fighters available on the market.

That said, the LO advantage the F-35 brings also comes at a price. First, the LO technology on current 5th gen fighters has a shelf life. Eventually radars will be desined to detect them. That would be why the F-117 was retired. It was no longer relevant in the fight. It wasn't an SA-20 that brought the 117 down in Allied Force (1999), it was a SAM that has been around for a Loooooong time. Also, the LO is VERY maintenance intensive. Its not like the old days of removing a panel, fix the problem and installing the panel. Removing and installing panels on stealth aircraft add a lot of time to the maintenance process. The F-35 and F-22 have more maintenance man hours per flight hour than the Super Hornet, Viper or Eagle.

Having a current, approprietly sized 5th Gen fleet is important, but so is maintaining a larger fleet of updated 4th gen fighters that achieve sortie rates unavailable to the the 5th Gen jets.

I don't dislike the F-35 (wouldn't want to fly it), it will fill a mission requirement but it is no F-22. Like I said before, I would rather fly a Viper than an F-35.



wacopolumbo
User currently onlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2578 posts, RR: 17
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11110 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 46):
There are no other 5th Gen fighters available on the market.

No other 5th gen fighters that would be POLITICALLY available to F-35 buyers  


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11106 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 47):
No other 5th gen fighters that would be POLITICALLY available to F-35 buyers

There is no other commercially ready 5th generation fighter. The other ones are in prototype stage at this point and much further away from actual full service than the F-35.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11103 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 45):
Like the F-35, one might suppose.

Not really, the F-35 was chosen by the Military, not a civy.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11063 times:

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 46):
Hell, the Brits don't even fly them anymore

The Brits don't fly them anymore because they can't afford to, not because they don't want to.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 45):
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
Canada would probably end up with a bastardized Arrow made in Quebec because Canadians are generally dumb and pick the shiniest thing.

Your above quote uses a very broad brush - "Canadians" includes both civilians and military. Responding to that. When you want to make a point, be more precise.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinewacopolumbo From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11043 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 50):
The Brits don't fly them anymore because they can't afford to, not because they don't want to.

Part of my point. The Harrier is maintenance heavy and expensive to operate. What I find interesting is that they think they will be able to afford to fly the F-35 when they can't fly the Harrier. Then you have the F-35B to F-35C to F-35B decision.

The USMC jets are also long in the tooth. They Brit Harriers (not the Sea Harriers) were newer.



wacopolumbo
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10964 times:

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 46):
Remeber, we don't ALWAYs buy what's best, we buy what we are told to buy. The idea that one airplane can doo it all for all services has been tried before, The F-4 Phantom comes to mind. After that, SECDAF directed the USN and USAF to buy the F-111. The Navy realized the F-111 could not do it's mission and the F-14 was born, but not before a bunch of money was wasted on the Navy version of the F-111 (B Model).

Actually disagree, plenty of books were written about the topic, but the crux of the situation was that the Navy never wanted the F-111B in the first place. Inter-service rivalry reared its ugly head here as the Navy saw the F-111 as being an 'Air Force' aircraft as the project management staff was predominantly dominated by Air Force personnel, and tried to find ways of killing the project.

In fact, the Navy drastically redrafted the requirements so in essence, the F-14 would not have been able to meet the proposed specifications for the F-111B, and of course vice versa.

The specifications the Navy wrote for the F-111B was a totally unrealistic specification. Many think that the F-14A was far lighter than the F-111B, primarily because most comparisons neglect to do so using the F-111B’s design mission for both aircraft. The F-14A is still lighter, of course, because the Navy changed its requirements so that it would be. Deleted were the escape capsule, bomb bay, and swiveling wing pylon stations among other things. The Hughes Airborne Missile Control System, given a few more years of development, was lighter. The structure was designed for 6.5 gs at 49,548 lbs, about 10,000 pounds less than the F-111B’s design gross weight at that g level. In effect, the six Phoenixes and 3,800 lbs of fuel were treated as an overload for the design of the F-14A structure. At combat weight (13,800 lbs fuel and six Phoenix missiles) the F-111B therefore had a load limit of 5.8 g and the F-14A (12,000 lbs of fuel and six Phoenix missiles), a lower (but not particularly constraining) 5.2 g. The result, however, is a somewhat lower structural weight for the F-14A.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 46):
lso, the LO is VERY maintenance intensive. Its not like the old days of removing a panel, fix the problem and installing the panel. Removing and installing panels on stealth aircraft add a lot of time to the maintenance process. The F-35 and F-22 have more maintenance man hours per flight hour than the Super Hornet, Viper or Eagle.

F-35 does away with stealth coatings like on the F-22, B-2 and F-117. The stealth coating is instead baked directly into the skin of the aircraft in a stealth mat. There has been extensive durability studies of the F-35's skin to see how ordinary wear and tear and damage would do to the stealth signature, and to see how long the skin can last. Lockheed Martin, to make a point of how durable the skin is to wear and tear, actually has a piece of the stealth mat used as a floor mat at one of their labs and they occasionally pull it up and conduct tests to see how it fares. It can be argued that the F-22, B-2 and F-117 stealth coatings represent the first generation of stealth coatings. F-35's approach to stealth coatings represent the second generation of stealth coatings.

The biggest change with F-35's maintenance model is the switch from 'maintenance per schedule' to 'maintenance on demand'. The aircraft has a built in maintenance tracking system that can flag maintainers to fix problems as required while the jet is returning from a mission (say, as the aircraft is landing, the computer will uplink to the maintainer's computer systems and tell them that the F-35 returning right now is expected to require a oil change when it lands). ALIS will also capture data on the entire F-35 fleet and allows for pre-positioning of spare parts where they are needed and when using just-in-time logistics.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 40):
ll I was trying to inject is a little real-world input into the dicussion. No I haven't flown it and don't want to. I come from an Eagle and Raptor background, with 20 years of service. Again, am NOT saying the F-35 is a bad platform. What I AM saying is that the F-35 is not the second coming. Having flown against Viper and Hornets (both legacy and Super), I can tell you the Viper is a much better BFM foe, except for the slower fight (below 330KIAS) and at lower altitudes (Below 15-18K) where the hornet can point its nose better, but struggles to regain energy.

F-35 from what the pilots are saying is that it can turn like a F/A-18, but has the ability to retain and gain more energy. Remember, F-35 is designed for operating around the transonic range, and realistically, the only fighters that can match or beat the F-35's acceleration is a clean F-16 Block 50 or a F-22.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10889 times:

How many F22s would have been sold if there was no ban on sales? Japan and Australia really wanted it above the F35, that would have helped lower the frame cost for US Air Force as well. It´s not like its super alien tech anymore, maybe 10 years ago, but today others are catching up.

And why would the US not trust Japan and Australia with top notch tech? Have they ever been the least suspect like Israel has? Maybe Canada could have found a use for the F22 as well, long range patrols?


