Industry, the Department of Defense (DOD) and some U.S. Air Force (USAF) leadership still want the public to believe that the service needs the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
The aircraft is irrelevant for the needs of the service. The following will show how the USAF will use fighter aircraft.
High end air-to-air and ground-to-air threats; first, once these are taken care of, you don’t need a stealth aircraft for the rest of the air campaign. For this kind of threat, the service already has a solution. It is called the F-22. Production wasn’t stopped because it was a bad or faulty design. It was stopped because the current leadership are ignorant about air power issues. It is the only aircraft that will be able to take on high end threats. And, the F-35 is not just a little F-22.
The F-16; the USAF should still procure this aircraft. For those still too slow to get it; once the F-22 does its work, current aircraft designs can do what ever they want. Medium-range battlefield surface-to-air missiles (SAMS), man-portable air-defense (MANPAD), anti-aircraft guns, and trash fire can all be avoided by aircraft carrying JDAM, laser-JDAM, JSOW and so on. I can touch you but you can’t touch me. This includes the ability to plink those threats when they are detected. This thinning of the herd is a common task in past wars and it will be used again.
For home air defense missions, the F-16 is good enough, and in the unlikely event that it isn’t, we come back to the topic of the F-22.
The F-16 is still in production and the modern variants still hold a lot of capability. Also, the USAF already has a training and sustainment infrastructure along with existing tribal knowledge that supports the F-16. Just like the F-35, we don’t need a lot of these aircraft either. A fighter group of two squadrons each at or near our 20 most likely home defense bases would be fine. One squadron does the home defense, the other prepares for expeditionary war.
The Pacific and range; look at a map if you must. The USAF needs to re-invest in long range strike aircraft. The B-52, B-2, B-1 and F-15E will not be around forever. Years back, the USAF was looking at a long range theatre bomber in the form of the FB-22. At the time, this was sound thinking. While not a long range bomber like the B-2, the FB-22 would be survivable and carry enough payload and have enough reach for a wide variety of operations. This, combined with the USAF displaying some common sense and getting in on the U.S. Navy UCAS-N program would provide great future options (and deterrence) in the Pacific Rim. The Federal Budget may be in such dire straits that it won’t be able to afford a long range bomber program in the coming years.
Air breathing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) in high threat areas can only be done by platforms like the F-22 (with its AN/ALR-94 and APG-77), the FB-22 and UCAS-N or similar bat-wing drones.
The USAF must continue to provide some value to the defense of the United States and its interests. Investing in a short-range fighter aircraft that doesn’t bring anything useful to the high-end air power spectrum of the USAF doesn’t make sense. When the high-end threats are subdued, current low-risk fighter designs like the F-16 still provide value.
In short: stop the USAF F-35 requirement, continue production of the F-22, and F-16 for the USAF. Along with that, research and development should be put into the FB-22 and the UCAS-N.
The top DOD and USAF leadership have not demonstrated that they know what they are doing with the fighter and strike roadmap for what is a critical part of the nations defense. Their style of leadership along with the USAF requirement for the F-35 must be removed as both provide more harm than good.
What LM / Pentagon fails to recognize about F-16. It is useful because it’s cheap, easy to maintain, all the kinks have been worked out, and there isn’t big urgency to upgrade. Nobody is in the mood to have a big air war.
F-35 biggest problem. It’s too expensive, rough around the edges and nobody has the money required to upgrade and make it works like it suppose to do as affordable “weapon system”. F-35 would have been a great project in 2004-2006 without the banking crisis. But … hey.
If I were to create strategy.
take F-35 integrated avionic and put it inside F-15, F-22, and F-16. starting with F-22, and F-15. (this to maintain low cost commonality on electronic parts and weapons, keep the shop busy meanwhile) Make upgraded export F-16 model even cheaper somehow with added bell and whistle.
Slashed F-35 production only to mainly fill navy, marine, (I really don’t see air force role for F-35. for same price they can get F-15 SE.) When budget is improving, then probably F-35 will replace F-16 eventually. (low cost medium multi role single engine)
start working on F-24, replacement of F-22 and F-15 by late 2020′s. Thrust vectoring, no tail, somewhat more elongated.
lots of UAV s.
Eric, if there was no F-35, you’d be writing on how the F-22 was too expensive and how the F-15/16 are all we. Need. Give it a rest. The pundits and the POGO crowd killed the F-22 out of ignorance. We get the F-35 (and it’s headaches) but it’s better than the teen fighters.
