The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[RyanC]

Yes.

Even for nuclear strike, the need for stealth is lessened greatly if you can burn your target set from 250 miles (400 km) away with an aero-ballistic missile (SRAM II).

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

It's safe to say that CAS sorties far, far overshadow penetrating strike sorties during the last 10 years.

And thats what it will be forever? The USAF thinks "Big war" First, Thats why you have F-22s but no combat tucanos.

I've been hearing that the A-10 is going away soon since the 80s. The A-10's service life is being extended yet again, it's going to be around a long time.

Just in very reduced numbers, and away from any serious anti aircraft opposition.

Glad your chart included UAVs, that helped your numbers. Also the A-10 in all variants is around 350 total. As of right now, 468 Eagles of all types are active. Believe me the force is getting smaller.

That's already here -- F-18E/F Block II; which was delivered in 2005 with APG-79 AESA radar stock.

A whole bunch of improvements are pipelined for Block II, such as the JHMCS and IRST which will go into a centerline drop tank IIRC, along with improvements to the avonics to enable sensor fusion from the APG-79 and IRST, etc.

Thats not even close, and Boeing knows this which is why they have proposed this:

Which is the upgrade I am talking about.

Yes.

Even for nuclear strike, the need for stealth is lessened greatly if you can burn your target set from 250 miles (400 km) away with an aero-ballistic missile (SRAM II).

No politician in his right mind would authorize nuclear weapons. its political and possibly national suicide if the other side has them.

The military thinks they need stealth, if you can call them up and convince them that fleets of cruise missile toting fighters are the way to go, more power to you.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

What does the Super Hornet do that the F-35 doesn't do better (aside from the tanker role I mean).

The F/A-18E can return to a carrier after losing one engine. In the F-35, the pilot does not have much time to troubleshoot an engine problem over water before having to eject or ditch.

Everything in the above statement depends entire on circumstance. There are many scenarios and the above statement is not written in stone in any sense.

And Stats have shown that twin engined naval aircraft have the same attrition that single engined land based aircraft do. not to mention that the Super Hornet that crashed in VA, beach and the Marine Hornet that crashed in Miramar both suffered dual engine failure. Not to mention the countless hornets that have experienced engine fires,

http://defensetech.org/2011/04/15/another-fa-18-hornet-catches-fire-aboard-the-vinson/

Hornets love to have engine fires, good thing they have two in order to double the odds of catastrophe

 

[sferrin]

What does the Super Hornet do that the F-35 doesn't do better (aside from the tanker role I mean).

The F/A-18E can return to a carrier after losing one engine. In the F-35, the pilot does not have much time to troubleshoot an engine problem over water before having to eject or ditch.

Yeah? Let's see it do it on a gator.

 

[sferrin]

Proponents go on ad nausem about how cheap the super bug is, and then in the next breath mention about how the F-18 will need an upgrade to compete.

And really, in a world where a 1,000 kilometer ranged semi-stealthy cruise missile with a 1,000 lb warhead costs $980,000 or less and weighs only 2,200~ lbs; do you really need stealth to strike targets anymore?

You gonna use that cruise missile to shoot down a J-20 or Flanker (neither of which the Super Hornet can compete with).

 

[SOC]

No politician in his right mind would authorize nuclear weapons. its political and possibly national suicide if the other side has them.

An aeroballistic missile with terminal homing doesn't need to be a nuke. The SRAM-II is just the most likely analog people'd remember.

You gonna use that cruise missile to shoot down a J-20 or Flanker (neither of which the Super Hornet can compete with).

1. There is this thing, it's called AEGIS. Can eat FLANKERs. Might have the power to eat a J-20.

2. The question was about strike missions, so yeah, a stealthy ALCM can certainly strike a J-20 or FLANKER. As they'd be GROUND TARGETS.

;D

In reality if the other guy is sending up a lot of air assets, using stealthy ALCMs to sneak by and blow up his infrastructure isn't a bad idea.