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10845 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 53):
How many F22s would have been sold if there was no ban on sales? Japan and Australia really wanted it above the F35, that would have helped lower the frame cost for US Air Force as well. It´s not like its super alien tech anymore, maybe 10 years ago, but today others are catching up.

Australia never really wanted it. They had a vocal media segment that wanted it and they had a couple of politicians on their side. The F-22 does not really meet their needs either.

It would make sense for Japan I guess.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10846 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 53):
Maybe Canada could have found a use for the F22 as well, long range patrols?

Just what Canada needs, a $250 million dollar air superiority fighter with poor reliability tooling around in the frozen Arctic. Ground radar is in place for a reason, no one does patrols any more.


User currently offlinewacopolumbo From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10842 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
F-35 does away with stealth coatings like on the F-22, B-2 and F-117. The stealth coating is instead baked directly into the skin of the aircraft in a stealth mat. There has been extensive durability studies of the F-35's skin to see how ordinary wear and tear and damage would do to the stealth signature, and to see how long the skin can last. Lockheed Martin, to make a point of how durable the skin is to wear and tear, actually has a piece of the stealth mat used as a floor mat at one of their labs and they occasionally pull it up and conduct tests to see how it fares. It can be argued that the F-22, B-2 and F-117 stealth coatings represent the first generation of stealth coatings. F-35's approach to stealth coatings represent the second generation of stealth coatings.

The maintenance pains don't deal with coatings on the panels themselves.

[Edited 2012-10-05 07:21:08]


wacopolumbo
User currently offlinewacopolumbo From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10848 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
F-35 from what the pilots are saying is that it can turn like a F/A-18, but has the ability to retain and gain more energy. Remember, F-35 is designed for operating around the transonic range, and realistically, the only fighters that can match or beat the F-35's acceleration is a clean F-16 Block 50 or a F-22.

What pilots? All the Canadian pilots flying the F-35? You're right, I give up. The guys I went to school with who are in the F-35 program must be misleading me. The F-35 is the best fighter ever and will be able to perform every mission better than any other platform.

By the way, every operational tactical fighter except for the F-22 is designed to operate in the transonic regime. However, I will "remember" your advice when I am working the F-22/F-35 joint employment standards for our community. I will be sure to check back here to read how I should employ the Raptor in a joint enviornment. After 20 years of flying Eagles and Raptors, I guess I should see if I can get into that fancy pig with wings...

You have highlighted the reason why I occasionally read things here and don't post. Since I had input to the OPs thread, I thought I would share, but I should have known that my real-world experience would be no match for folks who read stuff and repeat it as fact.

Good day and check six.



wacopolumbo
User currently onlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2578 posts, RR: 17
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10832 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
long term lead items need to be ordered now otherwise the line is going to be shuttered in 2 years.

Long lead tools do not take 2 years to make. That's ridiculous.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
And it should be noted of the US fighters, the F/A-18 is the most maneuverable fighter in the US inventory.

Says who? Define maneuverability. I'm interested to see what stats are being used to define how maneuverable an aircraft is.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
F-35 is designed for the transonic regime while practically every other fighter designed (except for F-22) is designed for operating at subsonic speeds. They only visit the supersonic performance range and only briefly.

Transonic speed is roughly defined as between Mach 0.8-1.2 . Almost every fighter is designed for that. Hell, even commercial jetliners cruise at transonic speed. I seriously doubt the F-35 is designed to cruise at M1 as that would create unnecessary amounts of drag and increase fuel burn.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 57):
You have highlighted the reason why I occasionally read things here and don't post. Since I had input to the OPs thread, I thought I would share, but I should have known that my real-world experience would be no match for folks who read stuff and repeat it as fact.

I've enjoyed reading your posts but the Canadian F-35 fanbo....ahem...experts, usually dominate these threads. Don't let that turn you away, this is a discussion forum after all. I like the F-35, but I don't blindly think it is the greatest fighter ever. The F-22 is still a better air-to-air platform. the A-10 still better at air-to-ground and CAS IMO . The Harrier is frankly the only plane the F-35 vastly outperforms.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10828 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
F-35 does away with stealth coatings like on the F-22, B-2 and F-117. The stealth coating is instead baked directly into the skin of the aircraft in a stealth mat. T

I'll give you that one, stealth coatings have definitely advanced in 30 or so years. Of course, so has radar technology and there is a rump of general staff officers who question the whole notion of stealth being an advantage if it is so expensive.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
The biggest change with F-35's maintenance model is the switch from 'maintenance per schedule' to 'maintenance on demand'.

Which only makes sense. maintenance to schedule is essentially make-work.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 55):
Quoting sweair (Reply 53):
Maybe Canada could have found a use for the F22 as well, long range patrols?

Just what Canada needs, a $250 million dollar air superiority fighter with poor reliability tooling around in the frozen Arctic. Ground radar is in place for a reason, no one does patrols any more.

Quite. Any overwatch required can be handled by Global Hawk.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 57):
After 20 years of flying Eagles and Raptors, I guess I should see if I can get into that fancy pig with wings...

But tell us what you really think !  



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10786 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 58):
I like the F-35, but I don't blindly think it is the greatest fighter ever.

I don't think that anyone who supports the F-35 thinks that.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 58):
The F-22 is still a better air-to-air platform.

I sure hope it is, considering they spent all those Billions developing the thing as one. Now if the damn thing could only drop bombs it wouldn't be completely useless in today's world.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10761 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 53):
How many F22s would have been sold if there was no ban on sales?

It would have been Japan, Australia, and then maybe Israel and a couple other wealthy Middle Eastern countries.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 57):
After 20 years of flying Eagles and Raptors, I guess I should see if I can get into that fancy pig with wings...

There's nothing wrong with having a pig with wings unless you're trying to run a horse race. Like you said before, the one plane fits all idea has been tried before and didn't work so hot. The best planes are built for one purpose and expanded.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 58):
I seriously doubt the F-35 is designed to cruise at M1 as that would create unnecessary amounts of drag and increase fuel burn.

That's basically the worst speed to cruise at. The Concorde would relight the afterburners to save fuel by spend less time in the transonic regime.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10679 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 58):
Long lead tools do not take 2 years to make. That's ridiculous.

They do. Witness recent military aircraft purchases; the first contract for the ROKAF's F-15K's were signed in 2002 and first deliveries commenced in 2005; the RSAF's F-15SG's were first ordered in 2005, and first deliveries commenced in 2007; the RAAF's F/A-18E/F's were ordered 2007, with first deliveries in 2009; the PolAF's F-16 Block 52's were ordered in 2003, and deliveries commenced in 2006.

All four were in-production aircraft, and in the case of the F-15's, on a line that was essentially empty of orders.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 58):
Transonic speed is roughly defined as between Mach 0.8-1.2 . Almost every fighter is designed for that. Hell, even commercial jetliners cruise at transonic speed. I seriously doubt the F-35 is designed to cruise at M1 as that would create unnecessary amounts of drag and increase fuel burn.