As for stand off, I keep saying this, you need to visit Fort Sill and 3-6 ADA. We train in shooting down stand off munitions. Not every enemy lives in a cave.
Half the problem with stand off munitions is that you’re too far to verify what you are hitting (notice all the whining about bombs falling on civilians).
The Chinese have a point defense system designed to shoot down JSOW. The other problem is that the teen fights we have are slowly rotting away, they need to be scrapped.
Stealth is better, fly low enough to avoid MANPADS and actually hit the target. Let the Saudis and other buy the F-15SE, F-16I (Canada should buy the F-18F and not the F-35).
Let the teen fighters go to the bone yard. No more room for the new sensors, when the S-300/400 start hitting the export market they are deader than Elvis.
Now for a bomber I an 100% in agreement with you on one thing: reuse existing tech (i.e F-35 and F-22 sensors)
A good low-rcs/stealth bomber could be made with F-22 radar, F-35 sensors and the F-22′s engines. Use the shape of the Avro Vulcan only make it as big as the B-52.
Revive the FB-22.
Eventually UCAV’s will be good enough, till then we need the F-35.
Well argued across all points, Eric. (I happen to concur with the mix of high-end structure you outlined). Please continue to remind the general public every so often of this basic strategic air power doctrine and understanding.
And CB,
With all due respect sir, the reason why USAF is having to deal with rotting airframes as you note, is due to the fact that new build tactical airframe recapitalization has been FROZEN, while everything is allocated to an all-or-nothing, future F-35A procurement strategy (budget).
And I’m pretty sure if JSF was cancelled back in say, 2002, Eric (and most critics) would still be equally concerned about cost-effectively upkeeping a capable air superiority mix and maintaining the balance of power — not merely accepting ‘air sufficiency’ as the current authority are having to fall back on and deal with, by default, via the gaping hole the JSF plan begets.
Chockblock,
Err… isn’t getting down low EXACTLY where the MANPADS threat is thickest? How does having X-band optimized stealth (and mainly from the frontal aspect at that) stop an IR/UV guided short range missile? Whichever engine you end up running in the F-35 it will still be the hottest fighter engine ever built showing up for miles and miles… And with it’s not great performance the F-35 can’t exactly outrun said threats.
Goldeel,
If you are flying the F-16, you need to fly low, any radar will pick you up and blow you clean out of the sky. The F-35 has the possibility of flying around 10,00ft, as its stealth will give it a measure of protection against short and medium range air defenses. Even for the long range S-300 radars, the F-35 will have a much closer escape range compared to the F-16.
Other advantage for the F-35, its greater internal fuel means it will be a cleaner aircraft for strike missions, which means it will be able to accelerate to the Mach numbers necessary to escape from fighters. Plus, with the F-35′s improved sensors, it’ll pick up those threats sooner than a F-16.
Geogen: here is the core of the USAF’s position. All tactical fighters that will be used in a future conflict will have to be stealthy. From that origin the F-22 and the F-35 come. It all goes back to the end of the Cold War and the SAM threat.
Think of Allied Force as the signal of things to come: the NATO, will all of its tools at its disposal, couldn’t eliminate the Serbian SAM threat. If we followed Eric’s advice, which is to use SDBs and cruise missiles, we could have to wait a very long time for the air defense threat to be low that non stealthy airplanes can be allowed in. Its not just that you have to destroy the big air defenses, when you bring in non stealthy airplanes, you need all air defenses destroyed, or you have to send fighters in dedicated packages, a process which will definately slow down the sortie rate.
The F-35 allows you to go in perhaps day two of the war, after the biggest threats are eliminated but before you can be positive that every air defense is gone.
Ark -
Think Allied Force (OCA and strategic bombing campaign on civ, econ, mil infrastructure, not BAI or CAS), with all due respects to Serbia in using them as an example here. But sir, the reason why tac assets had to go down town in op AF in the first place, was by default! They didn’t have extensive inventory of long-range stand-off strike munitions and needed to get to within strategic strike target zone to employ shorter ranged PGM. The strat should be LONG RANGE stand-off strike munition Detterence, to force a solution… NOT go with medium alt loitering LO fighter bombers going down town and looking for survivable TOR type IADS, etc.
Please note also, the modern (and future) survivable, shorter ranged IADS are in numerous bands of doppler (e.g., apparently C band through K), and not just X. Moreover… these modern systems now are deploying supplemental OPTICAL tracking! Hence, no, in the future you DON’T want to be loitering about in manned LO (below the clouds employing EO), ‘hunting’ for TELs or mobile SAMs! Besides… hunting implies external drop tanks for endurance. Scratch F-35, I’m sorry.