 

[RyanC]

You gonna use that cruise missile to shoot down a J-20 or Flanker (neither of which the Super Hornet can compete with).

No, I'll use that cruise missile to blow up that J-20/Flanker on the ground, or blow up the various miscellaneous non-hardened buildings on an airbase that you kind of need to generate a sustained sortie rate.

 

[quellish]

And thats what it will be forever? The USAF thinks "Big war" First, Thats why you have F-22s but no combat tucanos.

And no MQ-9s, and no AC-130s, and...
Oh wait.

Just in very reduced numbers, and away from any serious anti aircraft opposition.

One of the lessons learned from DESERT STORM was to avoid flying lower than medium altitude, where the "serious anti aircraft opposition" is. That is where the A-10 does it's work.

Glad your chart included UAVs, that helped your numbers. Also the A-10 in all variants is around 350 total. As of right now, 468 Eagles of all types are active. Believe me the force is getting smaller.

The point was *diversity*. All of the plaforms listed do strike and/or air to air. Even the UAVs.

Thats not even close, and Boeing knows this which is why they have proposed this:
Which is the upgrade I am talking about.

That is a different product/set of products. The International Super Hornet is an export model, much like the "Silent Eagle". The upgrades the US Super Hornets and Eagles are getting are different, usually better. There are several threads on the forum that go into the details of each.

The military thinks they need stealth, if you can call them up and convince them that fleets of cruise missile toting fighters are the way to go, more power to you.

If they need convincing, why are they buying so many air launched cruise missiles?

 

[RyanC]

No politician in his right mind would authorize nuclear weapons. its political and possibly national suicide if the other side has them.

Ostensibly, the entire rationale that we designed the ATB/B-2 for was so that we could sneak around holes in the Soviet air defense network and then have the ATBs roam around the Soviet interior, hunting down road-mobile ICBMs and destroying them, making the initial penetration and long term hunting efforts viable via stealth.

Which begs the question, wouldn't it be more efficient to have a whole bunch of B-1Bs, each with 36 x SRAM IIs simply blowing holes in the Soviet air defense network to fight their way into the interior, causing massive amounts of 'bonus' damage in the process, instead of sneaking B-2s with 16 x SRAM IIs each into the interior for the same value of money?

I mean, once you light the blue touchpaper and start executing the SIOP, you're going to end up there anyway...

 

[RyanC]

My skepticism isn't limited to just the F-35. Back in 2004 or so, I was a pretty heavy supporter of the USMC's EFV, but since then, I've reconsidered my stance, based on the changing global arms export climate -- we live in a world where a transnational terrorist organization (Hizbollah) has a large force of anti-ship missiles.

Really, things are changing pretty fast in regards to military technology, computing and sensor power is getting cheaper and cheaper and SatNav is proliferating -- we have a whole bunch of constellations going up:

Galileo (EU) - Global System by 2014
GLONASS (Russia) - Global system
COMPASS (China) - Global system by 2020.
Baidou (China) -- Regional around Asia/West Pacific
IRNSS (India) -- Regional around India, extends to Persian gulf.
QZSS (Japan) -- Regional around Asia.

The chances of China or Russia selectively degrading their systems in concordance with US requests is...minimal to say the least.

Tying into that is the proliferation of cheap Cruises. Iran if it wanted to, could knock off it's expensive BOMB PROGRAM, and pour that money into spamming forth a whole bunch of cheap 1,000~ km cruise missiles using one of the above mentioned SatNav constellations and placing them on TELs throughout the Iranian heartland.

There'd be enough range to hold pretty much the entire US military presence in the Gulf hostage from firing locations inside the interior of Iran.

Same principle with North Korea, albeit on a simpler basis, as distances would be short enough to use solid rocket propulsion (ATACMS has a range of 300~ km).

 

[SOC]

Ostensibly, the entire rationale that we designed the ATB/B-2 for was so that we could sneak around holes in the Soviet air defense network and then have the ATBs roam around the Soviet interior, hunting down road-mobile ICBMs and destroying them, making the initial penetration and long term hunting efforts viable via stealth.