Most fighters are actually fully subsonic aircraft when loaded with ordinance. They only reach supersonic speeds under very specific configurations and they rarely if ever hit their top speeds. For example, the entire time the world F-15 fleet has ever spent anywhere near the rated top speed since the introduction of the F-15 can be measured in a few hours, as the F-15 can only reach its top speeds very lightly loaded, and usually under Functional Check Flights. In fact, the F-15 fleet has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span.

If you were to compare from a frontal aspect between a similarly loaded F-16 and a similarly loaded F-35, the F-35 will have a significant advantage in terms of how aerodynamically clean it is compared to the F-16.

What's important regarding F-35 is that it can hit its top speeds while carrying ordinance and a decent amount of fuel, much like the F-22 as it can carry ordinance internally, and can accelerate at a rate that is only matched by few aircraft.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 57):
What pilots? All the Canadian pilots flying the F-35? You're right, I give up. The guys I went to school with who are in the F-35 program must be misleading me. The F-35 is the best fighter ever and will be able to perform every mission better than any other platform.

Would Lockheed Martin's chief test pilot mean anything to you? If you have concerns regarding F-35's performance, bring them up to John Beesley, who made these claims. If he has stuck his head out and said that the F-35 is at minimum, on par with an F-16, then I doubt he's lying.

Quote:

In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in "large measure like the F-22, but it's smaller, and stiffer" than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.

I will point out that he would be very well qualified to evaluate aircraft performance; He has more than 5,500 hours of flight time in over 50 different aircraft, including the F-16, F-117 and the F-22. He also flew Soviet-era fighters during a tour with the USAF “Red Hats” squadron in 1979-80.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10666 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):
Would Lockheed Martin's chief test pilot mean anything to you? If you have concerns regarding F-35's performance, bring them up to John Beesley, who made these claims. If he has stuck his head out and said that the F-35 is at minimum, on par with an F-16, then I doubt he's lying.

If not a shill for LockMart, Beesley is at least doing serious PR for the F-35. Ergo his statements need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):
the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor,

Which is where some of the buffet problems remain, I believe.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):
I will point out that he would be very well qualified to evaluate aircraft performance; He has more than 5,500 hours of flight time in over 50 different aircraft, including the F-16, F-117 and the F-22. He also flew Soviet-era fighters during a tour with the USAF “Red Hats” squadron in 1979-80.

I have no doubt Mr Beesley is a very well qualified pilot.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10668 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 63):
If not a shill for LockMart, Beesley is at least doing serious PR for the F-35. Ergo his statements need to be taken with a grain of salt.

I would also add the BAE test pilots as well to the mix; they are also very highly impressed with the F-35's ease of handling.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 63):
Which is where some of the buffet problems remain, I believe.

I will point out that the F-14, the F/A-18 and the F-15 all had buffeting problems, and they were resolved in one way or another; in the case of the F-14 for example, they just ignored the problem altogether during testing. The F/A-18's buffeting problems were extremely bad, and it caused severe structural life issues until it was resolved, FYI. Nothing new in terms of fighter development.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10633 times:

There was a RAF pilot that got to fly the raptor, now if he would get to fly the F35 as well we would have a nice impartial source   Off topic I saw that a french air force pilot flew a A-10 in Afghanistan, quite cool IMO.

User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10596 times:

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 57):
You have highlighted the reason why I occasionally read things here and don't post. Since I had input to the OPs thread, I thought I would share, but I should have known that my real-world experience would be no match for folks who read stuff and repeat it as fact.

As the OP I have enjoyed you real-world experience comments. With the U.S. election one month away from today, this topic will stay relevant for some time.

Your input to this thread has also been suggested by FlightGlobal in this blog:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...omney-proposes-more-raptors-l.html

Quote:
source of mine, who has the resume to back-up what he says, once suggested that the US Air Force would have been better off buying the F-22 as its high-end fighter while filling the low-end of the fleet with new-build Block 60+ F-16s.

Simply, the USAF would be better off with a good number of highly capable Raptors that could take down an enemy's air and surface-based defenses while relatively low-cost (compared to the F-35) new-build F-16s could add some needed bulk to the fleet. The Navy, he had argued, has a modern fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with active electronically scanned array radars and other goodies... which offer excellent capability for the price. He had asked, would the USAF not be better off in 10 years with say 400-ish F-22s and 1000 new Block 60 F-16s?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10546 times:

There is nothing to say that in 10 years, the F-22 could be certified to fly ground attack the same as the F-15 became the Strike Eagle... the majority of the changes would be software for dropping some iron.

If the F-35 gets axed, and the F-22 line starts to reopen, there will be shit storm over the cost to open the line again, on top of the still quite high price of the gen 4.5 fighters that need to be ordered.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10525 times:

From like 3 or 4000 aircraft to 182 F22 and some hundred F35s.. Quite the reduction for US Airforce?!

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10521 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 68):
From like 3 or 4000 aircraft to 182 F22 and some hundred F35s.. Quite the reduction for US Airforce?!

Reduction in numbers but an increase in capability. The days of 1000+ fleet of aircraft for the US is coming to an end.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10240 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 69):
Reduction in numbers but an increase in capability. The days of 1000+ fleet of aircraft for the US is coming to an end.



I think it will depend on the opposition, if China or Russia can amass 3000 fighters I think a few high tech fighters is as good as a white flag. The F35 IMO is not a top notch fighter, I bet gripen would run circles around it.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10178 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 70):
I think it will depend on the opposition, if China or Russia can amass 3000 fighters I think a few high tech fighters is as good as a white flag. The F35 IMO is not a top notch fighter, I bet gripen would run circles around it.

Are we staging an air show or conducting an air campaign here? I struggle to see how a fighter carrying a less advanced radar that is going to be far more visible at range is going to cope effectively with a fighter with a better radar, low observability and the advantage of being able to operate in a networked fashion with its squadron mates. I think we need to be honest with criticism of the F-35. It is relying heavily on its 360 degree sensor system to compensate for what will be good but not world class agility. But I think it is massively overstating it to say the F-35 is not a top notch fighter. If that is the case than what qualifies? The F-22 and only the F-22?

I would not want to mess with an F-35 in a legacy airplane (non-lo) under any but the most favorable circumstances.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10149 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 70):
The F35 IMO is not a top notch fighter, I bet gripen would run circles around it.

The UK, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Singapore and now Japan all disagree. If the Gripen is such a great fighter then why doesn't anyone buy it?

Quoting sweair (Reply 70):
I think it will depend on the opposition, if China or Russia can amass 3000 fighters I think a few high tech fighters is as good as a white flag.

This is assuming 100% availability. All the US would have to do is take out the runways and then what. 100 or less Tomahawk missiles and all those numbers mean nothing.


User currently offlineFBWless From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10044 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 72):
The UK, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Singapore and now Japan all disagree. If the Gripen is such a great fighter then why doesn't anyone buy it?

