Okay, folks, something’s gotta give, money-wise. As we dicussed in a recent post and podcast, the VH-71 is in the crosshairs for severe reductions if not outright cancellation. These are bad times to be a program 100 percent over budget and a couple of years behind schedule.
Moreover, these are bad times PERIOD. Now I understand that the JSF and F-22 are designed to meet separate Air Force requirements. The JSF meets the LOW requirement and replaces the F-16; the F-22 meets the HIGH requirement and replaces the F-15. But the fiscal situtation now and in the FYDP might not support both.
We had a similar situation back in the day when carrier aviation, due to budget concerns primarily, was forced to choose between the A-6 and the F-14. Long story short, the Intruder went away and the Navy enhanced the Tomcat’s resident bombing capability. (The rest is OEF and OIF history, of course.)
So with Christian on the road for the next few days and me minding the store, I wanted to open up the discussion to you guys, the awesome and erudite in defense matters DT readers. What do you think? If the USAF decison-makers are made to choose one or the other, which should they pick?
Wikipedia (the source of all modern knowledge) “apples-to-apples” unit flyaway price comparison: F-22 - $137.5 million; JSF - $83 million. And I know the Raptor does things the JSF doesn’t, but does that capability validate the additional cost considering the current (and projected) threat and budgetary situation?
The comments board is now open.
– Ward
{ 107 comments… read them below or add one }
Considering the fact that other countries are going to buy the Deus, keeping production lines open. I’d say cut the Dues. If the Raptor stops, the production stops and it would be fairly costly to restart those operations. Also, in terms of air-superiority Raptor takes the cake. (even if air superiority isn’t all that important atm). Plus raptor can do most of the things the Dues can do to a certain degree. (cept the VTOL ofcourse)
Keep the existing F-22s, but buy no more.
If we need more planes, buy JSFs. But we already have more than enough F-22s.
Since the Raptor already exists and is flying and the JSF is still mostly an experiment, keep the Raptor. BUT this wont happen, too many nations signed up for JSF so we’ll have to keep it.
Build both. Take the funds from the stimulus plan. It generates good paying jobs which gives people the ability to put back into this economy. Creates a great air defense capability and provides for foreign sales to boot.
Great stuff, guys. Keep it coming, folks. I’ll highlight the best comments in a future “The People’s Site” post.
If the F-35 is the low end aircraft, where does the UCAV fit in? Given a reasonable amount of funding for UAV’s in general, they could well replace the low end F/A aircraft. The only benefit of the F-35 over the F-22 is it’s potential VTOL capability. Should we be looking at an F-22/UCAV mix?
We don’t need the JSF to replace the A-10. This could be done by a cheaper pilotless new A-10 like platform. Also, long range air-to-air missiles may not be as effective as we hope, making the JSF vulnerable to the Sukhois thus neutralizing carrier battle groups. If the F-18 or F-15 would be upgraded with trust vectoring (see F-15X program) their agility would be greatly improved reducing the need for more F-22s
This country needs to cut the crap from A-to-Z and realize that our WW2-dividend has long run out and we’re upto our eye-balls in a debt so severe that it is crushing this country as we speak.
Would you go to war with your bank? If the US ever killed 1 chinese in an act of war, we’d never see a single dollar of debt money from Chinese investors ever again. We’ll never fight China. There isn’t a nation in this world today or for the next century worth fighting at these costs.
All these programs – Army, Navy & Airforce- should be cut immediately. A percentage should then be spent to re-tool & re-task these industrial supply chains into civilian uses. Example: Boeing currently has over 1.5 TRILLION dollars in back orders on commercial aviation sales (jumbojets, etc). Take all these military production lines for the F-22 et al, and re-tool them to build the commercial aircraft at record pace. You want to fix this recession, how about actually delivering that $1.5T in sales to our customers in the next couple years.
Add a couple of hundred raptors, kill the F-35. It’s over budget, under spec, and every other bad thing. The production lines for the F-15, F-16, and F-18 are still open. These aircraft, in their currently produced versions are all best in class for now and the forseeable future. Unlike the F-35, they actually work.
Replace some of the F-15C airframes with F-15SG, being built for Singapore, which have more powerful, more fuel efficient engines than current US models, and AESA radar of the same class as the F-22. The F-16E (Block 60) has AESA radar, a better engine, more range and only costs $26 million each.
Continue to upgrade and modernise the A-10. Bring some out of mothballs if you have to.
The Air Force is great at working Congress and getting what they want, but they are hung up on things that make loud noises, go fast, and shine a lot. The F-35 will be a lousy close air platform, which is a mission they don’t want to do anyway, even though it supposed to be one of their core compentencies. Air Superiority and Air Dominance are important, but only so far as they facilitate the support of land operations. The F-22 can clear the skies of enemy powers, but after that, you need bomb trucks. The F-35 does neither mission well enough to be worth the cost. It cannot esatablish air superiority/dominance, and the attack piece can be handled just as well by cheaper aircraft.
I work in my civilian job at the headquarters of an Air Force MAJCOM and I actually saw a powerpoint slide once that stated the the USAF’s peer competitors were the US Navy and US Army.
Bottom line–if you want to fix Air Force procurement, and settle on what aircraft the USAF should be buying, you need to start with USAF generals and civilian leaders who understand their service’s place in the world.
“Okay, folks, something’s gotta give, money-wise.” That has got to be the understatement of the year.
With Trillions of dollars in stimulus plans, entitlement expansions, a soon to be national health care system, higher taxation to chase away investment, a social security system soon to go insolvent, and wars half way around the world… The Air Force will be lucky to afford kites, let alone aircraft.
But if I were to pick, it would be the F-22. The logistics ,training, & facilities already exist. The F-35 can be replaced with current/upgraded models of the F-16 & F-18… for now anyway. As for the Marine V/STOL I’m not sure. They could keep the F-35B, move through an evolution of the AV-8, start flying Predators off of LHD’s, or some other sort of insanity.
“Titus” – a good/crazy movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbpoG092YAQ
“I RAVE U feat. DJ OZMA” – just crazy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coxLRv1qJL8
“Now I understand that the JSF and F-22 are designed to meet separate Air Force requirements. The JSF meets the LOW requirement and replaces the F-16; the F-22 meets the HIGH requirement and replaces the F-15.”
What do HIGH and LOW requirments mean?
The F-35 is going to be big for Lockheed. It will be their commercial bread and butter for more than a decade once it gets out the door. This “success” hinges on two things, first keep the Air force convinced of buying them because its like a celebrity endorsement to the rest of the world; second the price tag, they will be selling half the plane at 3/4th the price tag. They’ll keep their cost down but probably not the price tag.
Most everything needed for the F22 exists, the F35 is further down the line and will require an unnecessary investment. The F35 maybe cheaper now, but the cost the Air Force will have to sink into it to try and compensate for the inadequate numbers of F22 will push outside the scope of economic viability. I was always told not to settle for second best F22 is the best, the F35 we don’t even know what it will be.
“Cancelling” the F-22 seems to be a pointless argument since we just finished buying all the planes we said we’d buy. The F-35 is still just a prototype. I don’t like the F-35. I think its too expensive, too fast, and not survivable enough for what its supposed to replace. The Air Force seems obsessed with finding a gold-plated toy that can do everything in a single airframe. The problem is the plane becomes insanely expensive and is a jack of all trades and master of none. What’s the range and loiter time and payload of the F-22 and F-35 versus its predecessors?