Your future hunting?? Think LO UCAVs vs survivable SAMs and hidden TELs. Your future retaliatory Strategic strike deterrence capability??? High alt, super-cruising VLO/LO platforms + ‘affordable’ tactical airframes, employed as Long range stand-off platforms! That’s the most effective use of resources to achieve maximal strategic capability and hence deterrence, imho. I’m sorry but F-35 is NOT necessary in this strategy and structure… and in fact would only take monies away from your next-gen Long range strike munition (and UCAV) deterrence.
I don’t have the time to write a full response to your concept of operations: which as I understand is UAV’s for reconnaissance combined with long range weapons for strike. But, I will say this: if we are going to follow your plan. why bother with the F-16? You need a truck with a massive cruise missile payload more than you need the F-16.
I’d say, if we go with your plan: F-22, UCAV’s, and a Next Generation B-52: with an even greater bomb load and cruise missile load.
Other’s could have a better response to that proposal, but new build next gen B-52 would require how much R&D and delay in gap until achieving IOC? You would probably want some maneuvering speed, evasion and insurance provided with attrition reserves?
I’d compromise with you for sake of discussion though… instead of 320x 4.5gen tactical a/c procured between FY12 and FY20 e.g., (@40 per yr scenario) as not the best situation for USAF tacair, but potentially the best they could get given mid-term realities (recapitalization snafu) about to hit bugdets… how about ‘Trade’ 50 jets in exchange for upgrading 40 +/- existing B-1B fleet with new engine, cockpit/canopy, future weapons clearance and ecm to a B-1R standard? That would enable better cruise/dash speed, better survivability over a B-52R (some reduced RCS and evasion is reasonable) and better cross-logistical support if the engines could be same as in use by Tactical assets? imho … God speed.
… as a follow-on: Tac 4.5 gen assets (properly equipped and armed) could still provide an essential, relevant Defensive Counter Air capacity. Dispersed, and being more difficult to track, rotations of 3x tac a/c in a zone e.g., could arguably be more effective and survivable than a single loitering B-52X? Then there’s the strategic limitations agreements, etc which might hinder additional airframes of that class. Although not sure of that detail.
Let’s try to imagine the future battlefield. In ten-twenty years advanced sensors and networks will profilerate ever more down to the individual unit, solider – or terrorist. Even today there are man portable radars, electrooptics and pocket sized radar warning recievers. Assuming the F-35′s LO is X- or K-band optimised, whatever that actually means, these classes of sensors won’t go away in the future. They will be cheap, practical, proven and multiply greately. In this kind of environment you want as many stealth assets as possible.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
No I would not. The F-22 IS the aircraft that needs to be procured for the USAF to make up at least 10 AEFs. Anything less than that is gross stupidity.
And tell me how the F-35 is better than a teen fighter when it is not anywhere near complete in testing?
Shooting down PGMs is one thing. However at some time you run out of missiles/ammo inside of a time cycle. The shooter will, if they want that kind of attention, eventually end up dead. Then there is that thing called a radar horizon.
5 years ago, how could you say that the F-22 is better than any teen series fighter before it completed its testing?
Arguing that the F-35 is unproven, because its still in flight testing, is the worse, most destructive, sophist argument that anyone can resort to. That argument, taken to its very simple, logical extension, means NO technological risk or development for the USAF.
May I remind you and everyone that uses that argument: of course the F-35 is unproven, its in flight testing, you have merely stated a logical truth that has no bearing at all on this debate.
Any new fighter will be unproven until it completes flight testing, any new weapon is unproven until its fully deployed and used in combat, any new sensor is unproven until its first used in a warzone. Because stealth was unproven in the early 1980s, do you think we should have stuck with the teen series fighters and not developed stealth? Because the F-16 was unproven in the 1970s, should we have stuck with the F-4 Phantom? Should the F-15 have never been developled? We could have just used the F-14, or the F-8 Crusader, which was proven while the F-14 was still in development. Same with the AMRAAM air to air missile, it was unproven, the USAF should have just stuck with the AIM-7 Sparrow.
Tell me the F-35′s stealth isn’t needed, that the plane’s price tag is too high, that you don’t believe that manned fighters will be used in the future, that long range PGMs can replace fighters altogether; those are real arugments and real grounds for contention. But, arguing the F-35 is unproven because its still in flight testing, and because of that fact the F-35 shouldn’t be developed is, in my opinion, the most dangerous argument one can make. That argument means: we shouldn’t develop, because there’s risk in developing something new.
