The most difficult weapons decision by the new administration that enters the White House next January will likely be the fighter issue — how many and what kinds of fighters should be procured for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.
The George W. Bush administration–with Secretaries of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Robert M. Gates — has mapped out a fighter procurement strategy. Particularly controversial was the decision to produce only 183 to 187 F-22 Raptor advanced fighters for the Air Force. But many Air Force leaders believe that the service needs as many as 381 F-22s to bridge a “fighter gap” until the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) becomes available in numbers. The recent problems with the F-15 Eagle have provided ammunition for the advocacy of more F-22s in the near term.
Meanwhile, some Navy officials are becoming concerned about a “fighter gap” in that service. Their solution would be to increase the current procurement of F/A-18E and F Super Hornet aircraft. These strike-fighters would be for Navy service as the Marine Corps has kept with older F/A-18s and does not fly the E/F models.
All three services plan to acquire specific variants of the F-35 JSF — officially named Lightning II, a moniker that is rarely used. But what impact would additional buys of F-22s or F/A-18s have on the F-35 program? Air Force Major General Charles R. Davis, the F-35 program executive officer, was recently quoted in Defense News (7 April 2008) stating, “Any time there is a discussion of a service or country pulling out airplanes from the program, the other service leaderships get very concerned. But we have told the Navy that buying them [F-35C aircraft] sooner at greater rates gives you a lower cost and more capability on your [carrier] decks than any other buying profile.“
In realty, the Air Force has the least interest in near-term procurement of the F-35 JSF as it would take several years to buy up to an F-22 force of 381 aircraft. Similarly, the Navy is pleased with the F/A-18 Super Hornet for the next decade or more. That aircraft has both a fighter and attack capability, and the nature of expected air threats — both in terms of quantity and quality — should be effectively countered by the Super Hornets. Also, an “all F/A-18 Super Hornet force” — including the new A-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft — simplifies maintenance and training.
More critical is the U.S. Marine Corps situation. The Marines now fly the F/A-18C and D variants and, of course, the AV-8B Harrier STOVL aircraft. Both will be in need of replacement within a decade and the F-35B STOVL is the planned — and needed — replacement. STOVL aircraft can operate from the Navy’s large carriers as well as the so-called amphibious assault ships (LHA/LHD), which are “flattops” as large as World War II-era fleet carriers but lack catapults, arresting gear, and angled flight decks.
Similarly, the Britain is planning procurement of the F-35B to succeed the less-capable Harriers flown from their carrier decks (by Royal Navy and Royal Marine pilots).
In the long-term, the U.S. Air Force has discussed buying about a thousand F-35A and possibly other JSF variants to replace all of its F-15/F-16/A-10 aircraft.
Thus, there are major fighter issues to be addressed when the new administration is sworn in next January. Because of aircraft production line and component concerns, some decisions will have to be made quickly. Still, an objective, all-service study of U.S. fighter requirements and options should be conducted as soon as possible by the new administration — preferably during the November — January transition period.
– Norman Polmar
Its called let buy more F-22s. Lets see best fighter in the world, or not the best fighter in the world? HMM hard choice *sarcasm*. We complain when the ground troops dont have the best guns, or body armour but the boys in blue have to fly older airplanes, and all we do is complain because there trying to get the best.
Exactly whom will purchase these next 200 or so F-22’s? McCain? Obama? Hillary? None of the above? I’ll pick D. None of the above.
The F-22 has the virtue of being in service already. We just need to place the order. We have already paid god knows how much on its development. Lets buy some more.
As for the F-35 cancel the Air Force version of the silly thing and save its development costs. F-18Es or new build F-16s can handle the bomb truck role with F-22s to fly cover. And the VTOL version can go on and be the inadequate replacement for the A-10 that it is slated to be.
I think the f35 is silly honestly. We need drones and UAVs to take care of this stuff for the Marines, they are cheapers, smaller, and easier to train crews for. We would be able to put many more of them on a Gator Freighter, so flighter, close support, attack, recon could all be taken care. The Airforce and Navy should be thinking the samething or the Army is going to tell them both to go to hell and take care of it themselves with hundreds if not thosands of aircraft for the cost of just a few dozen of the manned craft the other services are buying.
