Found that article, its kinda longish and thus not really well suited to quoting here, so apologies for that, but the argument posited is the one that I've often argued as well: The USAF is declining in size and capability at the expense of a high-end fleet of aircraft that are ill-suited to the conflicts we've been fighting and can expect to fight in the future.
Jihadin wrote: The aircraft (Comanche) program had a lot of "other avenues" of development that made into main stream Army Aviation.
Is that not the case with the F-35 as well? Pretty much everyone I know who argues in favor of the F-35 usually does so on the basis that it has all these awesome capabilities etc. as a result of its radar, avionics, etc. etc. and not because of its airframe or flight performance (except maybe the Marines who love its vtol capabilities). Given that these systems are largely already developed, and not a function of the F-35 airframe but rather avionics components that are able to be modified and/or replaced, wouldn't it make sense to take the capabilities found in the avionics, radar, sensors, etc. and port them over to legacy platforms that would be easier to push into production and already have logistics and training pipelines in place?
I can recall Seaward and I arguing back and forth about this one on a previous thread, and his argument was basically to the effect of "The F-35 doesn't need to be fast or agile or able to dodge a missile, etc. because the capabilities it presents make these metrics of combat aircraft performance outmoded and obsolete and irrelevant to the future of air warfare." Well, if thats the case, why do we need the airframe at all?
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, if thats the case, why do we need the airframe at all?
Maybe because it's better to have a human pilot within these technologies? (I'm assuming you're referring to advance to UAV?)
No, I meant in the sense of, why continue funding the 'F-35' when all the capability is evidently inherent to pieces of hardware that are theoretically interchangeable with F-16s and F-15s?
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, if thats the case, why do we need the airframe at all?
Maybe because it's better to have a human pilot within these technologies? (I'm assuming you're referring to advance to UAV?)
No, I meant in the sense of, why continue funding the 'F-35' when all the capability is evidently inherent to pieces of hardware that are theoretically interchangeable with F-16s and F-15s?
Ah... I see.
Where's Seaward when you need him.
I'm not qualified to make an informed opinion... only that my guess would be that the F-35's stealth capabilities adds such a force-multiplier to the general's toolbox, that it's worth it.
To me "stealth planes" are really for first strike capabilities. Knock out your adversary's radar/detection stations stealthly... then, your F-16/F-18 will be stealthy.
But, don't mind me... I'm just noobie with these sort of things.
Right, thats also pretty much the argument posited in the linked article (written by someone who I would argue is qualified to discuss the topic given his credentials), though it also points out that the likely scenario in which we would utilize the F-35 (kicking in the door on China) is perhaps the mission that the F-35 is least suited for given the airframes limitations and the geopolitical and strategic realities of the region.
Jihadin, the economic ties argument holds no water really, history has shown us time and time again that economic ties, even economic integration, is NOT a barrier to war. Europes economy, prior to BOTH world wars (especially prior to world war 1) was more closely tied together than ours and China's is today. We know how that turned out.
Why Can’t America’s Newest Stealth Jet Land Like It’s Supposed To?
The Pentagon’s gazillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter can’t pull off maneuvers that older jets were doing in the early ’60s. Who’s to blame?
There are big air shows in the UK this summer. The British public may be a little disappointed, however. The F-35B Joint Strike Fighter—the stealth jet that’s supposed to be able to take off and land vertically, like a helicopter—will be on display for the first time outside the U.S. But it won’t emulate the vertical landings that the Harrier family has made routine since the Beatles were playing dodgy nightclubs in Hamburg.
U.S. Marine aviation boss Brig. Gen. Matthew Glavy has said that there are no plans for the F-35B to perform vertical landings (VLs) in the UK, because the program has not finished testing the matting that’s needed to protect the runway from exhaust heat. (The program office, the Marines, and Lockheed Martin did not return emails about any part of this story.) It may sound like a simple issue, but it pops the lids off two cans of worms: the program’s relationship with the truth, and the operational utility of VL.
At the very least, that will add to the challenges of operating a complex 25-ton fighter—twice as big and fuel-thirsty as the Harrier it replaces—under canvas and off the grid, particularly in a hybrid-war situation where supplying a squadron by land may be hazardous or impossible.
The F-35B—the version of the Joint Strike Fighter that the Marines and the British are buying—is designed to take off in a few hundred feet and land vertically, like a helicopter. Its advocates say that will allow the Marines to use short runways worldwide as improvised fighter bases, providing air cover for expeditionary forces. But to do VL, the engine thrust must be pointed straight downward, and the jet is twice the size of a Harrier. Result: a supersonic, pulsating jackhammer of 1,700-degree F exhaust gas.
In December 2009, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Navfac) issued specifications for contractors bidding on JSF construction work. The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. (“Spalling” occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface.)
Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor on the F-35B, was dismissive. The specifications were out of date and based on worst-case assessments, the company said, and tests in January 2010 showed that “the difference between F-35B exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B [Harrier] is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant… changes” to how the new plane was operated.
Navfac ignored Lockheed Martin and commissioned high-temperature-concrete VL pads at four sites. At the Navy’s Patuxent River flight test center, F-35Bs perform VLs on a pad of AM-2 aluminum matting, protecting the concrete from heat and blast. Why didn’t the January 2010 tests result in a change to the specifications? How were those tests performed? The Navy has referred those questions to Lockheed Martin, which has repeatedly failed to answer them.
This isn’t the only instance where Lockheed Martin has tried to shoot the messenger on the basis of weak facts. Last year, the Rand Corporation in a report concluded that the JSF—a program that incorporates three variants of F-35, each one for a different military service—will cost more than three single-service programs would have done. Lockheed Martin accused Rand of using “outdated data,” but founded that criticism on numbers that were not in the report.
One reason the F-35 program is running behind schedule is that Pentagon overseers forced Lockheed Martin and the program office to reinstate flight tests that they had cut out, a move that the current program manager thinks was necessary. But Lockheed Martin consultant Loren Thompson accused Pentagon testing experts of “wanting the opportunity to close out their home mortgages and get that last kid through college.”
After a 2011 report showed the F-35A cost per flight-hour to be 40 percent higher than the F-16’s, program leaders asserted that the Pentagon’s accountants had misinterpreted their own numbers. Three years later, the numbers have barely budged.
The bigger issue is that the Pentagon bought the F-35B for two reasons: it can land on an LHA/LHD-class amphibious warfare ship, and it can operate from an improvised forward operating location, created around a 3,000-foot runway. The capabilities are complementary. Without one of those forward operating locations, the amphibious force is limited to six fighters per LHA (unless essential helicopters are off-loaded). But a short runway is of little value unless you can use it twice.
And what Navfac calls “standard airfield concrete” is military-grade, made with aggregate and Portland cement. Many runways are asphaltic concrete—aggregate in a bitumen binder—which softens and melts under heat.
The Marines could use AM-2 landing pads. But AM-2 is not a friend to the agility that justifies the F-35B over other forms of expeditionary airpower. An Air Force study calls it “slow to install, difficult to repair, (with) very poor air-transportability characteristics.” A single 100- by 100-foot VL pad weighs around 30 tons and comprises 400 pieces, each individually installed by two people.
At the very least, that will add to the challenges of operating a complex 25-ton fighter—twice as big and fuel-thirsty as the Harrier it replaces—under canvas and off the grid, particularly in a hybrid-war situation where supplying a squadron by land may be hazardous or impossible.
Rolling or creeping vertical landings can spread the heat load over a greater area. But there is no sign that they have been tested on concrete, asphalt, or AM-2 over asphalt. What about multiple, close-together landings? Will hot asphalt debris stay off the fighter’s stealthy skin?
Nobody seems willing to say when such tests will be conducted—which is odd, because we do flight tests to prove the airplane can meet requirements. How was the requirement for the F-35B to VL on a non-standard runway framed? Indeed, was that requirement formally defined at all? Omitting the latter would have been a catastrophic mistake by the Pentagon.
At least $21 billion out of of the JSF’s $55 billion research and development bill is directly attributable to the F-35B variant, which also has the highest unit cost of any military aircraft in production. The design compromises in the F-35B have added weight, drag and cost to the F-35A and F-35C. It would be nice to know that—air shows aside—it will deliver some of its promised operational utility.
I thought from the last Drone/Terminator/Skynet thread that the idea would be less manned fighters but having squadrons of drones? So having less of these wouldn't be a problem.
Obviously you'd imagine they'd have been able to out-perform the Harrier in all aspects but apparently not.
Yeah, wheres the Seaward signal, I want to hear his take.
Medium - regarding the article, I highly doubt the F-35 will ever be operated from an austere airfield. The aircrafts maintenance requirements would make it difficult to service properly (I dont even think the Harrier was able to operate from austere airfields, and from what I understand the Harrier was a more robust and less sophisticated piece of kit), and the amount of money we have invested in them, let alone the potential for compromised security, makes it a risky proposition, imagine the blowback if F-35s had been at Camp Bastion instead of Harriers?
chaos0xomega wrote:Nope, fraid not, aside from its use as an example as to the benefits that can be derived by cancelling a major military aviation program.
And it's a false comparison in that regard. The Comanche's rather specialized mission, once the helo itself was scrubbed, was shifted to other platforms, platforms that are in many cases coming dangerously close to the end of their life cycles with no replacements in sight. It's an important mission, but it's a mission for which a dedicated aircraft wasn't necessarily requisite.
The difference with the F-35 is that it's eventually taking over everything short of electronic warfare, tactical refueling, and fleet defense.
curran12 wrote:Makes sense. It's a weapon that doesn't work as well as others, in a system that is overfunded as it is while everything needs to be cutting back.