You have to argue about the F-35′s performance versus a teen series fighters performanced based on a cautious but not pessimistic observation about the F-35′s purported characteristics. We can say the F-35 will be stealthy to a degree, more in the X-Band as opposed to the L-Band, but it would be silly to say: the F-35 has the radar characteristics of a F-16. Any other argument is, in my opinion, unfair and too baised.
Basically, can you argue against the F-35 if the airplane fulfills some of its promises? Or are your arguments entirely contingent on the F-35 completely failing?
I think there is a even more simple reason for the USAF to start ordering F-16 and more F-22 asap.
When i look how hard the defense budget in the UK and rest of Europe been hit, its a prelude of things to come in the USA. The F-35 wont be ready for full production untill 2016. Austerity will hit the USA years before that.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4934646&c=AME&s=BUD
Better start with Eric proposal ” A fighter group of two squadrons each at or near our 20 most likely home defense bases would be fine. One squadron does the home defense, the other prepares for expeditionary war. ” now before budgets cuts will catch up wiht the USAF. Ofcourse that would mean no more buying F-35 till its ready. But at least you got enuff airframes then.
Time is running out. Take a good look at the UK and picture that in the USA in a few years. Cause theres no way the USA gov can go on like this.
That is some valid reasoning, Vince imho. I for one appreciate that supportive and logical view point and concur w/you on this.
My intuitively based starting point for USAF’s ‘requirement’ would be to procure 35-40 tac a/c per year starting in FY12 (write off FY11 as final year of ‘staying the course’). Ultimately, USAF would want twice that annual rate, sure, but I just don’t see the realistic future procurement budget allowing 80 units of anything. (under this model and conceived AF aviation procurement budget (e.g., $20b per annum), maybe 25/yr F-35A jets could be afforded, max, as a comparison)
So how USAF/DoD could best select a mix of 40 new-build tac jets realistically in this (one man’s) scenario, effective FY12, would have to been seen. Could new-build F-22 be part of that, I unfortunately doubt it would, but I guess it’s still open. More likely, an interim 4.5 gen alternative plan in the near-term (as Congress has discussed it) would include a mix of F-16/18G/F-15E+ airframes as necessary to fulfill such a 40 a/c per year buy (as an example) and then go from there after a more definitive long-term 4.5 gen procurement is strategized. IMO.
Now if we could only go back to around 2001, 2002 and do-over the tacair recapitalization strat (among other things)…
Forgive the correction: the above email address – geogen@ – under ‘NAME’ is NOT a valid email and that address line was typed in error.
Money aside, I don´t see how F-35 could stay US first-line fighter till 2040 as some official statements from Pentagon/LM claim. How will the F-35 role be judged say 2016, when PAK-FA reaches IOC and other designs start to emerge (F-3, J-XX)? Every year it will be more evident F-35 is not up to the job. Imagine types and numbers fielded by othe countries in 2020, 2025, 2030… Who is doing threat assessment for the USAF and NAVY? Just an example: By 2022-23 number of PAK-FAs fielded will exceed number of operational F-22s, increasing the gap by 20-30 every year from that date – well if it stays to PAK-FA only, which I seriously doubt. Thanks go to Robert and Barack, really great job.
Don’t agree that the F-35 is not needed. The problem of the F-35 is not that it will be a bad fighterbomber, but that it will certainly neither be able to fill the fighter role, not the tactical bomber role. But it is needed for the fighterbomber role, and I think even more by the Navy than the Air Force. And it should be built only as carrier capable version only, plus a carrier capable twin-seater version. It is a running programme, and that is worth a lot these days! It gives a little room to breath to get the other shooter platforms right.
It’s hard to decide whether the USAF and NavAir fighter gaps, or the tactical bomber gaps are more pressing. With so few AESA-Eagles, F-22A and severly challenged SHornets the fighter force is really in dire straits. And on the other side the F-15E was never developed into a full F-111 replacement (where is the Electronic Eagle and the Weasel Eagle?), and the Navy should blush each time they pretend that the SHornet is an Intruder replacement.
F/A-XX aka NGAD might be the way to go. As a programme that produces a heavy, carrier-capable fighter that can be morphed into a tactical bomber, analogue to the Eagle > Strike Eagle, or Su-27 > Su-34 path. I don’t think the U.S. have another 15 years to field a new platform. And I think more and more it should be based on an evolution of the F-22A. But not as a FB-22, rather with a clear fighter focus, which can be developed into a tactical bomber platform (as demonstrated by the F-15).