Oh and if the airforce wants to drop the a-10 (Again) they better have something other than a fighter to replace it with. The F-35? Are you kidding me? A UAV would really be the way to go.
Mr. Polmar hit the nail on the head here. I have been fighting this battle on this site for a long time now.
The F-35 is a big fat pig. It will cost far more than we can pay for and thus we will buy fewer. This is especially true for the Air Force.
We should spend the money slated for the project on upgrades for the F-22 to make it more capable and new build F-16Es. We could completely recapitalize our fighter fleet and provide the number of F-22s the Air Force actually wants.
The Navy is more and more hating the F-35. They absolutely love the F-18E/F. Plus with Marine squadrons on board carriers the Navy has no desire to put F-35Bs on their flight decks. And the USMC wants an all VTOL force.
The only service that truly needs the F-35 is the USMC. I don’t know what the answer is, but to just fund the B would be ridiculously expensive.
There have been questions raised about the true stealth capabilities of the JSF. And where would it be used that the F-22/B-2 could not be? If you are looking for a bomb truck to meets today’s threats, I don’t think that putting the JSF over Iraq is a smart move. That is one reaon why the F-22 is not there.
Get rid of the F-35, period.
DC2
Geezer Perspective.…
F-35 = F-111
Was not the F-111 (Eh, eh!.….McNamara’s day) to be a similar “Swiss Army Knife”?
History does repeat itself: stupid is, as stupid was.
> I think the f35 is silly honestly. We need drones and UAVs to take care
> of this stuff for the Marines, they are cheapers, smaller, and easier to train crews for
i love UAVs
BUT they do NOT replace the F-35
in low-intensity conflicts, UAVs are great
against a near-peer competitor … not so much
UAVs have some fundamental problems that will never be completely resolved no matter how much technology advances
1. they have to radiate, which means they can be tracked, which means they will be ineffective against a modern IADS
2. they have to communicate which means they are vulnerable to having their comm links cut (by jamming, blowing up the control satellite, whatever)
you MUST maintain a credible strike force WITHOUT UAVs
otherwise you risk having your entire fleet grounded by one satellite malfunction
The F-35B is needed not just for the USMC but for the international partners in the F-35 program. I suspect that the F-35B will not only be purchased at currently planned numbers, but may see its number of units increase as the Air Force decides it wants to trade some F-35As for F-35Bs.
The F-35C would require a set up of its own production line, just like the A and the B, but would be the lowest volume option. The trouble with the F-35C is that, unlike the F-35A, it won’t have F-22s available for immediate backup if the carrier is far from a U.S. Air Force base. But since the U.S. has or could get access to Air Force bases reasonably close to our most sophisticated potential adversaries (Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan), this may not matter. You don’t need high tech air-to-air combat capability if the conflict is in the Democratic Republic of Congo or the Aceh, Indonesia, or Paraguay.
To stir the pot, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the reasons that the U.S. Navy has remained committed to the X-45, while the Air Force has but a UCAV on the back burner, is that the U.S. Navy wants the X-45 as an alternative to the F-35C for stealth strike missions, and would instead buy an upgrade of the F-18 to complement the X-45 (how do you think we wound up the the F-16 in the Air Force and F-18 in the Navy).
The F-35A is pretty much inevitable. At the very least, the Air Force needs to replace the F-15s and the F-16s. Even with 200 more F-22s and a different replacement for the A-10, it has heaps and heaps of planes that will need to be replaced, and the Air Force isn’t about to let UCAVs replace all of the aging F-15s and F-16s that aren’t replaced by F-22s. Nothing else in on the drawing board and it would take another decade to bring a new fighter into production. Fighters age fast because they are worked much harder than, e.g., bombers, both in training and when in action, and the current fighter fleet is already showing its age.