Anyone? Try South Africa, Thailand and Czech R & Hungary as leases. Switzerland and Croatia are close to deals. Add to this the political influence and domestic market needed to design and manufacture 4G (and above) fighters. What other country of the size of Sweden has this ability? Maybe Canada?? As Sweden is a tiny political player in the world, Gripen has only its capability expressed as gain times price to warrant its existence. Sure there are other fighters with higher gains, but at what price?

Norwegian politicians and military had to lie about projected price of the F-35 and falsify Gripen capability (as well as trash talking the Gripen) to sell it to the public. That decision was so biased even EF pulled out early from the competition. The only positive outcome for SAAB was that the Gripen NG demonstrator could be built.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9914 times:

Quoting FBWless (Reply 73):
Add to this the political influence and domestic market needed to design and manufacture 4G (and above) fighters. What other country of the size of Sweden has this ability? Maybe Canada?? As Sweden is a tiny political player in the world, Gripen has only its capability expressed as gain times price to warrant its existence. Sure there are other fighters with higher gains, but at what price?

Couple of problems:
1. Europe's fighter aviation industry is on the decline. SAAB, Dassault, BAE, all don't have a 5th generation fighter in development. It is expected that without a 5th generation fighter, the Europeans are going to struggle to stay alive in the fighter business. In all likelihood at least one, and likely two of the three will be effectively out of business by 2020. Saab will almost certainly disappear, followed by either Dassault, or the Eurofighter consortium (and it is most likely the Eurofighter consortium, as one of its participants, BAE is looking towards a merger with Airbus).

2. The Gripen as it exists today is simply nothing special. It is a modern but very small airframe with a minimal radar and EW suite. It has a datalink and more or less all of the other features one would expect in a passably modern 4th generation aircraft, but it isn't a world beater in any respect. It is small and cheap. It is reliant on the US for its engines, BVR weapon, and other key technologies which means it will always be competing head to head with the F-16, and as history has demonstrated, almost always losing.

The Gripen NG concept is a pretty impressive attempt to bring what is currently a more or less standard 4th generation aircraft up to the nebulous 4.5 generation level. It is essentially taking the Super Hornet approach to the Gripen. Grow the airframe, add fuel, add thrust, add an AESA and other modern avionics. The end result would be a nifty little plane, but one that would arrive on the scene rather late. It also has that one little issue of not actually having been ordered by anyone. There are a lot of concept planes floating around out there and most of them never get built. If the Gripen NG is going to become anything more than a footnote in history someone needs to come forward with enough cash to order 100+ of them.

Quoting FBWless (Reply 73):
Norwegian politicians and military had to lie about projected price of the F-35 and falsify Gripen capability (as well as trash talking the Gripen) to sell it to the public. That decision was so biased even EF pulled out early from the competition. The only positive outcome for SAAB was that the Gripen NG demonstrator could be built.

There are bigger forces at play, one that affects Sweden. The Norwegian defence contractor Kongsberg, is now currently in the final development stages on a new fifth generation SSM ( Naval Strike Missile). They intend to compete internationally against Sweden in the SSM market, and try to push Sweden out of the market. Kongsberg has been developing a version of the NSM for internal carriage on F-35 (the Joint Strike Missile) with Lockheed Martin as the standard anti-shipping missile for F-35.
Obviously this has big ramifications; not only did Sweden lose a export customer for Gripen, but they will be facing a significant threat to their market for a huge share of the market for SSMs.

In addition, the Norwegian government is also very keen for Nammo to take a large portion of the market for ammunition for the F-35's 25mm gun as well.

Considering the planned procurement numbers for F-35, and the multitude of export and partner customers for F-35, it is not surprising that the weapon industry in Norway made a significant push for F-35.


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9907 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):
Build another 200 for the Airforce - scrap the F35 and build another 1,000 or so F16's and restart A10 production while your at it for the Marines to replace the F-35B.

The A-10 was cut due to several cost over runs even worse than the F-35. The best option was to build a new and improved F-14 but was scrapped for political reasons, building and F-22 Naval verison is way too costly and would never be approved thats why it wasn't in the first place. Do I think we need to build more F-22's no, its no longer functional when Regan revived the B-1 a more improved and viable option was already on the table. There is no other options that have been worked on for the F-22, what it boils down to is the DOD put all of its eggs in 2 baskets by the same company and its now costing everyone. Realistically the aircraft we have no for the foreseable future are more than capable of handling any threats. For the long term they need to go back to the drawing board and design a new fighter. The F-35 (and you can say whatever you want) is an over costa nd over bloated F-16. The F-22 is a fantastic plane that is too difficult and expensive to operate is its only down fall. The F-35 "IS NOT" as capable as the F-22 and never will be. The F-23 proposed by Boeing and northrop grumman was the more viable option.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
People like the F-22 mostly due to fanboism. Never-mind facts.

But yet you two guys from Canada know more about the aircraft than a guys who worked on one. Go figure.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9892 times:

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The A-10 was cut due to several cost over runs even worse than the F-35.

Still I think it is worth revisiting. Not the mention that the Air Force really doesn't have any love for the A-10. They'd just as soon get rid of them in favor of something faster.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The best option was to build a new and improved F-14 but was scrapped for political reasons,

That's what the Super Hornet could have been had the A-12 not been scrapped. When that happened they had to start making compromises.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The F-35 (and you can say whatever you want) is an over costa nd over bloated F-16.

To be fair, it's also far more capable. I find the whole idea of the JSF misguided and think the F-35 could have been a better overall package had it been designed more as an F-16 replacement than a catch-all airframe for everyone.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The F-23 proposed by Boeing and northrop grumman was the more viable option.

It was also more risky if I remember correctly. I haven't looked at it in too much detail, but I don't see how the F-23 would have rectified many of the shortcomings of the F-22.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2578 posts, RR: 17
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9968 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 62):
In fact, the F-15 fleet has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span.

Isn't the F-15 fleet now limited to M1.6?

Quoting sweair (Reply 70):
I think it will depend on the opposition, if China or Russia can amass 3000 fighters

If you think America has too few planes then you should really take a closer look at Russia's air force. They don't even have 1500 aircraft of ALL types now with the latest severe cuts these past couple of years....let alone fighters. The Navy's air fleet is in shambles and barely has anything left now.

Second, even if China has 3000 fighters I 100% guarantee you there simply cannot be a 3000 aircraft vs 100 F-22s battle. It would be impossible to stage that many aircraft. Where would they even take off from?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9922 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 77):
Isn't the F-15 fleet now limited to M1.6?

Pretty much... cracks and metal fatigue have taken their toll on the F-15 fleet.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 77):
Second, even if China has 3000 fighters I 100% guarantee you there simply cannot be a 3000 aircraft vs 100 F-22s battle. It would be impossible to stage that many aircraft. Where would they even take off from?