Which begs the question, wouldn't it be more efficient to have a whole bunch of B-1Bs, each with 36 x SRAM IIs simply blowing holes in the Soviet air defense network to fight their way into the interior, causing massive amounts of 'bonus' damage in the process, instead of sneaking B-2s with 16 x SRAM IIs each into the interior for the same value of money?

I mean, once you light the blue touchpaper and start executing the SIOP, you're going to end up there anyway...

I believe the idea was to go after and eliminate the weapons retained for retaliatory strike while the dust settled. The idea was that fixed, silo-based ICBMs would go off first because they were obvious targets. The B-1B, after penetrating, would have had neither the gas nor the right radar for the job.

 

[quellish]

Which begs the question, wouldn't it be more efficient to have a whole bunch of B-1Bs, each with 36 x SRAM IIs simply blowing holes in the Soviet air defense network to fight their way into the interior, causing massive amounts of 'bonus' damage in the process, instead of sneaking B-2s with 16 x SRAM IIs each into the interior for the same value of money?

At the time that very question was studied to death by many parties (SABRE PENETRATOR, etc.), and the decisions were made based on that. Unfortunately, there were other pieces of that plan that didn't materialize - like the system that would find the targets for the B-2s. At the time though, the B-1 was seen as competing with the B-2, but procurement of the B-1B as an interim bomber ended up making it complementary to the B-2. Until the B-2 reached IOC the B-1B was to penetrate using speed and reduced observables at low level, using cruise missiles to take out targets at standoff ranges. By the time SRTs were to be a critical threat, the B-2 and supporting systems would be ready, allowing the B-2 to penetrate, loiter, and hunt.

Same principle with North Korea, albeit on a simpler basis, as distances would be short enough to use solid rocket propulsion (ATACMS has a range of 300~ km).

For a very long time NK was doing just that with conventional artillery, holding much of the Korean peninsula at risk. In the past few years US forces have moved further from the DMZ which has made the DPRK's sword of damocles less of a threat.
The DPRK though probably does not have enough calories on hand at any time to make such a threat real.

 

[GTX]

Which begs the question, wouldn't it be more efficient to have a whole bunch of B-1Bs, each with 36 x SRAM IIs simply blowing holes in the Soviet air defense network to fight their way into the interior, causing massive amounts of 'bonus' damage in the process, instead of sneaking B-2s with 16 x SRAM IIs each into the interior for the same value of money?

I mean, once you light the blue touchpaper and start executing the SIOP, you're going to end up there anyway...

Except the problem with this sort of force structure limitation is what do you do for anything less then all out WWIII type scenario?


I do find it interesting that whilst the cruise missile option has been raised from time to time and even supposedly considered as an option for the UK's FOAS solution (see below), it hasn't really been ever implemented or seriously considered as far as I am aware.

Regardless of what some may say re better to have a human in a cockpit, I actually suspect the real reason (or at least part thereof) is that the conventional fighter is preferred because of the higher industrial input it offers. This equals jobs which equals votes which equals happy politicians...yet another reason nations have signed up to the F-35 program.

 

[sferrin]

You gonna use that cruise missile to shoot down a J-20 or Flanker (neither of which the Super Hornet can compete with).

No, I'll use that cruise missile to blow up that J-20/Flanker on the ground, or blow up the various miscellaneous non-hardened buildings on an airbase that you kind of need to generate a sustained sortie rate.

You need to get close enough first. And making your whole ability to conduct an airwar dependant on the ability to knock out the other guy's airbases with cruise missiles (which will undoubtedly be defended by systems that could eat a Tomahawk alive without breaking a sweat) would be suicide.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

One of the lessons learned from DESERT STORM was to avoid flying lower than medium altitude, where the "serious anti aircraft opposition" is. That is where the A-10 does it's work.

So whats the Libya lesson?

If they need convincing, why are they buying so many air launched cruise missiles?

why are they buying so many F-35s? IF simple purchase equals validity I don't know we are debating the F-35 at all.