The Navy seems to have the F-18 as a backup plan in case the F-35 falls through. I don’t know about the Air Force, but the Marine Corps is putting all their eggs in that basket.
A) Fighters: Keep the F-22 at the last planned number (225 I believe). Keep the F-35 but narrow it down to 2 versions, 1)Marines/RAF 2)eliminate AF version and have the AF just buy the Navy version.
B) Tanker: If KC-45 is chosen, all production (Airframe and other) should happen in the US. That should be the cost of doing business with the US DOD for all programs. I hate to say this because I don
While I don’t think we need all 250 Raptors, as previously asked, I do think we can make the remaining 17 needed (get to 200), then concentrate on the JSF (F-35). I agree with an early statement, that to many others have signed on for the JSF and those names will most likely influence the direction of production regardless of what is said here. While I do agree that the Raptor is the elite of the elite, the JSF does bring, in theory, more to the table should it be in production. I believe it is that kind of thinking that will give the backing to the JSF, and leave off the Raptor.
My two cents is to keep the king of the hill Raptor, and perhaps use the JSF to build on a better aircraft further down the line. But, thats if we only could chose one.
Economy is a false reason for doing anything to the F-35 or F-22. Not when Obama is slinging TRILLONS around the US of A on programs that do what exactly? However the F-22 can never be bought in the quantities needed for the Airforce, not at 130 million a pop. F-22 doesn’t address the Marines or Navy either. Only the F-35 addresses numbers and mission. Go with F-22 till F-35 is a hot production line producing at least 50/year. Then stop F-22 and go full out on F-35.
1.) Build enough F-22s for 15 full squadrons, just over 300 planes (includes spares).
2.) Cancel the F-35C. The C model has the fewest export prospects. Without a high-end stealth platform to work with it the Navy couldn’t fully take advantage of JSF’s stealth. And developing unique wing+tail designs for the C is a massive cost sink.
3.) Reduce the AF F-35 production to lower, more cost-effective levels. The planned manic production rate is insane and costly.
4.) Augment the Stealth AF with new-build enhanced Gen 4 aircraft (new F-15/16 w/AESA = gen 4.5) or with a “weapon truck” aircraft such as B-1R.
Those wikipedia costs are out of date. The initial role-out cost for a single F-35 will cost MORE than the cost for a single F-22. Plus the overall program is consuming alot more money than the 22 is. Cut the 35, keep the Raptor, buy new-build F-16′s and F-15′s to make up for the loss of the 35.
Somebody fill me in, as I’ve always been a little confused – Why does the Air Force want both? It seems like they both fill the same role (stealth multi-role aircraft), with the F-22 having a slight air defense advantage with supercruise.
This doesn’t directly address the question. But I think what the military really needs to do is figure out a way of creating a constant low cost low output assembly line. Units attrit, though wear, crashes, other military’s need new planes, extra planes on hand allow better maintenance procedures. On the political side a ongoing program is harder to kill off than a newly started one, a constant manufacturing base retains talent better that a fluctuating one. When the military has too few planes it has to treat them with too much care, driving up operating costs.
I would love to see C-17′s F-22 and F-35 produced in such a fashion. A military that that has to worry about the strategic impact of a loss of a asset in a tactical operation, can’t fight.
hi all, couple of comments from a uk reader if you don’t mind :-)
as the only ‘tier 1′ partner on the JSF, the uk has put a couple of billion pounds into development / prototypes etc. already, so i think we’d be pretty miffed should it be cancelled. and as has been stated, there are many other countries interested in buying it – but perhaps if the f-22 had been offered for export (eg: australia, japan) perhaps the jsf would have lost orders?
as far as i understand the f-22 is an air superiority platform (hence the F, and not F/A ?) and is designed to a) defeat any other aircraft in the sky b) penetrate / destroy enemy ground-to-air defences, whereas the JSF is a more general purpose ‘strike’ craft and will be emplyed (by the UK at least) as a general next-gen air and ground attack platform (eg: some tasked for CAP, some for ground strikes, probably some for reconnaissance / electronic attack) as a replacement for the harrier from our aircraft carrier(s). i’m not sure the role the us airforce has in mind for their version.
so since we have the eurofighter for our air superiority, but could do with the stovl JSF for our expeditionary forces for the next 25 years or so, can we keep that one please?
thanks! ;-)
What a beggars imaginary banquet !
The first thing Hillary did was to go visit the Chinese to beg for a bailout of another trillion. Why would the Chinese want to pay for either program ?
One wonders why Americans given probably their last chance to fix the economy would want to piss away their last dime on unproductive overpriced status symbols. Perhaps this isn’t the last chance abd it’s too late already.
To the extent we can sell these planes to our overseas allies, by all means, keep the lines open. I would also take the procurement process away from the Pentagon, which is nothing more than a very highly-armed, well-lobbied bureaucracy.
It’s blasphemy to think there aren’t dollars to defend this country when we’re able to come up with $200,000 for tatoo removal in CA, pay for lawyers to defend illegal immigrants and give billions to the car companies to build cars no one wants.
This is not to say both projects are over-budget and behind schedule – but I would set up design teams with troops in the field and cut out upper management altogether. Government projects, as Reagan noted, are the closest thing we’ve found to immortality.
If we can actually produce something which someone else wants to pay for, it far exceeds as a stimulus any of the redistribution of wealth schemes championed by this administration. Hell, you think the White House had been taken over by radical street activists…
if we don’t have air superiorty we don’t have anything. Double the F-22s and cancel the 35. if we need more “low” mix aircraft have the AF buy F-18E/F to standardize with the Navy.
There’s no point in trying to cancel the Raptor at the moment. The Air Force is intent on buying more and it looks like they’ve already got the number up into the low 200s.
That’s fine, as most of the money for the Raptor was spent long ago. The more of them we build, the more we get our money’s worth.
As far as the F-35, there’s too much politics bound up in it. We can’t cancel it either, since there are a number of countries overseas that want in on it (and have already invested huge amounts of cash). I say we delay the Navy F-35 variant (which, I believe, is only wanted by us) and let them make due with Super Hornets for now. There hasn’t been a test flight for it yet. The production lines on the A variant will be open for quite a long time. We can always shift those to the Navy variant after a few years have gone by and once the F-22 production has ceased.
Were it up to me, I’d cancel the F-35 and buy more F-22s. I’d also order a Navy version of the 22 for the USN and USMC. And I’d enhance the 22′s strike capability. Yes the 22 is more expensive right now than the 35 but not by that much when you consider the fact the 22 is here and now and the 35 is a way off yet. By the time the 35 is ready to come on line, I bet they’ll be costing as much as a 22 does now.
Better yet, cancel them both and design a real fighter and a real close air support plane.
What’s going to happen I’m affraid, is the 22 is going to get cancelled and the 35 is going to go ahead as an all things to all users plane, to appease our allies, keep Lockheed in business and increase the overall numbers of planes. Even though in my opinion, the 35 is a substandard performer. I mean come on, mach 1.3 top speed? 7G maneuverability limit? Less than 200 rounds of 25mm ammo? External pod gun on the Navy/Marine version? Only 2 AMRAAM’s in the full stealth set up? Hows that going to work against planes like the Su-35? We’ll end up in the same situation we were in in Vietnam where F-105s that couldn’t turn around in an area the size of Texas were supposed to fight turn on a dime Migs. The USAF couldn’t fight it’s way out of a paper bag right now with the way it’s been mismanaged.