Indeed. Not enough airfields in China to launch that many aircraft close to their borders... now imagine a number of those airfields unusable due to heavy attacks on them...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
Still I think it is worth revisiting. Not the mention that the Air Force really doesn't have any love for the A-10. They'd just as soon get rid of them in favor of something faster.

The A-10s production line is *gone*. And you can be certain that if we built more today they'd cost a HELL of a lot more. It won't be like the first A-10 off the line with limited avionics; they are going to want to install all of the upgrades from the -C upgrade from the beginning. Add the costs to restart product, and you'd be *lucky* if it came in at less than $50 million.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
To be fair, it's also far more capable. I find the whole idea of the JSF misguided and think the F-35 could have been a better overall package had it been designed more as an F-16 replacement than a catch-all airframe for everyone.

To be fair, F-35 is going to be far more capable than the initial versions of the F-16. The first F-16's were essentially day fighters; no BVR capability, some dumb bombs at best. F-35 is going to IOC at a level very similar to the Block 30's (in terms of structural & avionics changes). The DoD decided to look at what it wanted the F-35 to do, what it needed, and went directly to Blk3 instead of a stripped down Blk1 (ala F-16A). This will obviously take longer but will save money in the long run due to not having the need to upgrade all those Blk1/2 airframes.

The plan for the F-35 is Hardware upgrades every two Blocks (starting with Blk2). These are called tech refreshes (TRs). So Even Blocks comprise a TR & Software and Odd Blocks are Software only (with small hardware upgrades where needed). With the F-35, it's easier to upgrade the aircraft one already has as opposed to the parking old ones in the desert as B/C/D/E/F/G variants come off the line.

[Edited 2012-10-08 22:50:50]

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9468 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 78):
It won't be like the first A-10 off the line with limited avionics; they are going to want to install all of the upgrades from the -C upgrade from the beginning. Add the costs to restart product, and you'd be *lucky* if it came in at less than $50 million.

Compared to what the F-35 will cost and considering how well the A-10 does its job, I'd take that deal. I'd even take it if it came in somewhat more than that.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 78):
To be fair, F-35 is going to be far more capable than the initial versions of the F-16. The first F-16's were essentially day fighters; no BVR capability, some dumb bombs at best.

That's exactly my point: the F-16 was built with a singular mission in mind and was able to do that mission very well and also grew into something much more well rounded. Same with the F-15: all that talk of "not a pound for air to ground" didn't do a whole lot to stop the F-15E.

Generally, the best planes are designed to perform one job exceptionally well and then grown out from there. Designing a plane from day one to be all things to all people leads to a lot of costs and compromises.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9475 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 79):
Compared to what the F-35 will cost and considering how well the A-10 does its job, I'd take that deal. I'd even take it if it came in somewhat more than that.

However, the A-10 is a one trick pony. All it can do is ground attack, and while it was okay to have one trick ponies during the Cold War, we don't have the manpower resources to support having singular mission aircraft for every mission.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 79):

That's exactly my point: the F-16 was built with a singular mission in mind and was able to do that mission very well and also grew into something much more well rounded. Same with the F-15: all that talk of "not a pound for air to ground" didn't do a whole lot to stop the F-15E.

Generally, the best planes are designed to perform one job exceptionally well and then grown out from there. Designing a plane from day one to be all things to all people leads to a lot of costs and compromises.

Actually, the F-16 grew from the YF-16. The YF-16 was designed to be a single mission day fighter.

It should be noted that the USAF procured the F-16 as a fighter-bomber, in contradiction to its initial plans for the LWF as a lightweight day fighter. As a result, the F-16 was modified from the YF-16 in mind to be a multirole aircraft, but the initial versions of the F-16 lacked the capabilities that later blocks of the F-16 had. Through various blocks, MSIP stages, and OCU's, they progressively added more capabilities while parking older variants.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9450 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 80):
However, the A-10 is a one trick pony.

And it does an extraordinary job of it. The F-35 in a similar mission would be more vulnerable and not be in a position to utilize its low observable characteristics or ultramodern sensors which drive a significant portion of the costs.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 80):
All it can do is ground attack,

Which happens to be exactly what the USMC needs.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9449 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 81):
And it does an extraordinary job of it. The F-35 in a similar mission would be more vulnerable and not be in a position to utilize its low observable characteristics or ultramodern sensors which drive a significant portion of the costs.

The A-10 will not fare well against a opponent with decent integrated air defence system. For the opponents and battles it has been sent in on, there was either negligible or very low risks to the aircraft.

The F-35 on a similar mission would be better able to take advantage of its sensors to get a better picture of the battlefield so the pilot can better plan their attacks. It also helps the the warfighters on the ground as you now have a eye in the sky that will provide superior situational awareness of the area around him.

With a 360 degree field of view from sensors, and supercomputer++ processing power, a human being piloting an airplane will never approach the F-35s see-all capability. All it takes to fool a human being is for someone to hide under some brush, or to hide a SAM under some form of camouflage. A F-35 can see a missile launch from a very long way away and pinpoint where it was launched. It can then pass the information along to other F-35's operating in the area, compare sensor information between all of them, and cooperatively engage a target, which of course is the real advance in the F-35: the fusion of sensors and platforms to maximize the usefulness of the information each sensor gathers. An A-10 will never do that.

I will point out that flying low and slow with the Mark 1 eyeball will not always allow you to reliably find targets. I will point out there is an instance during Gulf War II, 5 pairs of UK-issue Mk-1 eyeballs (3 on a Lynx and 2 on a Gazelle) were nearly at a loss to locate and neutralize a single Iraqi T-55 that was very happily taking potshots at the former, despite flying low and slow outside of Basra. The F-35's IR sensors may not detect targets, if the moisture content obscures signatures, but its SAR/GMTI should be able to see them. If one of these obscured weapon systems opens fire, then the EODAS will see that, and then all other F-35's in the area, will know the location. And if the F-35's sensors cannot find a target, then no Mark 1 eyeball will find the target.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 81):
Which happens to be exactly what the USMC needs.

The F-35 program was brought into existence in the first place because of budgetary limitations. Nobody doubts that in a perfect world a half dozen different specialized aircraft would be better.

In the real world we don't have the money to develop and sustain these hypothetical new designs and on the fastest possible timeline they would only be available sometime in the 2020s. (Depending how much concurrency, reliance on models and simulation, and risk you are willing to accept... )


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9438 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
The A-10 will not fare well against a opponent with decent integrated air defence system.

You mean the ones the F-35 should have wiped out on the first day of the war?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
A F-35 can see a missile launch from a very long way away and pinpoint where it was launched.

A-10s don't work and get shot at from a long way away. There isn't much stealth that's going to be useful against an enemy looking into the sky and seeing a plane.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
A F-35 can see a missile launch from a very long way away and pinpoint where it was launched. It can then pass the information along to other F-35's operating in the area, compare sensor information between all of them, and cooperatively engage a target, which of course is the real advance in the F-35: the fusion of sensors and platforms to maximize the usefulness of the information each sensor gathers. An A-10 will never do that.