 

[Triton]

Has anyone compared the price of the F-35 to other fighter programs adjusted for inflation?

 

[GTX]

Has anyone compared the price of the F-35 to other fighter programs adjusted for inflation?

Part of the problem is trying to get a common basis for price to do the comparison with.

 

[Triton]

"Air Force F-35 Production Rate In Doubt"
Posted by Bill Sweetman 4:54 AM on Sep 14, 2012

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a40a881f7-7eea-4429-83e3-7bf315c5a9db

As we’re getting ready for the Air Force Association show in Washington (or rather, at a remote location in Maryland) next week, it’s an opportune time to look at US fighter force planning.

The Joint Strike Fighter Selected Acquisition Report, released at the end of March, included year-by-year production plans for the Pentagon, updated to take account of the cutbacks in low-rate initial production (LRIP) numbers announced at the beginning of the year. Those adjustments keep LRIP rates moderate through the 2014 buy year (2016 delivery, LRIP-9) which sees only 29 aircraft ordered by the Pentagon.

Thereafter, Air Force orders increase sharply: 32 in 2015, 48 in 2016 and 2017 and three years at 60 per year. The USAF is shown buying 80 jets in 2021 and continuing that rate until the end of the planned production program.

At the same time, the SAR shows unit procurement costs (average procurement unit costs, base-year 2012) declining from scary levels in 2014 ($184 million for the F-35A) to barely more than half that in the 2018 buy.

There is one snag. The Air Force’s own statements about its plans don’t support the rates in the SAR.

Former chief of staff Gen Norman Schwartz warned of this in June, saying: “If the aircraft gets cheaper, we’ll buy more. If it gets more expensive, we’ll buy less.”
Just before the DoD released the SAR, two USAF planners told the House Armed Services Committee that the USAF’s goal for the fighter force is 1,100 primary mission aircraft. Including aircraft used for training and test and aircraft in depot maintenance, this calls for a total inventory of 1,900 fighters. (Download here.)

The USAF planners also talked about how many existing aircraft the USAF expects to be in service in 2030. The service will still have 242 A-10s. As many as 249 F-15C/Ds could be retained – at least 175 will be kept until 2035 and possibly all of them. The 220-jet F-15E fleet will last through 2030.

In a little-publicized development in April, the USAF named Lockheed Martin as the sole qualified source for the the Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite (Capes) program. This is linked to the F-16 service life extension program, intended to increase the F-16’s lifetime from 8,000 to 10,000 equivalent flight hours. The first of about 350 Slep aircraft, modified from Block 40/50 aircraft, is due to enter service in 2017.

Capes includes an active electronically scanned array radar, Terma ALQ-213 electronic warfare management system, a new large-format center pedestal display, an integrated broadcast system (IBS) receiver and other improvements on 300-350 life-extended F-16C/D Block 40/42/50/52 fighters. IOC for Capes is expected in late 2018 and the modifications are due to be complete in late 2022.

The AESA will be based on Raytheon’s Racr or incumbent Northrop Grumman’s Sabr, a choice to be made separately by the USAF. A draft request for proposals is due imminently. Export customers such as Taiwan and Korea (which has selected BAE Systems to upgrade its F-16s) will follow the US lead on AESA, raising the initial market to around 600 radars, the biggest single AESA deal after JSF.

Bottom line: including F-22s, the USAF plans to keep around 1,200 of its current inventory fighters in service until 2030, implying that it will have some 700 F-35s. But the SAR shows the USAF buying 1,050 JSFs through 2028, the 2030 delivery year.

How do you reconcile the numbers? If the USAF buy rate rises to 48 in 2016, as planned, and then holds at that number, the total buy through 2028 is just over 750 aircraft. And, oddly enough, 48 a year is exactly what the USAF said it could afford, more than four years ago.

Does this necessarily mean a catastrophic rise in unit costs? No, for three reasons: first, the Department of the Navy and international partners are still involved, and second, acquisition costs are not as rigidly determined by rate as some people think. (If that were not the case, Boeing would not be able to build the Super Hornet for less than the lowest projected cost for the F-35A.) Third, this doesn't affect deliveries until 2020 (the 2018 buy).