The all dominating question is when is a war with China – maybe direct, maybe proxy – to be expected. I see 2020/25 in my coffee cup. And by that time the forces have to be ready, and not be in the process of introducing new platforms.
The F-35 will be in production for 5 resp 10 years then, having resulted in 300 to 600 fielded LO fighter bomber. There might be another year to rid the F-35C of the worst remnants of the F-35B, but not to drop the F-35 and start anew. How long it will stay relevant is another question, but for sure by 2020/25 a F-16 will be like flying P-40 in Vietnam. By that time the F-16 should only be used for CONUS air policing duties, a mission they can perform another 50 years.
Distiller has the two key points correct.
1) The F-16 still has to be replaced. Eliminate the F-35 and you will still need to replace the F-16 class fighter in the next 15 years. I’m sure, Eric, you remember operation Allied Force. In that conflict, NATO, operating with complete, utter, total air supremacy from nearby airbases with their support situation essentially perfect could not completely suppress the Serbian air defenses. The F-35 will give the USAF flexibility in that situation, they can conduct stealthy attacks with less combat support aircraft and sooner. Instead of having to wait several days for the F-22 to complete the probably impossible task of totally destroying the hostile air defenses, with the F-35 you can start attacks on the first night of the war. Even better, the F-35 X-Band stealth is optimized against the most survivable SAM systems, the small tactical defense SAMs (like the TOR-M1), which are too small to carry any effective radar other than an X-band.
2) There are no other fighter programs. Any other replacement for the F-16 will take at least a decade to get started and have the exact same problems as the F-35. That is the key point: any stealthy fighter program will have developmental difficulties. Period. Full Stop. And, as point one shows, any true replacement for the F-16 role, fighter bomber style of aircraft, will have to be partially stealthy. You can accept developmental difficulties now or in the future. I’d rather get it over with now, instead of waiting 10 more years to have the same discussion (the F-45 is unproven, expensive, and its flight tests are not perfect, lets keep the F-16 until 2035 when we can use this hypothetical F-55, which will be perfect in every way.)
So, that is the key argument for the F-35. You have to replace the fighter-bombers sooner or later, so, to avoid having to wait another decade, during which the F-16 will become even more obsolete, the F-35 program should be continued.
As for the idea that long range PGMs can replace fighters. First of all, do you want to outsource close air support to weapons that have to be fired from 50 miles or more away? And, do you want to build a fighter force that is completely dependent on GPS for putting bombs on targets? As a tactical point, you can’t do hunter killer missions with a long range PGM.
For example, the first night a war against North Korea, you want to have fighters doing sweeps trying to destroy TELs before they launch. If you have to rely on long range weapons, you can not respond in time. You’ll have to connect sensor aircraft to shooters that are dozens of miles away. But, with a F-35, you can put together a strike package of four planes. Two F-22s for top cover, two F-35′s with SDB-IIs or JAGMs and go hunting for the TELs.
Finally, a Mk-84 with a laser attachment is a lot cheaper than a JSOW, from a cost perspective, you want to have both choices.
I absolutely agree with the contention that the F-35 is not an air superiority fighter and is not alone sufficient for the future USAF. But, a similar statement can be said of the F-22, it is not a good ground attack aircraft and it is not sufficient alone for the future USAF.
The USAF needs to diversify its aircraft selection: with an air superiority airplane, a fighter bomber, a tactical bomber, and a long range strategic bomber, at least. But, at the same time, the USAF cannot keep putting off replacements, by arguing that one plan or another isn’t perfect.
I would say, it is better to accept the imperfect F-35, which, because it is still in testing is by definition unproven, then to wait another 5 years to even start flight testing on the next possible replacement for the F-16. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough (and, the F-16 is going to be, in the future, entirely inadequate)
Good points about the F-22 based new fighter,
it really makes perfect sense. There is neither time not money to build new ATF within 10-15 years.
Rather getting back to F-22 bodydesign, but looking into its guts: F-35 avionics used as a base, ADVENT engines and most importantly, trying to achieve weight parameters originally planned for the F-22. F-22 ended up over 10.000 heavier (empty weight), so looking into its structure with increased used of heat-resistant composites and less maintenance-hungry surface. Increase internal fuel (if possible, but it was with F-15A to F-15C). Sort Su-27- Su-35 (Su-27BM) makeover.
Isn’t the whole discussion of the F-35 vs the F-22 a little bit old think. Couldn’t it be that in the future relative inferior platforms such as the Predator C armed with air dominance missiles would pose a greater threat to an air dominance fighter than a superior platform such as the F-22 equipped with current AAMs?