The only real question is, how many F-35As will be bought. I think that there is real merit in shrinking the planned F-35A buy, in favor of a mix of (1) more F-22s, (2) an A-10 replacement, (3) a homeland defense interceptor designed to protect urban areas in the U.S. from errant commercial and general aviation aircraft, (4) a small number of F-35Bs for special forces, and (5) a meaningful number of UCAVs. The F-35A buy should probably be cut in half to free up funds for their other replacement aircraft (with (2), (3) and (4) all cheaper than the F-35A and the F-22 costing only a little more and the F-35B only slightly more).
ohwillike,
Good points, but I don’t think the Air Force can afford the F-22 and the F-35. Even if the number of F-35s purchased is reduced, and in fact especially if the number is reduced because the unit cost will escalate.
The other option is the F-16E for the Air Force. It is far cheaper and can replace the existing F-16 fleet on a one for one basis just like the F-35 is supposed to do. You can purchase the F-16E, have the funds to purchase the additional F-22s, and still have money left over for the total cost per aircraft of a 1,000+ F-35 buy.
The USMC and UK are going to be left to dry if this program is cancelled. Again, I don’t know what the answer is for them. But if the Air Force, Navy and international partners decide to lower their purchases it will increase the unit cost of the F-35B as well. There is no indication the F-35B will be purchased by the Air Force, especially as an A-10 replacement. The next ground attack aircraft will be low, slow, and ugly (unmanned or not).
What is not realized with regards to naval aviation is the other components in a battle group. You don’t need stealth when you have the Tomahawk to attack air defence networks. You don’t need stealth fighters to protect the carrier when it is ringed with SM-2 missiles. It would be difficult to get within 100 miles of a carrier.
All branches of the military (except the USMC) have other major priorities over and above the JSF. The Air Force needs to replace the tanker fleet, bomber fleet, air superiority fighters, and CSAR. The Navy needs to get right with shipbuilding and develop a replacement for the S-3. They also need to replace with P-3 which has been approved but no aircraft are in production yet.
DC2
UCAV are still a LONG ways away. The USN “hopes” to have its FIRST active squadron by 2025! Even then it is (currently) looking at just ONE squadron per CAW. The USN “2025 CAW” is 1 squadron of twelve F/A-18E [12], 1 squadron of twelve F/A-18F [12], 2 squadrons of ten F-35 [20], 1 squadron of twelve UCAS [12] & 1 squadron of 5 E/A-18G [5] plus 12–15 other support aircraft & helicopters. UCAV are a supplement to manned aircraft NOT a replacement. By 2030 one or both F/A-18E/F squadrons may/will be replaced by UCAS but F-35C will be a part of USN CAW for a LONG TIME to come.
pfcem,
Got a link for that? Sounds like someone’s putting some thought into it.
I have to disagree with you, pfc, on the UAV question. Sure, for large attack craft like the UCAVs, UAVs are not ready and will not be ready for some time.
But building the same type of plane, only without a pilot, is not the only game in town. For instance, the Dominator swarm:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002309.html
The platform could be running in the next few years, the network may or may not be difficult to complete (but it certainly wouldn’t take twenty years time to make it hum, not even with Pentagon bureaucracy).
With bombers launching SDBs (we have 21 B-2s, each may be able to carry 216 SDBs, for a total of 4536 smart bombs delivered on day one, just from that platform alone, or twice as many bombs as Iran has vehicles and aicraft) from fifty miles out, strike fighters (or even cargo planes) covering the sky with small, cheap UCAVs, you wouldn’t need stealth cat all to take down a near-peer.
You could just overwhelm his air defense network, chew up their ground forces, and then destroy the fighters in their bunkers as you leave blanket presence of UCAVs to keep them buttoned up.
I am still a Raptor partisan (we need more, dammit!) and a fan of the JSF. But in fairness, I think the X-45 is the exact wrong way to apply unmanned tech to the battlefield. We need massive volume to compliment our incredible quality.
…
Oh, and someone please tell me that the brass is NOT trying to replace the A-10 with the JSF. Round peg, square hole.