I’ve read from several other respected sources that the entire role of the JSF program was to smash the European export market no thanks to the Bush Administration.
I agree that instead on forcing me to pay for some idiots mortgage that couldn’t afford it in the 1st place, use the nearly $2.2 Trillion in “stimulus” to go towards “production.” We as a nation of consumers and spenders are digging ourselves a massive hole.
The JSF is flawed with many obstacles to come. Now to say which produces most/more jobs the F-22 or JSF is hard to say. But we have to look at long term projections of future conflicts. Why not continue the F-22 production thus dramatically reducing the price tag and open another production line for an exported F-22 lite. If we can’t even trust our closest allies with that kind of technology, what kind of waterdown version is the JSF we are looking to export???
The US Military Industrial Complex is out of control. End of Story…
The USAF has a tradition, after all, to uphold, of stepping on their procurement dicks.
Good Morning Ward,
Both these weapon systems (the f-22 and F-35) are cold war legacies that should be canceled, period. Cut the loses and invest the money that would have been spent on weapons that are needed in the GWOT. The uselessness of the manned aircraft is shown quite clearly in another article on Early Brief today, regarding the use of carriers in the war in Afghanistan.
Two dozen F-18 are sent into Afghanistan every day for CAPS, a trip of 500 miles in and 500 miles out, and at least seven in air refueling stops (est. price of a gallon of fuel in air to air refueling is $100.00 per gallon). Needless to say this is expensive flying but would be worth every cent if it made a difference. The punch line to the story is the last time an F-18 according to the story dropped ordinance on an Taliban was in March of 2002. Mean while the unmanned Predators have been scoring hits better then weekly on Talibam and al Qaeda targets.
If the height of stupidity is doing the same thing thats, not working, over and over and expecting different rresults the U.S. Navy is in a class all by itself.
War has passed the manned aircraft by, the same as it did knights in armor on horses, it’s time to move on. Invest the funds that would have been spent on mo’ F-22′s and F-35′s on the X-45, I know it has to be brought back because the AF killed it because it was to successful and threatened funds for the F-35 in Congress, and the Navy’s X-47.
Let’s get smart for a change and invest in today and the future and not in the past.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Byron, see the clip below taken from the Feb 21 Airpower Summary
In Afghanistan, a Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet conducted a strafing pass against enemy forces dug in behind a line of trees along a road near Lashkar Gah. The Super Hornet had been flying overwatch for a coalition convoy when enemy gunfire erupted from the roadside. While the jet’s cannons quickly ended the direct threat to the convoy, the aircraft followed up with a show of force and expended flares to deter a possible enemy counterattack.
Here is one from the Feb 22nd Airpower Summary
While providing overwatch near Lashkar Gah, a Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet used GBU-12 to target an enemy indirect fire position launching attacks on coalition units. The strike successfully ended the attacks.
If you don’t believe me check it out. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/02/mil-090223-afns04.htm
Not trying to be a dick but manned aircraft are getting a lot of work in the GWOT. I do agree it’s stupid to keep flying the aircraft out of the ocean, why not fly some of the F/A-18s to Kabul and have them fly from there? I think they need a balance between manned and unmanned aircraft, sometimes you need a pilot to put eyes on the target.
There isn’t a shred of proof that the F-35 will cost less than the F-22. It may happen… but it hasn’t happened yet. And the jet only has around 2% of its critical flight testing done.
If one sincerely believes there is no future air power threat of worth, then new build Super Hornets and F-16s are good enough. As for the F-35 B and C…. it might have left the deck that day without its gun pod. Explain that one to the JTAC/troops on the ground needing support.
F35 keep it cut raptor at 183 or whatever the 3 they decided on. One of the main points of the jsf is that it is going to be bought by many nations. 3 services here will use it. it can share some parts with those making it cheaper to maintaine. Its not so retardedly awsome we cant sell it.there are a thousand reasons for the jsf and not the f22.
Oh a big one anyone remember the f5……yea the one seems only iran and a few others bought. we pull out of jsf its done.
The answer is simple. Both. Just cut the numbers a bit or procure over a longer time period. Making a radical decision or trying to shoe-horn one for the other won’t work.
If you want to save some money, make versions for foreign export like we did with the F-16, etc.
Yah, each program has its own ups and down. But heres how I look at it.
The F-35, while meant to replace the most aircraft; F-16, A-10 and so on, you dont really get much bang for your buck. To say the F-35 is a better fighter then the F-16 is a joke, there is no clear indication that the F-35 is more maneuverable jet. And it can’t carry as many bombs either. The only thing that the F-35 is better at is its LO and countermeasures. Thats it.
And its a joke to even suggest that the F-35 will replace a A-10. What do you think the soldier on the ground would rather have, a high fast flying jet with a small gun, or a large intimidating aircraft like the A-10. The F-35 can’t fly at a low enough speed and altitude. And one more thing, the F-35 is way over budget and behind schedule.
We should ditch the F-35. Lets keep the Raptor. Although the unit price is almost 50 million dollars more, and is the only jet we have to replace the aging fleet of F-15′s, it actually does have a couple things going for it.
-First off, the production line is already up on building them, unlike the F-35.
-Lets take some money off of the cancelled f-35 program(let’s pretend its the future)and build a nava; version of the Raptor.
-The Raptor has an EW capability, something that the USAF badly needs.
-Lets just build an overseas version to sell to our allies; Japan, Australia, Britain, etc., this would bring down the overall cost of the jet and allow our Air Force to buy more.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.
The adminstration seems to be OK with debt spending for social programs, so being consistant, I think we can debt spend enough for SOME advanced capability to augment our legacy aircraft. Build mostly new legacy aircraft with current upgraded capabilties to replace our aging aircraft, and create modest amounts of F-22′s and F-35′s for the leading edge of our strike capability.
The Raptor has an EW capability, something that the USAF badly needs.
………..dude…ew….as in electronic warfare…..that means that ppl will be able to track it……….thus totaly negating the idea of stealth….oh god.
Why not just make a ew drone?…hell cant the f15 do it for a while?…..i mean begin looking at ways to make a cheaper none stealth fighter to back up the raptor thats good with ew?
though i will admit it is good that you speak of the A10 with repect…better keep it up.
Strategtic speaking, We should keep both. Anyone remembered what happened to F-23? Yea F-22 won. Now, we have F-35. I just dont think we should cut either one. We need F-35 more for mid-range level. F-22 can go and contest against adversary while F-35 defend F-22′s rear. If a pair of Su-stealth sneak upon Raptors, then Lightning would cut in and box them in with Raptors comes around and target for the kill. Keep both but keep both production low while upgrade rest of our legendary aircrafts. We’d still rein the air superiority and maximum air control.
Another idea, cut F-35 production and reactivate F-23. what do u think??
Like the Iowa battleships, the F-22 is a gift from a by-gone era, we’ll never be able to dump that much money into R&D for a single plane again. So let’s take advantage of it, and keep those production lines crawling along at 20 planes a year. Or 15 a year. Or 10.