Whereas the 20th century was the century of aircraft carriers and fighter jets, it could be that the 21st century will be the century of the (smart, autonomous, superagile, long range) missile (and submarine).
Ja, that’s the big question. Right now – no. Would you bet the farm on the timely development and fielding of autonomous-UAV? Cause the current remotely piloted UAV will not cut it. I think we are not yet at the point where the unmanned world can replace the manned world.
By the time you add a comprehenvie EW suite, targeting pod, CTFs/tanks, Sabre AESA, MAW, new avionics and central computer and a HMCD to the F-16 you’re looking at the same cost – or more – as the F-35.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
When you have a fully go to war (Block III) F-35 fully tested, then you can make those comparisons.
Still, wouldn’t that apply for the non-existant F-16 too?
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
F-16 XL, F-2 are all flying or operational mod of F-16. F-16 avionic has also been upgraded from scratch several times. (without the bank busting price tag.)
The big point is not major leap in capability, but a true low cost multi role plane in the inventory. Flying out hundred of this planes in single theater is no problem. It’s the cheap and plenty part of the equation. The air superiority part is F-22, F-15.
Bjørnar -
Thanks for the opportunity to refute that claim as well… but respectfully, a block 60+ variant ‘stopgap’ acquisition, in the interim period and equipped as you describe, would be cheaper to Procure (PUC) in FY12, than a pre-SDD mature block III F-35A. How much cheaper of course can’t be said now, and sure there will likely be monkey pricing for near-term F-35A based on assumed large scale ‘back-end’ procurement which WON’T be happening, very unfortunately. Thus, prices would likely be ‘modified’ to make up changed procurement scales of economies et al, once realized.
Lastly, a fully equipped Block II+ SH and F-16 blk60+ and even an F-15E++ would be predictably priced at 30-40 unit annual stopgap procurement numbers, while the same-period procurement of pre-mature SDD block III would likely need to be further upgraded (modified) before actually achieving IOC. In conclusion: procuring more affordable stopgap 4.5 gen platforms, compared to pre-mature LRIP block III F35A units, would likely permit acquisition of the actual stand-off weapons and SoJ jamming pods as part of the same 2016 IOC package. imho.
Respects-
Geogen. Good points, although I had in mind something notch up from the F-16IN. It would probably take a couple of years to develop.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Allied Force? In that case the SAMs actually have to stop the strike aircraft. In that case F-22s with JDAM and SDB would take out most of the targets of interest in that campaign, and what wasn’t done by that could be talken out by Tomahawk Block IVs, along with B-2 bombers for anything that required heavy weight. A good combination. And in a much shorter time. S-300 or S-400 in that environment? Best not bring an F-35.
You are joking right? Full-up F-16s with AESA, CFTs etc can be ordered now. And again as a tier two fighter it is good enough after the F-22 does its work.
Eric, I see your point, but I’m thinking of a high-end EW suite, Sabre, MAW and HMCD and a new computer architecture to facilitate it all (within its 60cm nose cone, 6U VMS confinement). You would probably need to include some pretty nifty stand-off weaponary too, which adds to the cost. Also a cost driver is that support and sustainement is going to be reduced ca. 2025.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Deployment of drones in anything but the permissive environments we now flying enjoy over Iraq and Afghanistan usually results in the same thing, manned platforms shooting them down. Killing the communications satellites and utilizing local and broad area jamming will result in UAV’s become aerospace equivalent of a paper weight.
Bjørnar Bolsøy:
If we compare across the board the F-35 with other legacy strike aircraft like the F-15E, it is inferior both in ordnance payload, range, and speed. First day operations can be taken care of with F-22′s and B-2′s, with B-1′s, Strike Eagles, B-52′s, etc following after the threats are removed.
The F-35 is not needed, and as we continue to point out to you remains completely unproven.
RSF. “We” apparently do not include the USAF, JSF-partners and a number of 3rd party nations who thinks otherwise. If one lession is to be drawn from the Balkans, it’s that you can never take for granted that the opponents air defences are taken out or even vaguely accounted for. It’s a high risk environment even long into the conflict, putting 4th generation assets severly at risk. That’s in part why the USAF has opposed the acquisition of new F-16s and F-15s.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Let’s ignore for a moment, the probability of Russia allowing balkan geopolitics to ever go as low as that, the idea of serbia not being able to deploy next generation distributed air defense system is nonsense. (eg. fiber optic, lots of 10Ghz and lowers t/r and dish, good chunk of high power computing) is highly improbable due to low cost and their relatively even population spread.