I'm not saying that the A-10 avionics and sensors shouldn't be upgraded. But along with the useful sensors, the F-35 is always going to be carrying a lot of sensors and equipment that is useless for a given mission.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
The F-35 program was brought into existence in the first place because of budgetary limitations.

...and we can see how that turned out. Not that much better than the last time we tried the one size fits all approach. Maybe next time we'll figure it out and skip right to the more capable platforms with fewer compromises.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9401 times:

Who thinks the F35 would do a better job of CAS in Afghanistan than the A10? The F35 will have to be very good at 5 or 6 different roles, with one platform.. Call me a sceptic..

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12341 posts, RR: 25
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9309 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 74):
Europe's fighter aviation industry is on the decline. SAAB, Dassault, BAE, all don't have a 5th generation fighter in development.

Indeed, but:

Quote:

BAE produces the aft fuselage, tails, fins, electronic warfare system, and various other sub-systems for the F-35 Lightning II

so I think they have skin in the game.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 74):
Saab will almost certainly disappear, followed by either Dassault, or the Eurofighter consortium

Adapt or die. Find a new challenge, like building a high capability UAV at a significantly lower price point than the US gold plated models.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The F-22 is a fantastic plane that is too difficult and expensive to operate is its only down fall.

It has flaws beyond these, and the expense one is the one that is going to be its downfall.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 75):
The A-10 was cut due to several cost over runs even worse than the F-35.

Still I think it is worth revisiting. Not the mention that the Air Force really doesn't have any love for the A-10. They'd just as soon get rid of them in favor of something faster.

Ok, what are we talking about, A-10 or A-12?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
When that happened they had to start making compromises.

Reality is that more compromises will be coming.

There's only so far the "paying the price of freedom" rhetoric will go.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9295 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
The A-10 will not fare well against a opponent with decent integrated air defence system. For the opponents and battles it has been sent in on, there was either negligible or very low risks to the aircraft.

The F-35 on a similar mission would be better able to take advantage of its sensors to get a better picture of the battlefield so the pilot can better plan their attacks. It also helps the the warfighters on the ground as you now have a eye in the sky that will provide superior situational awareness of the area around him.

Current display issue of AIR International has a lengthy feature on F-35, using pilot and mx crew interviews, as well as commentary from defense analysts. Of course the pilots defend the a/c. However, Pierre Sprey, Pentagon analyst, says "the aircraft has sluggish performance" and in a dogfight "would be destroyed by something like a MiG-21". As well, Sprey says "as a CAS platform, F-35 is laughable".

USMC Col Arthur "Turbo" Tomassetti, #2 in 33rd FW, concedes that compared to F-35, a mission-specific a/c will outperform it. Vol 83, #4, ppg 44-49.

These guys make their living at this, their opinions count for something.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 82):
The F-35 program was brought into existence in the first place because of budgetary limitations. Nobody doubts that in a perfect world a half dozen different specialized aircraft would be better.

Yes, well that has worked out well, hasn't it ?

Quoting sweair (Reply 84):
Who thinks the F35 would do a better job of CAS in Afghanistan than the A10? The F35 will have to be very good at 5 or 6 different roles, with one platform.. Call me a sceptic..

Count me in.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9247 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
Ok, what are we talking about, A-10 or A-12?

I was talking about the A-10, but my thoughts on the A-12 are pretty well established at this point.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 9230 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 86):
However, Pierre Sprey, Pentagon analyst, says "the aircraft has sluggish performance" and in a dogfight "would be destroyed by something like a MiG-21". As well, Sprey says "as a CAS platform, F-35 is laughable".

Sprey is not with the Pentagon anymore I don't believe and has not been for a long time. Frankly...and I recognize the guy had value at one point...he is bonkers. His ideas about what the F-16 should have been were laughable and he was pitching his doom and gloom before the 1st Gulf War. He is a guy who wants lots of cheap planes that point their nose quickly, beyond that I am not sure what he is contributing to the discussion anymore.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...February%202008/0208reformers.aspx

I think that article is pretty telling on how extreme his group really was. They opposed the majority of the weapons that decisively won the 1st Gulf War.

On the CAS issue I would say it very much depends on what you are being asked to do. I would guess that for 90% of the missions the A-10 would be asked to do with Mavericks, LGB's, SDB's and Cluster Bombs the F-35 would be its equal or better at employing those weapons in a CAS environment. There will be a few missions the F-35 can't do as well, but as others have said, that is the price of a smaller defense budget. There is no way that straight replacements for the F-16, A-10, Harrier and F-18 would have been cheaper overall than the F-35. It would have been significantly more expensive. The downside of that is going to be a few compromises.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9201 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 86):
However, Pierre Sprey, Pentagon analyst, says

Stopped reading after that.

Overall, I find it laughable that civilians are putting in their    regarding CAS and other military matters. You are not the experts (nor am I for that matter). There are always people who bitch and complain whenever there is a new military program.

Quoting sweair (Reply 84):
Who thinks the F35 would do a better job of CAS in Afghanistan than the A10?

The reality is, it doesn't matter what you think - that's not attacking you personally its just what it is. If you think you can do a better job fighting wars then I suggest you go enlist and make it up high enough in rank where you can start changing things. Until then, CAS will be handled by the professionals. They won't be using equipment that they think is not up to the task. If the F35 wasn't meeting combat performance goals set out by the DOD it would've been axed a long time ago. It's not the piece of crap everyone would like to think it is.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9161 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
so I think they have skin in the game.

It has been argued that at best these companies will be parts suppliers to larger OEM's across the pond.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):

You mean the ones the F-35 should have wiped out on the first day of the war?

While you can eliminated a good chunk of enemy air defences, you can't eliminate them all. Had we faced a opponent in Afghanistan and Iraq that was better equipped and more motivated, we would have lost a lot more A-10's. The Package Q Strike during Gulf War I is a clear reminder that despite achieving air superiority over a opponent, a well equipped enemy still has the ability to maul and inflict significant harm to your forces.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
A-10s don't work and get shot at from a long way away. There isn't much stealth that's going to be useful against an enemy looking into the sky and seeing a plane.

Unless the aircraft is flying high, and can still make out and determine targets from a higher altitude. Remember the majority of armour kills for the A-10 occurred using the Maverick missile, not the gun due to the very high Iraqi AAA threat.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
I'm not saying that the A-10 avionics and sensors shouldn't be upgraded. But along with the useful sensors, the F-35 is always going to be carrying a lot of sensors and equipment that is useless for a given mission.

Situational awareness is the game for F-35. Being able to use all of its sensors to put together a picture of the battlefield around him will allow the pilot to better coordinate his strikes in a quick and timely fashion, and allow mission planners to better allocate assets.

It will be a long while until other aircraft get the same level of sensor fusion and networking capabilities as F-35.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
...and we can see how that turned out. Not that much better than the last time we tried the one size fits all approach. Maybe next time we'll figure it out and skip right to the more capable platforms with fewer compromises.