That said, the F-22 isn’t really the plane we need. The internal bays are too small for anything besides air-to-air missiles, which means the plane can’t serve as a first-line strike aircraft, nor does it have room to grow into all those odd-job roles that crop up from time to time. Secondly, the design is too delicate to be adopted for carrier operations. All this means that eventually we’re gonna have to shell out more money to design and build a new strike/attack platform and a naval fighter. The F-35 was supposed to be both of those, as well as an F-16esque export, but it seems that trying to get one airframe to perform all those different roles doesn’t turn out too well. It seems politically impossible to cancel the JSF right now, not with all those international partners, but the program could easily collapse as more and more countries choose other planes, like the F-22 (Japan), F/A-18 (Australia) or the Typhoon. The F-35 just isn’t a safe bet anymore.
So what to do? If we can navalize the F-22, we should, hopefully well enough to fit the new British CVF. Then we should dust off the old A-12 Avenger designs, update them to use the F/A-18E’s engines and radar, add in a more modern EW architecture, and add in an external gun pod for CAS. Simple, effective, and adaptable. Maybe not that good in a dogfight, but they could probably lob AMRAAM’s from far away just as well as a F-22.
Another vote for keeping both…
The F-22 is in production, and if we don’t build more, the small production base is going to make it impossible to keep the fleet flying…
Spare parts will be much too expensive!
Also, we don’t know how long before the JSF is going to take before it *actually* gets in production, and a lot of our Eagles and Falcons need to be replaced sooner, rather than later.
On the other hand, we are contractually obligated to produce the JSF, and many of our allied countries have poured funding into this thing, on the assumption that it’s going to be a real aircraft, not just vaporware…
The cost of the cancellation fees, added to the cost of fighting off multiple international ‘breach of contract’ lawsuits, will probably exceed the cost of just going ahead and buying the planes!
The problem with all weapons systems these days is the fact that all of them are so high tech and dependent on computers and other electronic components. The lead in time prior to full production is self defeating in the sense that the electronics are obsolute before the whole package is assembled. better to have the option that is already operational than something that is not proven. With forty three years in the aircraft business, I can see the handwriting on the wall as far as having a different plane for the different branches of service. those days are soon to be over.
The yanks wont sell the F22 to the Aussies. Thats just dumb. Why not use Australian or Jap tax payers money to keep the production line open with another 70 odd planes?
The message to Australia is ….. send us your sons to fight and be killed in foreign countries but ….. your not worth enough to let you have our good gear..
After the F22 the plane most suited to the Australian Defence role is the SU34 Fullback. Australia needs a plane with range 100Km + and long range plus large quantity of land/naval attack missiles to deny sea lane access ….. both the F22 and JSF fall short in this category. Thats why the F111 has ben such a valued component of the Australian military deterrant force.
If the yanks wont the Aussies have the best they should go and talk to the Russians and see what a stir that would cause in DC.
Good Evening Jeff,
Since the data you are questioning comes from Military.com the owner of this site, I will let them defend what they put up on EARLY Brief.
You cited two examples I would say that there more then likely has been a hundred inicidents where an F-18 has supported ground troops, but consider this.
Est.: Missions flown: 52,260
Est.: flying hours at 12 per mission 630,720
Est.: number of F-18′s worn out based on a estimated life span of 8,000 flying hours is 78.48 F-18′s used up.
Est.: Cost of replacement aircraft at $50 million each, $3,942,000,000.00.
For the purposes of keeping focused on the aircraft I won’t go into fuel, personal, maintenance and other support costs of operating from a $6 Billion Carriers.
I would suggest that even by DoD standards this is a very inefficient allocation of resources.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Definately the JSF. The military will need attack planes to supress the people when they realize what Obama has done to the nation.
I’d say if it comes down to between the two, DEFINITELY the F-35. For one, the F-22 is a air superiority fighter that’s been ad hoced into being able to drop a grand total of 2 air to ground bombs. The F-35 is a multi-purpose aircraft. Other services are depending on (most F-18C/E’s and Harriers are very close to the end of their lifespan) and the air force wants to shoot down jets what it NEEDS is something to make up in close air support. And the F-35 can do both. I say go with that one.
Considering that shutting down either project will cost thousands of jobs. I’d say spend the money. Keep both. That is unless some “shovel ready” bridge to nowhere needs to be built by illegal aliens.
I would say cut the F-35. The Air Force and the Navy do not really need it. Just fill out the Marine order due to their need for a Stovl aircraft. A better option in my opinion would be to create a Marine version of the A-10 that can work off carriers. Put in new electronics, engines, maybe even put on a swept wing design like the F-14 so it can make slow passes for CAS and be fast on the get away or on the way in. The Marines need a deticated CAS plane.
The Air Force can use F-22s and F-15s with upgraded electronics and the addition of thrust vectoring on them. The F-35 is not nececesary yet…
Same with the Navy, their F-18 Super Hornets can be upgraded and meet all near future threats.
In the future, lets try actually creating a stealth multi-role fighter in the future that actually meets GOOD performance requirements and is not bloated.
Keep the aircraft missions separate:
Air superiority: F-22 – it clears sky like no other thing.
CAS: A-10 – if needed even reopen assembly line. Its cheap, effective and rugged.
And get navalized versions of both!
Uh, lets get something straight people. The F-35 doesn’t carry any more bombs than the F-22. It can carry 2x2000lb bombs internally whereas the F-22 can carry 2x1000lb bombs internally. Both can carry a lot more by sacrificing stealth capability. If bombs is all you care about, neither one fits the bill.
As far as I’m concerned, bomb capacity is not important, it’s the cost of being able to deliver 1 bomb at a time throughout any given period of time, in which case the Predator drones are much more effective.
I’d put the F-35 on the chopping block solely because we haven’t made them in any significant quantity and they’d be the logical choice to axe. F-22′s and our current bomber fleet are the bare essentials. Un-mothball more A-10s as someone else said, that aircraft is awesome.
We have a plan for 183 F-22s. Enough of those. No incremental F-22s needed . Keep JSF for sure . Marines need their version as does US Navy . Give the USAF some new A-10′s, they have plenty of big runways and that bad boy can perform !
We have a plan for 183 F-22s. Enough of those. No incremental F-22s needed . Keep JSF for sure . Marines need their version as does US Navy . Give the USAF some new A-10′s, they have plenty of big runways and that bad boy can perform !
” JSF – $83 million.”
If you kill the F-22 and then used half the money saved to buy JSFs you could drop the per-unit price considerably. Perhaps to roughly $70 million each. Which means you get twice as many aircraft.
With larger numbers of fewer models you save in the long run on training, spares, maintenance and the larger number drops the price of all the add-on pods so you get even more bang for your buck.
The air force hates it, not high and fast enough for its taste, but a good number of A-10s would make the ground pounders a lot happier.
In a perfect world the B-2 would be canceled($2.1 billion a piece is just too steep) and the B-1, shown to be far more reliable and capable for ground support than the B-2 would be modernized. At the very least it would get the lighter titanium landing gear it was designed to fly with before it was short-stroked to pay for the B-2.
Ground commanders like the B-1. Its high-speed dash capability gets bombs to troops in trouble fast and once there the swing-wings mean the beast can stay on station, like a wrathful guardian angel, for a very long time before it has to back off for refueling.
For the price every B-2 canceled could get three or four B-1s.
In the end the flying services need to remember that numbers count. We need to get real and get out of the prima-dona fascination with the fastest and shiniest.