We need to completely abandon manned systems,both air,ground,&sea,altogether for “killer” robots & cyborg “super” soldiers,each armed with phaser rifles.Because our enemy will still [foolishly] deploy “humans”,our “killer” robots & cyborg “super” soldiers can say to them,“stupid humans,resistance is futile.”“Your evil eye is complete.”“War kittens???”
TB,
Do an internet search for “futute carrier air wing” or “2020 carrier air wing” or “UCAS” that will be a good start & give you plenty to chew on.
***
Brad,
The B-2 will NEVER carry 216 SDB. There is not room for that many & it would be a payload of 78,840 lbs. Nominal payload for the B-2 is 40,000 lbs with a theoretical MAXIMUM of 60,000 lbs.
REALISTICALLY each B-2 will typically carry 64 SDB — one BRU-61/A rack with four SDB each per Multi-Purpose Rotary Launcher (MPRL) station [2x8x4=64].
Eventually some dedicated B-2 SDB carriage system may be developed in with the nominal 40,000 lbs payload would (assuming still using BRU-61/A racks) result in 108 SDB with the maximum 60,000 lbs payload resulting in 160 SDB.
pfc, I understand that; got the info off of GlobalSecurity.org.
Still, it is somewhat beside the point. With the SDB, we can strike deep within the target nation (60 miles from launch, with stealth [B-2], anywhere). We’ll have other planes in air on day one, including Buffs, strike packages, allies (presumably), B-1s, Raptors, Predators, etc, plus cruise missiles, maybe even MRLS family rockets.
With the SDB, we effectively double the number of bombs dropped, and targets hit, on day one of conflict. On day 2, we have dropped four times as many, and damaged four times as many targets than today, day 3 eight times, day 4 sixteen times, etc.
That’s the type of model that UAVs/UCAVs should follow. More, cheap weapons platforms (Dominator swarm), versus JSF wannabes. Iran, for instance, among all vehicles (tanks, IFVs, APCs, etc.), has about 2000; theoretically, with 3+1 charges per dominator, you could defeat their entire conventional army with just 500‑1000 dominators, without dropping bombs. Oversimplified, yes, very, but, it is a measure of the possibility that exists among the UCAVs currently in process.
For carriers, it makes sense to have the big UCAVs (limited deck space, cargo room and all). And yes, I am still a partisan of Raptors and JSFs; day one in combat against a rising peer (China), we won’t have 2000 fighters to 2000 fighters, but a handful in Taiwan, Okinawa, and Japan versus everything China and maybe North Korea (hell, maybe even Russia, too, who knows) have. It’ll be fighting World War Three, with NATO based completely out of Switzerland.
eh, math was off a bit: suppose 1000 PGMs on day one, day two 2000 total, day three 3000 total. Doubling the number (with SDBs) gives us 2000, 4000, and 6000, not the exponential growth I mentioned before.
BUT 1000 Dominators (dropped from just two C-5s) could give us 4000 kills on top of that, and that, as they say, ain’t nuthin’.
Brad,
Note that GlobalSecurity does not say the B-2 can/will carry 216 SDB, it says “Proponents claim that by 2007 the B-2 could carry 216″ & then goes on to explain how that is unlikely.
When I said UCAVs are a long way off I was responding mostly to ohwilleke’s BS assertion that the USN is looking for UCAVs INSTEAD of F-35C. The fact is the USN does’t expect its 1st operational UCAV squadron until 2025 (~10 years AFTER the F-35) & it won’t be replacing F-35 squadrons, it will be supplementing them. The USN will replace its F/A-18E/F LONG before it replaces its F-35Cs. The USN is considering a UCAV for its F/A-XX (F/A-18E/F replacement) which will SUPPLEMENT its F-35s & intended to enter service ~2025.
The use on “swarms” on the scale you suggest is a wet dream. Like I said UAVs have their place & manned systems have theirs, UAV will not replace manned systems on a large scale anytime soon — probably not even within our lifetimes.