Cheaper than developing 3-4 separate platforms. At least with F-35, there is some commonality in systems and there the scale of production.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9059 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 89):
Overall, I find it laughable that civilians are putting in their regarding CAS and other military matters. You are not the experts (nor am I for that matter).

Fine to criticize others as not being experts but still offering opinions. But if you admit you yourself are not an expert, then why are you still offering opinions ? Just a thought ...



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7646 times:

Hi all,

Just wanted to update you on this issue. According to the last week Aviation Week, (October 22nd 2012, page 22) Romney has shifted his stance on the fighter jet.

According to this article former Pentagon controller and Romney campaign defense maven, Dov Zakheim, adjusted the message in favor of the F-35. To quote the article:

Quote:
But now, officially, Romney is keeping his options open when it comes to the Air Force's future fleet of tactical fighters. "Governor Romney is committed to maintaining American airpower that is second to none," campaign representative Andrea Saul tells Aviation Week, "He will keep any option to ensure our airmen are flying planes worthy of the incredible mission the perform on our behalf"

The latest statement is worthless of course as it does not commit Romney to anything at all. But the Doc Zakheim comment is more firm that the F-22 might be off the table. 



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 7502 times:

Quoting oykie (Reply 92):
According to the last week Aviation Week, (October 22nd 2012, page 22) Romney has shifted his stance on the fighter jet.

Doesn't make a difference, Obama will win.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 6 hours ago) and read 7284 times:

What role is the best of the many roles the F35 has. Is it a good bomber or fighter? Or is it just ok in any role? The F22 is mostly a fighter and I guess a good one.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 4 hours ago) and read 7230 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 93):
Doesn't make a difference, Obama will win.

You don't know that, and it'd be much better not have any superfluous political rhetoric in this thread... from either side.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 7229 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 94):
What role is the best of the many roles the F35 has. Is it a good bomber or fighter?

The F-35 can easily match current F/A-18s for flight performance. The F-35 is the low part of the F-22/F-35 hi/lo mix... it was never ment to be an air dominance fighter, that is the F-22s job. Throw in stealth and the other electronic goodies, it has a large advantage over the F/A-18.

As stated, it will make a good fighter, and a good attack bomber, but not excellent at either.


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7088 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 96):
The F-35 can easily match current F/A-18s for flight performance. The F-35 is the low part of the F-22/F-35 hi/lo mix... it was never ment to be an air dominance fighter, that is the F-22s job. Throw in stealth and the other electronic goodies, it has a large advantage over the F/A-18.

As stated, it will make a good fighter, and a good attack bomber, but not excellent at either.

Thats the problem with the F-35 its not excellent at either and was designed to work with the F-22, the problem is the F-22 was cut to 186 and now the US has to rely on the the F-35 for most of the combat missions. I believe thats why nobody has any faith in the F-35 and I am one of them. 186 air superiority fights is not enough for the US I don't care how good the aircraft is. The F-35 won't be able to fill the role.

[Edited 2012-11-01 22:07:07]

User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7036 times:

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 97):
186 air superiority fights is not enough for the US I don't care how good the aircraft is.

Kind of why we still have the F-15C/D/E's around, not to mention the F-16's and F-18C/D/E/F's...I'm pretty sure we have good coverage.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6992 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 98):
not to mention the F-16's and F-18C/D/E/F's...I'm pretty sure we have good coverage.

F-16s and F/A-18s (any make) are not air superiority fighters.

The F-35 is a compromise. It is indeed better than 4.5 gen fighters, but it is not a F-22.


Would such a compromise of a fighter have worked in the 70s or 80s... no, but back then large fleets of specialized fighters were needed. Today, modern fighter forces are pretty much for putting out little flare-ups. 500 specialized strike bombers will be of limited usefulness in modern times.

If a F-35 came up against the best fighters out there, it could probably hold its own, but not completely out class a foe, but that is where a F-22 would be used.

186 is a somewhat small number for the F-22, but what is out there to challenge it? There is little out there that can challenge the current 4.5 gen force... a full 5th gen force will be unmatched for years. Worse comes to worst, there is a reason the F-22 jigs are in storage and not scrapped.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 100, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6974 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 96):
it was never ment to be an air dominance fighter,

See I don't buy that. It may not turn as quick as the F-22 but besides that I don't see why it can't dominate the sky vs. other 4.5gen aircraft. Its avionics and systems are far superior, not to mention all the goodies it has that are still classified. The public doesn't, or need, to know all the capabilities about this aircraft.


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6964 times:

No way Romney would get that production line restarted. We have no money to do so, the USAF would rather replace other, older aircraft that need to be retired, and we should already be looking at the next generation of fighter aircraft, if there even will be a next generation.

F-22 is nice, but at this point in time, you really don't need more nor can we afford it.

Besides, Romney is all talk, and he will say whatever the audience he is speaking to wants to hear. You really have no clue what that guy's position is or is not.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6958 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 100):
See I don't buy that.

Well, that is what is being said by the pilots... and maybe that is just a line being fed as dis-information, but IMO worst case scenario is that it can match a most current fighters in a turning fight. I have read it has a lot more power in acceleration.


User currently offlineFSXJunkie From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6928 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 100):
See I don't buy that. It may not turn as quick as the F-22 but besides that I don't see why it can't dominate the sky vs. other 4.5gen aircraft. Its avionics and systems are far superior, not to mention all the goodies it has that are still classified. The public doesn't, or need, to know all the capabilities about this aircraft.

The F-35 is slower than the F-22, Mach ~1.5+ vs. Mach 2.[Classified]

Zoom and Boom always beats Turn and Burn, the thing about the F-35 is that it's a jack of all trades and a master of none and it won't be as capable in any single mission/role than a more specialist airframe.

In an aerial superiority role the F-35 will be up against Mach 2 MiG's and Suhkoi's, the stealth advantage will be marginalized as OpFor fighters will be able to close distance faster than the F-35 can effectively evade. It may take a couple air battles for OpFor to refine tactics, but the F-35's will show their inferiorities in spades.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 104, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6861 times:

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
The F-35 is slower than the F-22, Mach ~1.5 vs. Mach 2.[Classified]

This means nothing in the real world. When was the last time a fighter needed to break Mach 1 in areal combat?

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
Zoom and Boom always beats Turn and Burn,

That is what the F35 has over its predecessors and Russian adversaries. Stealth and an avionics package that can't be matched.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
it won't be as capable in any single mission/role than a more specialist airframe.

Who says it won't be as capable in A/A or A/G? The F-15 was also criticized being it ever saw duty - now everyone thinks its the greatest thing since sliced bread. Its the circle of life... there will always be more armchair quarterbacks than real QBs. After the cancellation of the F-22 the F-35 is the saving grace for the US Military.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
In an aerial superiority role the F-35 will be up against Mach 2 MiG's and Suhkoi's, the stealth advantage will be marginalized as OpFor fighters will be able to close distance faster than the F-35 can effectively evade. It may take a couple air battles for OpFor to refine tactics, but the F-35's will show their inferiorities in spades.