The moral of this story is you can take a HIGH end performance aircraft and make it perform LOW end capabilities, but you can’t take a LOW end aircraft and make it perform HIGH end capabilities. The way I see it, the DOD has two choices. Build more F-22′s and make them dual role missions with fewer pilots or build many more F-35′s with their associated pilots and costs. To me the situation for LIFE CYCLE costs and pilots actally favors the F-22. The F-22 development is complete and it is an operational aircraft, while the F-35 is really still a paper tiger. The fact that the F-35 is slated for export and has foreign customers will save it from extinction. The F-22 is forbidden from export and enjoys no such economy of scale. That makes teh F-22 teh likely candidate to kill.
The F-22 is so superior to the F-35, and yet they want all of the service’s to get the JSF. How stupid can you be? The F-22 came around long before the JSF and it is damn near perfect. WHY WOULD YOU FIX IT IF IT AINT BROKE? We wouldn’t be having as bad of money issues if the powers that be would have just stuck with the Raptor and never instituted the JSF program. Plain and simple, keep the 22 and ditch the 35. Sell them to some country with little to no military technology that is an assured alli so we can get some of the money back and help our image.
The F/A-22 is a niche aircraft. We planned on filling a full complement to replace all the F-15C squadrons. I doubt that’s any longer necessary, when we have a total force requirement to replace aircraft in all three Branches.
The problem with either aircraft are their inability to carry a “kick their butt” payload. The price of stealth has made the F-35 a questionable purchase, even though the F-16, F-18, AV-8B, and A-10 need replacing.
Question is if they need replacing right this minute. I doubt that is true. All four aircraft have implemented Block upgrades that enhances their performance another 20 years. The concern becomes time on the airframe of these aircraft. It’s not like flying a B-52, KC-135, or a C-5, whose skin doesn’t suffer the stress of combat aircraft.
Time will tell, and with the F-35 mirroring an F-4 or F-16 production total on an international scale, it’s better to keep the F-35 development and production on time and target.
It’s too late, the production on the Raptor has already been in motion for some time now. The initial order of 183 planes is almost complete. It’s getting closer all the time. The F-22 is the spearhead, it was designed to do one thing and thats to clear the skies. No other country will ever have this because it’s like the Nimitz class carrier, why would we ever give someone else the technology that makes us the most powerful and capable milirary in the world? When the Raptor order is filled then we can shift focus to the F-35. There is money to be made on this program because it is for export to our NATO allies. They all want it. We can use the funding we get from the F-35 to buy our own planes as we can afford it, keeping the lines open longer and replacing aging planes as needed. For the people talking about cancelling the F-22 and B1 programs, it can’t be done. You can’t cancel something that already exists. Most of the Raptors we need are already made and the B1 has been here for 20 years. All that is left is maintenence and operating costs. The F-117 was cut because it’s obsolete. It did more than it was ever designed to do and went way beyond it’s life span. It was designed to penetrate Soviet airspace to knock out radar stations in the even of war with the Soviet Union.
The point is the Raptor is already here, and use the F-35 to export and fund producton of our replacement planes. There shouldn’t be a major rush on replacing everything in the Air Force and Navy fleet. Just export them and buy our own as needed. It’s ok we already own the skies with the F-22s in operation.
Hmm.
F-22 : Best Fighter in the world for the next 15 to 20 years. In production. Costs are known and would come down with additional buys. Even Lockheed doesn’t pretend that an F-35 can do the F-22 Air Dominance job. F-22 is the best platform for surviving anti-access environment.
F-35: Has bareley started it’s SDD test program (2% of testing completed). Is spiraling out of control on both program costs and unit costs. The Low of the High/Low capability mix is starting to approach the F-22 costs. Still has the potential to find many more costly problems. Can’t survive the best adversary defenses (at least not nearly as well as F-22!). Cannot provide Air Dominance like F-22.
Tough Choice.
I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THE F22 RAPTOR, IT’S A GREAT AIRCRAFT FOR ALL OPS. I FURTHER THINK WE SHOULD STEP UP PRODUCTION ON THE B-1 AND A-10 THEN
I THINK WE WOULD HAVE COMPLETE COMBAT CAP.
P.S DONT KILL THE F-22
As far as my beliefs go, I often wonder why the Air Force truly needs the F-35 if the F-22 is such a good platform? I fully support the F-35B and F-35C, but the F-35A in my opinion is superfulous, why do with that when the production line for the F-15 is still open? What’s wrong with making a new model F-16 to replace the aging F-16?
Personally, I also believe we should re-open the A-10 production line. It’s proven itself time and time again as a rugged aircraft that can do what we need, for CAS I doubt anything else really comes close. I also believe that the Marines should be allowed to gain a few squadrons of a new A-10, the Marine Airwing is designed around CAS and they would make very good use out of the aircraft.
Another idea, is why don’t we have any more AC-130′s?
To summarize, I’d say to keep the F-22 that program is too far along to cut. I’d say scrap the F-35A model and use those funds to put the A-10 and the F-16 into a upgrade model production line. Keep the F-35B and the F-35C for the Navy and Marines.
One thing that concerns me is the future of the “Growler”. What about the EW frame of the aging EA-6B, is the Super hornet variation program still going forward, it’s something I haven’t read about in quite some time. Those airframes are necessary to upgrade.
Oh hell, they are both good aircraft. Problem isn’t with the planes, it’s with the procurement system and congress’ porky little fingers. As far as I’m concerned, I’d say keep them both, re-assign the officers that have worked the contracts, penalize the companies for being over time and budget, and make for damn sure the procurement guys can’t have jobs with these companies when they retire.
Like many people have said you cant cancel the F-22 program because its to far along and with most of the initial order already acquired would be pointless.. With an ever aging fleet of CAS aircraft across the services I dont think the JSF program should be abandoned but suspended..Let the NATO orders on the JSF get filled and let them pay for all the testing and advancements on the aircraft and use the proceeds of the sales to off set the cost to buy our own and with our current inventory of aircraft and the addition of the F22 I dont think we are in any real danger of losing air dominance anytime soon..on a separate note I think the DoD procurement /contract bidding system needs to be overhauled I dont see why a company that places a bid on an aircraft for X amount of dollars per copy delivered by this date should be allowed to then say hey were gonna be late on that delivery date and oh yeah were gonna have to up the price because we cant manage our cost.. If that’s the case like it seems to be with all military contracts whats the point in even having bidding for contracts or even putting a price tag on equipment in the first place??
If it were up to me, given the hard choice presented, I think I would stay with the F-22, drop the JSF, and apply the funds saved toward upgraded versions of the F-16 and A-10 platforms.
I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THE F22 RAPTOR, IT’S A GREAT AIRCRAFT FOR ALL OPS. I FURTHER THINK WE SHOULD STEP UP PRODUCTION ON THE B-1 AND A-10 THEN
I THINK WE WOULD HAVE COMPLETE COMBAT CAP.
P.S DONT KILL THE F-22
Posted by: STEVE at February 27, 2009 09:06 AM
IS IT SERIOUSLY NESSESARY TO ALWAYS USE CAPS!!!
Too many partner countries are invested in the JSF. Eventually it will replace 5,000 F-16s sold around the world. If you want to put a stake in the heart of the US fighter aircraft industry, kill the JSF. I’d like to see both survive. We should take much of the billions in wasteful spending out of the so called stimulus package and fund both aircraft. It would save thousands of American jobs.
FIrst of all the airforce has already canceled several programs and retired the F-117 and cut numbers on aircraft like the B-52 & B-1s., just to get more F-22s. So if they think that they need more F-22s to keep this country safe give them the 381 that the congressional review stated we need to maitain air dominance over our enemies. Now that we have some raptors in service the Russians are probably going to scrap the SU-47 & go with a raptor type aircraft (T-50 ), there is no going back to the legacy platforms. Bottom line we need more raptors!!