Brad,
You said it yourself: “For air-to-air, deep strike missions, men are quite necessary and will continue to be so for the longest forseeable future.” AKA UCAVs will not replace manned aircraft anytime soon.
Look at most the missions UAVs are doing today & even expect to do in the near future. MOST are missions pilots don’t want to do anyway. UAVa are a SUPPLEMENT to manned aircraft not a replacement.
Yes it is a wet dream to think you can defeat the entire Iranian conventional army with 500‑1000 dominators (partially because you are underestimating the number of vehicles by a factor of 10). It is a wet dream to even think that 500‑1000 dominators in an operatinal possibility anytime soon. But the biggest problem I have with swarm wet dreamers (aside from it not yet being workable on the scale they envision) is how they completely ignor how if their wet dream swarm were to somehow find its way into reality, countermeasures would be developed & put in place fairly quickly.
What part of the USN doesn’t expect its 1st operational UCAV squadron until 2025 don’t you get? It will be 2030 before every CAW has ONE squadron of UCAV (at which point each will have FOUR manned combat squadrons). By 2040–2050 you MIGHT see as many UCAV as manned combat aircraft in each CAW.
People are trying to make it out as if the USN is about to drop the F-35 & go ‘all UCAV by 2025′ (just continuing to buy more F/A-18E/F until ~2015 or so when their mythical UCAV that can REPLACE manned aircraft enters service) when the fact is the USN WANTS the F-35 BIG TIME (more then it ever wanted the F/A-18E/F) & it is looking for the replacement of the F/A-18E/F (NOT the F-35) to possibly/likely be a UCAV in which it doesn’t expect to see its FIRST active squadron until 2025.
Don’t try to equate the Predator to the A-10. The Predator is a recon drone NOT an A-10 replacement. Even the Reaper is not an A-10 replacement or a replacement for ANY combat aircraft for that matter. Predators/Reapers work GREAT in the low intensity conflict we currently find ourselves in where ther are few targets & even fewer threats.
pfc, sorry bro, but you are just too dense to argue with: we both agree that UAVs are an adjunct to manned platforms. We both want more Raptors and more JSFs.
We have SDBs, sensor fused munitions, excaliber rounds, guided hydra rockets, SPIKE missiles (maybe), so on and so forth. Our military is going to have much higher bang for the buck in the future, and swarms are just part of that overall package. I don’t care when the first X-47, whatever becomes available.
The point is — the only point, the one you need to just take. a. deep. breath. and finally get (or don’t, I no longer care) — is that UAVs are a reality right now, they will get better, and will have a major impact on the battlefield, even against conventional threats. And it won’t take twenty years to be so.
It’s like arguing with the Eurotrash about stealth with you; yeah, great, countermeasures, so what? We’ll develop counter-countermeasures. Deal with it.
Brad,
No shit UAVs are a reality now — I NEVER said they aren’t. UCAVs that REPLACE manned combat aircraft on a major scale are not. Swarms of hundreds of UAVs are also not.
And the USN is not looking to UCAVs INSTEAD of F-35. They are looking at a UCAV as a likely 2025 F/A-18E/F replacement.
***
DC2,
BS! The USN is “pissing itself in anticipation” for the F-35C — it has been waiting for/wanting a stealth strike aircraft ever since the A-12. The USN never wanted the F/A-18E/F but it was the only option & do not like it near as much as you want people to believe — it is just that is what they have (not that they do not LIKE the F/A-18E/F but they do not LOVE it — well some do). They are looking to procure more F/A-18E/F because the increased operational tempo since 9/11/01 is wearing out its F/A-18A-D faster resulting in a gap in the number of combat aircraft.
The 10 year difference between the F-35 & a likely UCAV is HUGE!
What are you smoking that you think the F-35 isn’t any more capable in air to air combat than the F/A-18E/F! The F-35C, JUST LIKE THE F/A-18E/F will be limited to +7.5g during peacetime to extend there service life & JUST LIKE THE F/A-18E/F would be cleared for +9g during times of war.