This is assuming MiG or Suhkoi operators can get their shit together and have serviceable, combat ready and flying units. Not just airshow squadrons. I also question the flight hours of non-NATO country pilots. Seat time is everything and the US and its allies fly more than anyone. The only thing the F35 will show is its ass-end to her ignorant critics and everyone else in the "media".

[Edited 2012-11-02 16:29:34]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6797 times:

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
The F-35 is slower than the F-22, Mach ~1.5+ vs. Mach 2.[Classified]

When was the last time a fully combat loaded fighter reached top speed and was able to use that speed?

The amount of time the worldwide fleet of F-15's spent anywhere near its top speed is about as long as a typical movie, FYI. And that's with close to 40 years of service. Ditto the F-16, F/A-18, F-14... need I go on?

No combat jet fighter (save for F-35 and F-22 so far) has been able to hit anywhere near the top rated speed combat loaded. Too much parasitic drag emanating from externally mounted weapons, fuel tanks and pods to do that. In fact, many fighters are technically subsonic fighters with weapons.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
Zoom and Boom always beats Turn and Burn, the thing about the F-35 is that it's a jack of all trades and a master of none and it won't be as capable in any single mission/role than a more specialist airframe.

We have been moving to multipurpose airframes for decades. The F-16 and the F/A-18 are very successful examples.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
In an aerial superiority role the F-35 will be up against Mach 2 MiG's and Suhkoi's, the stealth advantage will be marginalized as OpFor fighters will be able to close distance faster than the F-35 can effectively evade. It may take a couple air battles for OpFor to refine tactics, but the F-35's will show their inferiorities in spades.

If they can see F-35 in the first place before F-35's take the first shot... against a non-stealthy opponent, F-35 will see the opposing aircraft well over a 100 miles away. At best opposing fighters will start detecting F-35 with their sensors much, much, closer in, and they would already be fired upon by F-35's putting them on the defensive. AIM-120 has one of the largest no-escape zones of any BVR missile available, and F-35 will take advantage of that to significantly cut into the ability of a enemy aircraft to effectively respond.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 106, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6795 times:

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
In an aerial superiority role the F-35 will be up against Mach 2 MiG's and Suhkoi's, the stealth advantage will be marginalized as OpFor fighters will be able to close distance faster than the F-35 can effectively evade. It may take a couple air battles for OpFor to refine tactics, but the F-35's will show their inferiorities in spades.

Again, the F-35 has had plenty of cost issues (like almost every major program seems to anymore) but this is just kind of silly. I love hearing about these hypothetical mobbing tactics that will be used to overwhelm the F-35 or F-22 but they are really just fantasy land. A few points specific to this.

1. None of the 4.5 generation fighters are really going to operate for any appreciable length of time at speeds faster than the F-35. The speeds you quote are on full afterburner power and can be sustained for just a few minutes.

2. I am not really sure that you want to go chasing full bore after a group of F-35's with legacy fighters. They will be able to engage you before you can effectively engage them. You are not likely going to be able to swamp them nor close the distance all that much before you have to evade weapons yourself. Unless you are in a suicide attack mode and everyone is headed in full tilt regardless of if they are being engaged it is a lot harder to close the range than you seem to think.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6804 times:

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 103):
Zoom and Boom always beats Turn and Burn,

That is funny, because the F-35s acceleration is actually one of its stronger points. Also, not dragged down by external stores, it will do things only a clean 4.5 gen fighter could consider doing.

So, I will see an opponent first, get a shot off first, if need be, get the hell out of Dodge faster... must be a lemon.


I look forward to the results of F-22 vs F-35 training encounters. I bet you will see the F-22 kill ratio take a bit of a hit.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6770 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 106):
Again, the F-35 has had plenty of cost issues (like almost every major program seems to anymore) but this is just kind of silly. I love hearing about these hypothetical mobbing tactics that will be used to overwhelm the F-35 or F-22 but they are really just fantasy land. A few points specific to this.

1. None of the 4.5 generation fighters are really going to operate for any appreciable length of time at speeds faster than the F-35. The speeds you quote are on full afterburner power and can be sustained for just a few minutes.

2. I am not really sure that you want to go chasing full bore after a group of F-35's with legacy fighters. They will be able to engage you before you can effectively engage them. You are not likely going to be able to swamp them nor close the distance all that much before you have to evade weapons yourself. Unless you are in a suicide attack mode and everyone is headed in full tilt regardless of if they are being engaged it is a lot harder to close the range than you seem to think.

Indeed, mission planners will think ahead and plan accordingly to counter such mobbing tactics.

The strength of the F-35 isn’t the one airplane and what it can do. The strength of the F-35 is the group of airplanes and what they can do together. There is a sensor fusion that takes all the eyes and ears of the airplane and converges them all onto the display on the dash. Not only is the information displayed in your cockpit, but you can also transfer it to the F-35 next to you using data links, rather than radio communication. It creates a flying network out in the battle space, with every F-35 taking in information provided by other F-35's and its own sensors and merging them into a unified picture. Not only will every F-35 be able to see the entire battlefield, but each F-35 will also be able to see the state of each other's aircraft, from what weapons he actually has, and the amount of fuel he has left in real time.

With every F-35 pilot being able to maintain a strong sense of situational awareness, they can concentrate on performing their mission rather than having to be on the constant look out, and they can make better decisions with the more information they have on hand. Not only that, F-35 pilots don't have to fly in close formation and flying on the defensive because of the better sensors and the sensor fusion present. They can fly much further away from each other, which has the side effect of allowing a smaller number of F-35's to cover more space with their sensors.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-22 Raptor Revival?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
F/A-22 Raptor Now F-22A Raptor posted Wed Dec 14 2005 05:15:14 by N328KF
F-22 Raptor Crashes At Nellis AFB posted Tue Dec 21 2004 05:14:16 by Wmupilot
Photo Op: F/A-22 Raptor At BFI... posted Thu May 13 2004 17:05:56 by Ulfinator
A Two Seat F/A-22 Raptor? posted Mon Feb 9 2004 04:03:33 by CX747
F-22 Strike Raptor? posted Sun May 19 2002 18:44:56 by J.mo
Red Flag Raptor Vs. Typhoon posted Thu Aug 2 2012 06:29:38 by wingman
Second Crash Of A V-22 In 3 Month posted Fri Jun 15 2012 05:04:50 by oldeuropean
New Restrictions For F-22 posted Tue May 15 2012 14:29:18 by moose135
F-22 Pilots Ask For Reassignment posted Mon Apr 30 2012 14:08:59 by rc135x
F-22'S With In 200 Miles Of Iran! posted Fri Apr 27 2012 20:47:14 by Thumper

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format