In other word, It’s not the late 90′s.
You want to bet your life the survivability of F-35 in a network of multi nodes T/R hostile territory? That puppy will light up as bright as a busty blond running naked in wimbledon match.
JC. It would seem a moot point considering that 4th generation assets are substantially more at risk either ways.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Bjørnar, if it’s a moot point and both 4/4.5 and the F-35 are at risk from a modern IADS (and lets not forget that massive IR bright spot at the rear of the JSF) then isnt it more logical to simply buy the proven airframe upgraded in a quicker timeframe and at a cheaper price than throw your money away on something that may do no better?
At least you have the option of using the saved money to buy further Raptors(upgraded) to help your cause and stand off weapons to negate the IADS you are trying to defeat.
Using the idea that we should go along with the F-35 because that is the way we did it with the F-22 or (pick your program), is a bad idea. The F-22 program was not run well. Yet it delievered value ealier in the flight test program. Also you are comparing two very different programs. One has one engine vendor and is originally made for one service. The other is run for mulitple customers and 3 different variants, and is in trouble in a big way.
As for what the F-16 can or can not do. Again, if the threat warrents it; use the F-22, once the F-22 subdues big air threats and big area SAMs, the F-16 can kill other ground to air threats and stay out of reach. It isn’t that difficult. And not every fighter mission is against a big threat. Hence, the F-16 still has use.
As for using the F-35 as a justification to go against first team threats; good luck with that. It does not have significant super-cruise and altitude performance.
F-22, better quality stealth, and (Mach 1.8 at 65k and look at the NEZ on a crossing shot… also compute the effective ground speed).
The USAF (considering everything else it does need) does not need the F-35.
Bjørnar Bolsøy:
We the “many” that inhabit this fine blog. Again, the nations of the willing that you seem so happy to crow about are deserting the F-35 ship at an alarming rate. Oh, lets not talk about that, right?
On the Balkans conflict, its funny that you happen to bring that up considering that we sent the untouchable F-117 stealth fighter into a conflict against a bunch of old SAM systems and managed to get one shot down. The lesson here? Stealth is important but it does not create a force field around an aircraft, not does it make a trillion dollar overweight and slow strike fighter invulnerable.
RSF. As far as is known all JSF-partners are firmly behind the program. There will naturally be some reviews of numbers, but that’s the nature of budgets these days. Goes for most nations.
Good lession that will surely be forgotten again in the future, precisely why stealth is needed.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
“That puppy will light up as bright as a busty blond running naked in Wimbledon match”.
Ah JC, you made my day with that remark! And it is so true….
ArkadyRenko:
In response to your points made earlier:
1. The F-16 does not need to be replaced. As an example the existing UAE Block 60+ Viper is still a valuable platform and can easily and cheaply be improved and updated to be an excellent 2 day of the war aircraft. Compare the stats of a modern F-16 with conformal tanks to any one of the F-35 variants and suddenly the F-35 looks quite a bit less wonderful. X-band stealth is fine against small mobile SAM systems,but does little when matched against opponents flying L-Band AESA equipped AWACS aircraft such as the Chinese and Russians are doing at this time. Also this also ignores the proliferation of advanced IRST systems in the 4 and 4.5 generation fighters that the F-35 is likely to encounter. Quite frankly a modern F-16 has a much better chance in a dog fight then the F-35 ever will.
2. Your statement that the F-35 is the only fighter program is wrong. First of all the F-22 is still not dead and could easily be kept in production (and improved as it should have been). You also ignore the many existing legacy fighters which could be greatly improved with much of the technology that has been created for both the Raptor and the F-35. As far as net-centric aircraft, pretty much every advanced 4.5 gen fighter on the plant is now flying with secure data-links sharing radar/IRST targeting data and that includes the price point leader the Gripen, so I’m not seeing much of an advantage from the JSF on the point.
The F-35 is a flawed aircraft that will be unable to accomplish the missions it was designed for and needs to be killed as soon as possible. Its to big to fail, but too flawed to succeed.
Stealth is needed. But the value of export-friendly stealth with no super-cruise won’t be much against developing threats. What may be found is that the sales pitch was there for the gullible to eat up.
Stealth is “needed” on the “first day of the war” … or if you’re less optimistic about it, during the “first week of the war” during the SEAD/DEAD phase of operations. After that (succeeds), Stealth is literally dead weight flying.
Electronic Warfare, by contrast, is necessary EVERY DAY OF THE WAR … and every day of the Peace too. By using the operational notion of the “Escort Jammer” you can (effectively) turn every fighter and bomber in your inventory into a survivable aircraft against anti-aircraft weaponry.