Now as for the F-35s, we should buy some of the F-35c models for the navy so that there will be a stealth capability from a carrier and some for the F-35Bs for the marines as well as some for our forign partners, and the airforce can use F-16s & F-15Es (all new builds with Aesa radars) after the raptors clear the skies of enemy jets & the ground of the Sam sites.
P/S The raptor is kick ass at dropping Jdams and taking out high priority targets …SAMs ,comand and controll bunkers ect…
Hey Ward,
I guess the downside of such a popular piece as this one is that it lowers the overall average quality of the comments. With every innocuous and honest intelligent question from the uninformed dropping by or raising their hand for the first or second time, Such as ‘what is the high-low mix about?’, you unfortunately also end up drawing 2-3 candidates for the Jay Leno man-in-the-street bit who think we
You can’t reopen the A-10 line. It’s gone and has been for at least 25 years. Only thing you can do is take them out of the boneyard and refurbish and upgrade them.
As for the high/low question, the high end F-22 is designed to be the best (expensive, but capable) while the low end F-35 is more multi-role. Think F-15A/C (“not a pound for ground”) and F-16, only with varying amounts of stealth built into them.
The F-35′s less stealthy than the F-22 and less maneuverable (by design-less cost and capability). That supposedly equates to more aircraft for the money. We’ll see.
Stealthy UAVs coming down the pike (the Predator is NOT stealthy) may supplement or even supplant the F-35, but that’s probably 10-15 years down the road (before you the quantities needed).
Regardless, I expect some programs will die. F-22, probably, since Gates and company don’t like it and support the F-35. VH-71 may also die, although the VH-3 is getting very long in the tooth.
Since USAF aircraft are aging so rapidly due to stress of war and NO new replacement aircraft, we may see USAF down to small forces in the next 5-10 years, especially with the economic crisis. The USAF gambled on stealth and may yet lose.
And if the F/A-18E/F gets cut and the F-35 doesn’t make it, then the Navy will end up with rapidly shrinking air wings and empty flight decks.
I wonder how Wikipedia came up with only an $83 million unit price for the F-35. “Defense News” disclosed that the Israeli Air Force suffered a “cold shower” when it was disclosed that the incorporation of Israeli electronics into the F-35 would have brought the unit cost for Heyl Ha’ Avir to $200+ million!! This number would have easily consumed at least 3.7 years worth of the free annual U.S. military assistance to Israel that amounts to more than $3 billion. When the less than stellar air combat capabilities of the F-35 come into play, there are numerous questions on whether the F-35 is such a “great” choice for anybody other than the USAF.
“or that A-10s are even ‘necessary’ to begin with”
Take it back mac take it back!!!
/loads his 12ga.
all coments about the hog must be keept in hushed reverent tones…
“or that A-10s are even ‘necessary’ to begin with”
Take it back mac take it back!!!
/loads his 12ga.
all coments about the hog must be keept in hushed reverent tones…
I definitely wouldn’t kill the Raptor as nearly everyone here has noted it’s very far along and about as good an aircraft as we’re going to get for many years to come.
Were I king I’d lay things out as so:
400 Raptors (a nice round number) to replace most of the F-15 fleet with a re-manufacture program to bring the remaining Eagles up to snuff for a modern war. I’d also look into adding the bulged weapons doors proposed for the FB-22 and the F-35′s EOTS sensor to the current Raptor fleet to give it a little more versatility in the A2G arena. I would absolutely allow foreign sales to select nations (Australia, Japan, the UK if they want them) selling the Raptor strengthens our allies (which in turns strengthens us) and brings down costs for everyone.
The F-35A would be canceled, and the Air Force would be directed to buy the F-35C in its’stead. It would reduce costs for the Navy and and give the Air Force a longer ranged punch. I might be convinced to cut back the total AF buy of the F-35 as well. That would leave a lot of squadrons (including the Guard which is already getting left out of the F-35 buy) out in the cold, their F-16s would be replaced with either new build advanced model F-16s (block 50+ or Block 60) or F/A-18Es (the later would have the advantage of driving down acquisition costs). They could also be replaced with UAVs if they mature enough in the near term.
As for the VH-71, what’s wrong with replacing the rest of the VH-3 fleet with VH-60Ns? I know it’s smaller but it’s already in service, is built entirely in the US, and the president getting a smaller helicopter has some nice optics in these tough economic times.
LEP,
The Israeli’s have traditionally integrated their own specialized avionics. Before the big throttle-back on the F-16 line in Ft Worth, the Israeli birds were easy to spot in final assembly without even looking at their placards, because of all the holes in the front where equipment would have been on other planes. I’d wager any outrageous costs they would/will incur doing the same with the F-35 has more to do with the tightly integrated nature of the F-35′s systems.
Valcan,
you’ll have to get behind a young engineer I’m working with. He crewdogged the A-10s in OIF.
The A-10 had its heyday. It still has a place, but like all old Soldiers it should just fade away. We already have enough Nostalgia BUFFs (Pun intended)
WHAT!!! First you insult the A10 but that was not enough………now you insult the B52…..HERRECY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol seriously how would you even begin to replace the hogg……..and as for the B52 well hell i figure they need to use a flying wing design with a crap load of ew and airdefense weapons against missiles….hey i figure if we can build a anti missile system for a tank we can build one for a bomber.
Some of you guys need to wake from your Top Gun fantasy land, and realize that fighter aircraft are not the be all and end all of air power. The A-10 unlike the F-22 is actually being used in our current wars, and it’s services are very much in demand.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/01/12/warthog-wing-cracks-under-control-af-gets-uavs/
Resolved: The A-10′s relative operational utility is now past its peak and on the downhill slope.
Argumentation in support of said resolution:
1. The aircraft was designed for the CAS mission.
2. Through increases in weapons accuracy and onboard sensors and netcentricity, CAS requirements can increasingly be satisfied using aircraft that can fly outside the threat environment that the A-10 must operate inside of to perform the same tasks.
3. CAS requirements can now be met using aircraft that carry larger payloads, can transit more rapidly between battle sites and have far more persistent battlefield presence than the A-10.
4. The aircraft as described in 2. and 3. are also capable of performing many other missions well outside the capabilities and survivability of the A-10.
Summary: It is already being demonstrated that the CAS mission is increasingly better served by systems other than the A-10, at far less risk to the assets and their operators.
Argumentation against said resolution:
1. Cool gun
2. Army likes it more ’cause they can see it hanging around and makes them feel safer.
3. ??????
Reports of the “Hog’s” demise may be premature. And as mentioned, it’s comforting to the “ground pounders.” :-)
http://boeing.com/ids/news/2007/q2/070629b_nr.html
The Air Force will not have a choice. The JSF will stay the F-22 is out. No cross service need for the F-22 will kill it.
3. ??????
Mac,
It makes us Army folk feel better because its low, slow, armored (and less worried about ground fire) and rarely misses. Its also killed more ground targets than all other platforms combined.
Slow moving, long loiter aircraft have always been more responsive to ground missions than fast movers. If the A-10s sun is setting, then make us another A-10 type aircraft.