PFC,
So if the Navy is going to purchase more F-18E/Fs to replace worn out F-18Ds, where does that leave the JSF? Are we then going to retire E/Fs with life still in the airframes because we now have the JSF. What is more likely is we purchase fewer JSFs, which will increase unit cost.
I have read numerous articles about the JSF and the F-18E/F. I think I know what I am talking about.
The UCAV situation you propose is correct. That is why I indicated the more likely scenario is replacing early Block F-18E/Fs that are not upgraded (1 squadron per CAW) if the JSF is cancelled. And the 10 years is again based on the F-35C being on schedule, which I doubt will be the case. Considering the F-35B will be in full production before it is fully approved in testing.
Regarding this planes maneuverability: I have read where this thing is considered a stealthy Buccaneer. That should tell you something. It was not meant to dogfight and was only meant to be stealthy from certain angles. In air to air combat there are many angles shown to OPFOR radar.
The F-35 is going to break the military aviation budget. We have other priorities. That is my main point.
DC2
DC2,
Like I said the USN is only looking to procure more F/A-18E/F to fill the gap left by F/A-18A-D “worn out” quicker than previously projected & BEFORE the F-35 enters service. It is NOT looking to procure more F/A-18E/F INSTEAD of F-35 just as it is NOT looking to procure UCAVs INSTEAD of F-35.
The 10 years is ALSO based on the UCAS being on schedule which is jsut as likely to slip as the F-35…
The F-35 is NOT going to break the military aviation budget. The F-16 & F/A-18 didn’t break the military aviation budget.
I bet you read somewhere that the F-22 isn’t very maneuverable either…The F-35 is DESIGNED to be at least as maneuverable as the F-16 & F/A-18C. The JSF survivability THRESHOLD includes F-16 and F/A-18C
DC2,
The USN is not looking to procure hundreds of additional F/A-18E/F so procuring additional F/A-18E/F in the short term until the F-35C reaches production will not have a MAJOR impact (although it could have a minor one) on the F-35 other than (IMNSHO) the money waisted on the additiional F/A-18E/F being money not available for other purposes.
You may not have said we would purchase UCAVs instead of F-35s but others have & THAT is what I have been addressing.
The USN is not going to wait until 2025 to FINALLY get a stealth strike aircraft, hense its TREMENDOUS desire for the F-35C even thouth it is a single engine fighter develoloped with the USAF.
The point about the F-22 is that there are those who have stated it is not very maneuverable when the fact is it is quite possibly the most maneuverable fighter in service anywhere in the world so just because you read somewhere that the F-35 won’t be maneuverable doesn’t make it true ESPECIALLY given that amoung the JSF requirements is for it to survivability THRESHOLD that includes F-16 and F/A-18C
I also give my account to her, she want to play my number, she also can play. But one day, I found she had another husband, and she have no longer to play with me. And I found my number is empty, she took my things changed the cheap RS gold. I was very sad; I did not believe she is the girl that I know.
Many people want to buy cheap gw gold, but they don
Threemans, one of the Thelaiosisians had suggested to the Goddess that creating two more Shaiya gold races, the Nordein and the Dumianas, would dramatically help aid the progression of prosperity in Teos. Soon after, with the help of Threemas, the Nordein and Dumianas were created.
I order to commemorate the my 17 days of the 2moons. I only know that in the game the 2moons dil is very important.
I do not want to spend my time to the game, but later I met her, in my life she was very important, we together to earn the dofus kamas, I think this lifetime I will never forget.
I do not want to spend my time to the game, but later I met her, in my life she was very important, we together to earn the dofus kamas, I think this lifetime I will never forget.
Now when I talked with them, I often told them how to bought the cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold, they all said that I had a great changed, I am very happy
buy 1000 F-22 fighter, it can fight air to air and can do air to ground role for surgical strike in destroying high value target, radar and air suppression. for heavy bombing use the 2018 bomber, B-2 and B-1 for bombing ground target accelerate the research on the F-35B its the fighter of the future, make it lighter and add powerful engine
let other nation to fight their own battle if they dont they have no right to be a nations