Stealth is all about “you don’t see me, I’m not here!” … while Electronic Warfare is all about “you’re blind!” The former is passive and “sneaky” while the latter is active and “sucks to be you.”
F-35 is not the answer.
F-16XL Block 70/72 with 2 seats and Electronic Warfare kit *option* is the correct answer.
Bjørnar Bolsøy:
“RSF. As far as is known all JSF-partners are firmly behind the program. There will naturally be some reviews of numbers, but that’s the nature of budgets these days. Goes for most nations”.
A: Really, a review of some numbers is what were calling this program disaster? Just using the UK as a benchmark indicator we have a F-35 order reduction of from 138 to somewhere between 40 and 12 total. What will this do to the per aircraft price?
Stealth does NOT replace airframe performance, and ignoring the last 50 years of fighter combat history puts the F-35 in peril before it even becomes operational.
RSF. The Swedes have halved their Gripen fleet, Brits and Italians want to axe 100-some Typhoons, US halting at 184 F-22s. I’m not sure anyone would call it abandoning ship.
How will cutting 100 planes impact a planned production of 3000 F-35s? Overall, not much. For the partner nations, with deliveries largely in the 2016-2022 time frame, it will depend on what changes the Brit’s make to their buy profile. Currently it doesn’t look worrying as the Brit’s planned a unusually protracted schedule in the first place. If the reports are correct about 2018 first deliveries, then you are looking at a shift to the right of perhaps 25 aircraft of a 500-600 production total.
I suspect you wont take Lockheed’s word for it, but they figure less than 1% cost increase for the STOVL.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4965013&c=FEA&s=CVS
Of course stealth doesn’t “replace” anything, but first look-first kill is as true today as in the first World War.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Bjørnar,
I think you have hit on a valid point above in your reply to RSF that is the Achilles heel that will affect F-35 purchases, cost.
It’s quite true that Typhoon purchases have and possibly will be trimmed, and the same goes for the Gripen. In both cases it is due to a desire to reduce expenditure either because the original purchase numbers are no longer seen as needed or (and the more likely) the nations involved have run out of cash. And lets not forget that neither of these airframes has the kind of price tag that the F-35 will probably end up with and neither suffered from the developmental problems as acutely as the JSF program. That alone puts the whole program on a precarious footing. You also mentioned the US halting F-22 numbers at 184. and why? Because the per unit cost rose (mainly due to cutting the program, the so called “death spiral”) and it would dilute the finite available funds for JSF.
We are not talking about the UK cutting around 100 airframes as being the death knell for the JSF, the problem is everybody else including the US services cutting their buys as well. That could lead to many hundreds possibly thousands of airframes being cut and that will affect the per unit price dramatically just as it did with the F-22.
No sorry I dont believe that the UK pulling the plug on the B model will affect the per unit price less than 1%. Including the USMC and Italy there were 540 B models projected, removing the UK buy is something close to 25% of this, so of course it seems ridiculous to claim it will only affect the airframe price by less than 1%. That would imply that there was a lot of fat in the program if they could loose that number and still have it barely affect the price, or more likely they are just spinning numbers. And given the latest development/production delay for the B model of 2/3 years you can bet the price will spike higher and the numbers cut for the fiscally challenged Italian’s and probably the USMC as well.
Good points. The death spiral is a very real possibility, though at the moment there are no indications of major cuts. Still, if cuts are made in the later phase of the program, say after 2020, the partner nations will be largely unaffected. One reason why the STOVL cost might not change much is because of comonality and that the Brits are buying the CV instead.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Bjørnar – “though at the moment there are no indications of major cuts.”
Bjørnar, unfortunately there are no indications that anywhere close to the assumed buy ‘schedule’ will be achieved.
Do you understand how big the procurement budget USAF will require, to afford and order 80x F-35A? Let alone for the number of LRIP buys she wants in FY14?
Are you aware of the official comments and indications showing that DoD will face reduced ‘buying power’? Now calculate the likelihood of reduced federal defense budget cuts, starting as soon as FY12?
when i read your comment, it make me puke coz you know NOTHING about air combat for those who are armchair tactician leave it to the real warrior who knows what it like in real combat im more in favor of having more F-22 to have air dominance and it has secondary role BOMBING, it is fast agile and modern avionics especially the block 35 with increment 3.2 version software if you really want tomb the shit out of them, then you better have a real bomber the likes of NGB with the a combat radius of 4,000 nautical miles