On the other hand, both this and any further slips and delays in partner buys are bad news for companies that invested heavily in breaking into JSF, in hopes of deliveries topping the 200 mark in 2017 – as Lockheed Martin was promising in Canada less than two years ago. And if production is not going to be underpinned by 80 USAF jets per year, the process of adapting to that reality needs to start now.

 

[GTX]

How curious...this mirrors the comments and postulations of one vocal (though not so much this last week...now we know why) F-35 detractor here. :

Moreover, if you read it carefully it is quite clear that there is nothing new in that article. Sure, a quick glance might leave a reader thinking this is some groundbreaking new development (which I am sure is the intention ,consciously or subconsciously), but if you do take the time to read it carefully, it is quite clear that it is nothing of the sort. Rather just more of the same.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

How curious...this mirrors the comments and postulations of one vocal (though not so much this last week...now we know why) F-35 detractor here. :

Moreover, if you read it carefully it is quite clear that there is nothing new in that article. Sure, a quick glance might leave a reader thinking this is some groundbreaking new development (which I am sure is the intention ,consciously or subconsciously), but if you do take the time to read it carefully, it is quite clear that it is nothing of the sort. Rather just more of the same.

Yeah I honestly read it twice, because I couldn't "find the punchline" if you will.

Does this necessarily mean a catastrophic rise in unit costs? No,

ok, thanks Bill.

 

[LowObservable]

Moreover, if you read it carefully it is quite clear that there is nothing new in that article. Sure, a quick glance might leave a reader thinking this is some groundbreaking new development (which I am sure is the intention ,consciously or subconsciously), but if you do take the time to read it carefully, it is quite clear that it is nothing of the sort.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Really, GTX, you can't come up with anything more original than the "it's really nothing new" gambit? Oldest trick in the PR book, sonny.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Moreover, if you read it carefully it is quite clear that there is nothing new in that article. Sure, a quick glance might leave a reader thinking this is some groundbreaking new development (which I am sure is the intention ,consciously or subconsciously), but if you do take the time to read it carefully, it is quite clear that it is nothing of the sort.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Really, GTX, you can't come up with anything more original than the "it's really nothing new" gambit? Oldest trick in the PR book, sonny.

Oldest trick in the writer book, microwaving the same old stuff

 

[AeroFranz]

So it's bad news, but "it's nothing new"? is that supposed to be comforting?

 

[Evil Flower]

Maybe 5th generation simply is unaffordable? Or does everybody assume that T-50 and J-20 will be massproduced like MiG-21s and the west is doomed if we settle for anything not-VLO?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

So it's bad news, but "it's nothing new"? is that supposed to be comforting?

No news to report is not the same as "bad news"

the west is doomed if we settle for anything not-VLO?

Basically yes

 

[GTX]

So it's bad news, but "it's nothing new"? is that supposed to be comforting?

No it is not bad news...it is simply an editorial piece that has been written to appear as bad news. There is no new information there at all and is simply more of Bill's campaign against the F-35. In fact, if I wanted to resort to the same tricks I could probably spin up something that could portray the F-35 in the total opposite light...

 

[Evil Flower]

Basically yes

Why? I'd like to see a rational explanation for why that is the case. Preferably an explanation that isn't based on talking points.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Basically yes

Why? I'd like to see a rational explanation for why that is the case. Preferably an explanation that isn't based on talking points.

No reason really.

 

[Evil Flower]

What about it? All that picture shows is a bunch of late 80's equipment.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Do I really have to explain why you don't want to be easily found when people are trying to kill you?

 

[Evil Flower]

Do I really have to explain why you don't want to be easily found when people are trying to kill you?