Well, I cain’t argue the merits with the cogency of an engineer or pilot but I have a lot of fence sitting time on the politics of procurement. The politics of purchasing both, in an administrating embarking on historical expansion of domestic, welfare spending, is negative for the purchase of anything in the military. Obama is accused of being a closet Kenyan (anti-colonial)intending on bringing down American major power status. This is a measure on how he sees the world in 25 years without competitive military. In 1940, the Hurricane’s were successful so long as the Spitfire delt with the ME 109 and FW 190′s. History repeats itself except the JSF won’t have many F-22′s around to help keep the Russian or Chinese 5th gen air weapons off their backs.
Dear Ward (and DoD):
What a quandry. From all my readings I believe we should go full speed ahead with the 3 versions of the JSF (-35) variant’s. It has NOW a role that fits our CURRENT needs. The F-22 has no role or purpose in our current state of situational awareness…but DO NOT end production. Merely…slow down it’s rate of procurement. We shall still meet our air superiority role and purpose and still well ahead of any other nation bringing on-line any other 5th generation air-superiority aircraft. As a Marine, I am thoroughly excited by the VTOL capability of the “C” version. And, too, I wonder: Can the F-22 be modified for aircraft carrier qualifications at sea??? I certainly would like to think so. Our current F/A-18 SUPER HORNET will need a replacement in about 10+ years. Any who can comment in reply? I would appreciate that folks. Thank you all. I remain,
Very sincerely,
Sgt. Verle E. Wenneker, USMC
http://www.VEWenneker@AOL.com
FACT: The F-35 isnt as important or as needed as the F-22. And even its price is sky-rocketing.
An interesting review just published:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
Can the F-22 be modified for aircraft carrier qualifications at sea
part of the proble mwith that like with the navy version of the jsf is that navy planes need to be realy tough….which means more weight.so theres that
Valcan and others,
It would be pretty much impossible to make the F-22 sea qualified. For a number of reasons. You can’t simply stick a tailhook on the back and call it a day. The tailhook would have to be pretty much anchored to the the structural chassis. Same with the landing gear, for landings and the front gear for cat shots. All the electronics have to be rugged enough to withstand the plane slamming into the deck a few thousand times or the g-forces in a cat shot. Plus carrier aircraft have to be adaptable. All military aircraft gain weight due to modifications and updates but naval aircraft gain it twice as much (its actually about a pound per day) due to the fact that structural beef-ups are more inclusive among other things.
Im assuming these things are accounted for in the F-35C version.
The F-22 is the superior aircraft. Its development cost is now a sunk costs and its unit price will come down if more are manufactured. The F-35 is likely to go up in price, especially if the Air Force reduces numbers or some foreign partners drop out.
You don’t really need the stealth capabilities of the F-35 if you have the F-22. And if you need stealth you’d want to be in an F-22 anyway.
Why not drop the F-35 and buy more F-22s to replace the F-15. Then replace the F-16 with more F16s. They’re still a reasonably competitive plane and probably good enough to drop bombs on the Taliban, and they won’t have the higher maintenance costs (stealth is expensive to maintain).
Sell the F-22 to really close friends (e.g. Israel, UK, Australia) and the F-16 to everyone else.
As for a naval version of the F-22, see http://worldwidewarpigs.blogspot.com/2009/02/vaal-vs-naval-raptor.html
One of the comments on Bill’s link is an excellent run-down on all the difficulties associated with converting an Air Force plane for naval use. As for the unlikelihood of a F-22N, I’m not surprised. In fact, I vaguely remember that in the original YF-22/YF-23 fly-off, the Navy was interested in picking the YF-23 instead and developing it for naval use, similar to what happened with the YF-16/YF-17 fly-off and the genesis of the F/A-18. Of course, the design teams may have betted on that to begin with, with the Northrop-Grumman/McDonnell-Douglas team using their long relationship with the Navy to stay in business.
What’s more disturbing, though, is that it seems that the F-35 is suffering from the same engineering myopia that thinks the Navy can just borrow planes from the Air Force. The F-35 is an Air Force plane, through and through, and the F-35C is a substandard compromise. The F-35C will be better than nothing, but you can bet that the Navy would rather spend money on more F/A-18E’s and F’s, at least until their 4-gen design becomes positively antiquated in a few decades. Then the Navy will need a 5-gen plane of its own, and given the time these projects take nowadays, Boeing might as well get started on it now.
Get rid of the F35. F16s, F18s and A10s do the job just fine. A10s for close air support, F16 and F18 to take out ships and bomb fixed targets.
The title on the lede’s provocative, but it presents a false dichotomy: we probably don’t have to “kill” either program. Certainly not if both are part of a high/low mix.
IMHO, we should probably consider extending the F-22 line a little more for Japan, and Oz. If we don’t want to sell them, we can lease them for joint CAP. Technology transfer restrictions are tricky, but we’ve done lend-lease before.
As far as the F-35′s concerned, some of you are seem to be misinformed about its capabilities. Granted, some of its potential is still classified, but hints have been leaking out, if you’ve been paying attention.
The Brits, Israelis, Ozzies, Japanese, Dutch, Norwegians, etc., etc. aren’t interested in the program because they’re dopes, or dupes. They bought in because there’s potential. WADR, you need to think about that.
I’d say that considering current threats as well as potential threats out to 2025, we should end F-22 production, continue with F-35 production plans and focus on follow on technologies beyond F-22 that would be specific to the types of threats we face today and will be likely to face over the next 30 years. Specifically, the F-22 is designed primarily to fight overwhelming numbers of Soviet Era aircraft over the skies of Europe with THOSE logistical considerations in mind.(ie Range, payload ect.) Potential competitors are developing F-22 specific countermeasures now. And I don’t mean a cool looking new Sukhoi with forward swept wings, PAK-FA or anything like that. I mean they are looking to avoid our strengths, such as force on force air battles and NEGATE with unconventional tactics and anti-access strategies. What this means in layman terms is that if they can stop F-22′s from arriving in force or initiate conflicts that have little to do with air combat, then more F-22 won’t matter. Also, there are the nuclear strategies. If I can put a nuclear BM onto the airfield you want to stage your F-22′s out of, I’ve seriously complicated your logistics situation and basing. Even the threat of it is enough.
Again, understand, none of this is to say that the F-22 isn’t necessary. Just not in more numbers. We have other platforms that can take the F-22′s non air combat roles over. And with regard to air combat, you would be hard pressed to find an opponent capable of fighting off even a small number of Raptors in the few dozen range. Seriously, google the aircraft inventories of threats and compare that to the number of Raptors. Be sure to consider things like how many enemy fighters can actually be committed to a fight. Things like Basing, other threats and even OR rate. There are Reasons why USN Carriers can come and go at will with only a modest F/A-18E/F compliment and still DOMINATE the seas and coast of the Earth. There just aren’t many threats actually capable of withstanding a force of that magnitude and in terms of air to air capability the F-22 far surpasses an F/A-18 in capability.
Also, think of how much use the A-10, AV-8B, F-16 and F/A-18C/D fleets are getting in the CAS and strike roles. We have been in almost CONSTANT combat for 20 years. The F-35 brings a much needed relief thats far more survivable and relevant and integrates neatly into the framework of existing alliances. This is no big deal because one of the biggest strengths the USA has is its ability to form, fund and fuel big coalitions for military purposes. Platform integration is crucial.
In order to stay relevant, the DoD has to take a realistic view of it’s wants in relation to needs. As great as it would be to have more Raptors, and I think it would be great, the F-35 is the more important platform at the systems level.