No, I want you to explain why we need a VLO uberplane to deal with these threats when all of the 5th generation uberplanes so far have turned out to be too expensive to procure in any numbers.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

No, I want you to explain why we need a VLO uberplane to deal with these threats

If its any consolation not many people in this thread think its an Uberplane at all. I'm glad you think it is though


http://whythef35.blogspot.com/

You should try googling it yourself and see what else you find.

There are an awful lot of reasons, seriously a lot. Whole books could be written about why 5th generation fighters are needed. Second line of defense website has a ton of researched articles on the F-35, F-22 and stealth fifth gen, future threats etc. There are myriad defense websites and blogs. find out, research, got to the big building of books called a library. decide for yourself after hearing all sides.

SLD has cool things like pilot interviews. Here is one with a Marine who has flown both the F-22 and F-35 along with F-16s and F-18s:

How would explain the difference between the F-35 and the other planes you have flown as well?

Berke: I’ve been asked to explain my experience a lot of times, and I’ve summarized it in a way that I think resonates with a lot of folks. If you took a room full of fighter pilots, and asked them to whiteboard the list of capabilities they would like, what would be the result?

The list would include speed, turning performance, stealth, maneuverability, what have you. But if you could only pick one, if you were limited to picking one characteristic, I would guarantee every fighter pilot in the room would pick is situational awareness. A pilot armed with situational awareness, even if he didn’t have all the other capabilities that he wanted, is absolutely the most survivable and lethal pilot out there.

And the thing about the F35 that it has in spades, well beyond any other aircraft is situational awareness.

And when you start talking about the other enablers; an unbelievable engine, a truly expeditionary platform, excellent maneuverability, the stealth, the variety of sensors and ordnance we’re going to be able to carry, it only gets better.

And that’s the F35 in a nutshell; it is a situational awareness machine.

Here is the rest of the interview:

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-fifth-generation-experience-updated-the-f-35-is-a-situational-awareness-machine/

all of the 5th generation uberplanes so far have turned out to be too expensive to procure in any numbers.

All one of them?

How many fifth generation fighters have already finished their production?

 

[SOC]

What about it? All that picture shows is a bunch of late 80's equipment.

...and none of the digital 3D VHF-band CVLO radars they're deploying craploads of, either. They've already got about 60 55Zh6 TALL RACK radars in service all over the place at last count.

 

[AeroFranz]

No it is not bad news...it is simply an editorial piece that has been written to appear as bad news. There is no new information there at all and is simply more of Bill's campaign against the F-35. In fact, if I wanted to resort to the same tricks I could probably spin up something that could portray the F-35 in the total opposite light...

I dunno, there is little to spin when you look at a calendar and milestones occur later than scheduled. But what do i know, I'm just an engineer that looks at time as a continuum that goes in one direction only...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

China seem keen to help Lockheed Martin out with a credible threat.. or maybe even a commercial rival..

 

[GTX]

.. or maybe even a commercial rival..

I somehow doubt that will the case for quite a few years. They aren't exactly trying to sell to the same customers.

 

[sferrin]

China seem keen to help Lockheed Martin out with a credible threat.. or maybe even a commercial rival..

Stealth is so last year. What they really need is a souped up 4th gen aircraft.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Stealth is so last year. What they really need is a souped up 4th gen aircraft.

Have they thought about taking a mig 21 and adding new electronics?


It just goes to show that other militaries will be upgrading and adding new capabilities they dont seam to be mentally stuck in the we are great now so we will be great forever mirage. You would almost think the struggle for superiority is constant and difficult. Nah awesomeness is assured.

 

[LowObservable]

Stealth is so last year. What they really need is a souped up 4th gen aircraft.

Apparently they agree.

 

[LowObservable]

AF - You see, that's where you and I lack Higher Understanding.

In the F-35 world, if the jet flies at night, or two or more of one or another variant manage to get airborne at the same time and fly in formation, that's "news."

If the anchor customer, who according to the program of record is due to buy more jets than the all other customers put together, testifies to Congress about plans that clearly involve chopping its pre-2030 deliveries and sustained production rate by 40 per cent, and starts pumping out RFPs and requirements for said plans, that's "an editorial."