-DA
FAR too much loonacy to comment on.
All I can say is that the ignorance of FAR too many people posting here is SCARY.
and one more post to round it out to 100 :)
Buy the F-22s for the air, and buy more F-16s for the ground. Like someone else said, the development costs for both are already spent. F-22s are needed for the stealth (at least for the near term). F-16s are still competitive and are still wonderful strike aircraft. If we really need something with more payload capabilities, buy more F-15Es.
Bottom line, kill the JSF.
Lunacy pfcem? Sounds more like disagreement to me. Care to respond logically? Make your case.
-DA
It seems to me I remember back when the ATF program was started (which lead to the YF-22 and YF-23), one of the requirments of ATF was that a naval version had to be planned for in the basic design. Both Lockheed-Martin and Northrup-McDonnellDouglas supposedly incorporated the ability to navalize their respective designs.
Have had this link for a while and thought I would share it. It’s Australian, so you know where their coming from, but it’s information none the less.
http://www.ausairpower.net/index.html
I believe the aircraft needed would what is needed for the threats in the future. We might be going at it with Iran and may not need the F-22 but yet again the F-16 is inadequate as we would be taking on F-16s we sold them. In that case the F-35 would be fine but can’t say for sure.
Its the threat assessment that will solve the dilemma. This is a decision for the Joint Chiefs based on meetings and such and how well they can assess future threats.
“Okay, folks, something’s gotta give, money-wise.”
Bullshit. We just ran up a couple of trillion in budget/spendulus for absolutely no return.
Don’t give me the “times are tight” garbage. A single F-22 provides more jobs for something tangible than any random billion dollar earmark in those budget.
If you can fund a $10 billion dollar railway between LA and Las Vegas, you can buy a 100 Raptors and call it a day.
Steven, you are correct concerning the Navalized ATF, except for the ‘marketing’ part. There was a Congressional DEMAND that the Navy get on the ATF train. The Navy made a pretty half-assed attempt to comply (read: appease) and ran a NATF office for a while.
Here’s where the ‘marketing’ came in. Lockheed made a BIIG deal about how the F-23 would be ‘harder’ to navalize than the F-22, focusing on the F-23′s bigger size as being ‘too big’ for a carrier — all prior to source selection. AFTER source selection, Lockheed revealed a Naval F-22 was going to have to get bigger with a bigger wing and control surfaces (see F-35C for the principle in effect). The Naval low speed maneuverability requirement for carrier approaches is a mutha. Future generations may not have so demanding a controllability requirement if they can get the UCAS-D auto approach and land proven out in an operational environment.
For Erich. Iran doesn’t have the F-16. They had the F-14. However, I imagine that they probably don’t have many of them left.
What Iran does have, or at least soon will, is the latest in Russian SAM technology. That’s where you want the F-22. It has the best stealth (the F-35 only has partial stealth) and it can, because of its super cruise capability and higher ceiling, release its payload further out than any other platform.
Iran has probably got the best integrated air defense system in the Middle East, and one of the best in the world.
The other hot spots the US has to consider are China/Taiwan and Korea. If things flared up in either of those locations the USAF would want as many F-22s as they could get.
Well, I’ll let others with more time on their hands take down the gristle (there ain’t no meat)in Byron’s post, I’ll focus on the gaping philosophical hole in Byron’s ‘argument’.
RE: “produced generations of useless air craft that never saw combat”. Ignoring the fact that there has never been a ‘generation’ of aircraft that have NOT seen combat since WW2 (individual examples in those generations, yes). Such a statement reveals the utterer fails to understand the first and fundamental benefit of a strong American defense is to DETER aggression. It IS unfortunate that mush-minded politicians along with their supporters too often subvert that first mission.
By happenstance, I met General LeMay in his later life when we crossed paths at Wilford Hall Medical Center. I guarantee you Skinner, you wouldn’t have had the huevos to tell him to his face, even when he was an old man, what you dared to write here.
“The only thing harder than getting a new idea into the military mind is getting an old one out”. –B.H. Liddell Hart
Of course, most of Hart’s battles were fought with the Infantry-minded, so he may have been broadbrushing a little there.
Ok, a few things need to be set straight here…
-Irans air defenses, could not keep out a cesna, never mind a high performance fighter. Look a the terrain.
-Syria, not Iran, boast the most powerful threat IAD. Irans ground based air defences are designed to protect point targets rather than defense in depth. This again has to do with terrain as well as technical limits.
-It is more likely we would use supply trucks rather than F-22′s in Iran. Look at NATOs statements to that effect.
-The F-35, is not “partial stealth”. Why people think that I don’t know but it is not true. F-35 may not be as stealthy as an F-22, but the difference is negligible as far as threats are concerned because F-35 significantly reduce or even eliminate the effectiveness of ground based IADs. Also the F-35 represents a generational leap in terms of stealth technology over the F-22. the same applies to maintenance.
-Russia IS NOT selling Iran it’s most sophisticated SAM. The S300 is dangerous, but not all are created equal. Nor has anything concrete been worked out on an arms deal. Moreover, it would take time to integrate the s300 and make it operational. Notice how we are STILL integrating Super Hornets and Raptors. It’s not just buy and you’re done with the s300.
-no threat air force exist today, nor will one exist capable of over powering the F-22′s and other aircraft we have and will get.
Any questions to these specific responses appreciated.
-DA
-
More later
-DA
Good Evening Folks,
I agree with you “Darth America”, Iran’s air defense is noting that should worry the U.S. military. Russians being the good capitalists that they now are sold identical system to Turkey and Egypt and American Techs have had a good poke around inside them. In addition in the Fall of 07 when Iran was showcasing it’s toy in a war game they turned on their S-300 system. From here on it’s classified but I think you get the idea.
The Russians still have not been able to field the S-400 AD system, a project that was started during the Soviet era.
To SMSgt., as usual you just blowing smoke at me. I also had the pleasure of meeting General La May after he retired from the military and he was running for VP of the United States. I found him to be a serious, well informed and a pleasant person to be around.He was open and frank when questioned and at least when I was around didn’t lose his temper. General La May was an original and in large part created the U.S.A.F.
Often public people create a persona for for the sake of the media and I think this was the case with General Curtis La May. I have no doubts that he firmly believed in nuclear weapons but I also an sure this he was very respectful of them both as weapons and political, and diplomatic tools.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Heh,
Last time I checked we were discussing combat aircraft, not dead generals…
I have a question. Why has the JSF not been fitted with thrust vectoring? we have the technology, and it would immediatly elevate the aircraft’s capabilities beyond all other fighters except the raptor. seems to me that this would make a lot of sense.
you know we are and have always been gungho about what’s the next lever of fighter planes,ship,missiles,sub-marines,guns,anti-this that and the other thing that can’t be mention due to top secrets,close call by the russian, north coreans…why? because this here is AURMERICA…enough already why we can go back and pick up any A6s,corsiar,phatham, and equip them with high tech gizmos and they will do the job
By the way, “Lightning Deus” would mean “Lightning God.” I think the word you were looking for was either “Deux,” French for “II,” or “Duo,” Latin for two, which of course, in Roman numerals is “II.”
buy cheap nokia n95 experience without nokia mobile learning is better than learning without excperi-ence. I have nokia 6300 but one lamp wait which my feet are guided; and that bose headphones is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the apple touch past. http://www.leadsoftstore.com/