Other than some pointless nostalgia or attachment to anything, why not cut them back?
It works better than others. There's nothing I'd rather fly for a strike; the only thing I'd rather fly on an air superiority hop would be an F-22, and if I confirmed what I suspect about the AN/APG-81, maybe not even that.
chaos0xomega wrote:Is that not the case with the F-35 as well? Pretty much everyone I know who argues in favor of the F-35 usually does so on the basis that it has all these awesome capabilities etc. as a result of its radar, avionics, etc. etc. and not because of its airframe or flight performance (except maybe the Marines who love its vtol capabilities). Given that these systems are largely already developed, and not a function of the F-35 airframe but rather avionics components that are able to be modified and/or replaced, wouldn't it make sense to take the capabilities found in the avionics, radar, sensors, etc. and port them over to legacy platforms that would be easier to push into production and already have logistics and training pipelines in place?
No. You can't really do that. There's only so much capability for expansion with legacy aircraft. Even the Super Hornet, which was designed with the idea that we'd eventually plug a bunch of different stuff into it, has basically reached the absolute limit of its adaptability with Boeing's proposed Advanced Super Hornet, and that comes out as a poor man's F-35 at best, with worse performance, a far larger radar cross-section, etc.
I can recall Seaward and I arguing back and forth about this one on a previous thread, and his argument was basically to the effect of "The F-35 doesn't need to be fast or agile or able to dodge a missile, etc. because the capabilities it presents make these metrics of combat aircraft performance outmoded and obsolete and irrelevant to the future of air warfare." Well, if thats the case, why do we need the airframe at all?
That hasn't ever been my argument. The F-35 is both fast and agile. "Dodging a missile" is a nebulous requirement, and is, in modern air warfare, more a function of countermeasures than airframe capability.
The F-35 doesn't need to be as fast or as agile as, for example, the F-22 or the latest Flanker air show stud variant, either to perform its (primarily strike-oriented) mission or to survive in air-to-air engagements. Its capabilities allow it to eschew the 'traditional' dogfight if it so chooses, but also to excel in that regime if it needs to. Neither the F-18 or the F-16 are air-to-air slouches, and the F-35 combines the best of them both in terms of its BCM performance. It regains energy like an F-16, it has the low-speed, high-alpha nose pointability of the F-18, and it can turn like both of them.
People like to look at the 'muscle' stats - maximum speed, ceiling, (what they believe to be relevant) maneuverability envelopes, range, and so on, and use those to compare Aircraft A to Aircraft B. Sometimes this is valid, sometimes this is not. In the case of the F-35, it's almost never valid, because we're almost always looking at clean or air show config aircraft going up against the F-35. Fourth gen fighters loaded for bear take considerable hits to all the 'muscle' stats the second they start hanging stuff on the pylons. (Especially so in the case of the goddamn Super Hornet. I love the Rhino, but whoever decided that canting the pylons 3 degrees to get around the fact that they just didn't have the room they wanted for everything needs to be shot. The amount of drag bare pylons alone cause is astounding.) This obviously isn't the case with the F-35, whose Day One config of all internal weapons means that its performance isn't altered drastically by doing what it was designed to do - carry gak via air into the battlespace. Looking at a clean F-16 versus a clean F-35, you might say, "Wow, that modest a performance increase doesn't seem to justify the cost!" And you'd be right, if we flew clean F-16s to war. The real (and huge) difference is in war-loaded F-16s and war-loaded F-35s, the latter of which will not be toting 2/3 external fuel tanks, external bomb loads, external defensive air-to-air weaponry, targeting and countermeasures pods, and so on, all of which cause what is technically known as "gak-tons of drag" which in turn vastly impacts performance in phallus-measuring competitions.
People like to rag on the F-35's performance. It can't do Mach 2. (It can't do Mach 2 because we discovered, after putting Mach 2-capable combat aircraft into actual combat over the course of a few decades, that nobody actually goes Mach 2 in a fight, thus making the Mach 2 juice not worth the getting-to-Mach-2 squeeze.) It can't supercruise. (Neither can the legacy platforms everyone insists we resort back to, and it turns out the supercruise isn't nearly as fuel efficient as not supercruising. Who'da thunk.) It doesn't carry enough fuel. (It carries almost as much fuel as an F-16 weighs.) It can only pull 4.3 G in a turn! (You're reading the chart wrong.) It doesn't have thrust vectoring. (Nope, sure doesn't. Post-stall maneuvering became pretty irrelevant as soon as the AIM-9X came along, and the AA-11 before it.)
The bottom line is that the F-35's 'muscle' performance is as good or better than anything else we're flying today in a similar role, and it brings to the table other massive advantages that aren't particularly sexy or easy to appreciate without a lot of time and experience driving strike fighters. Very low observability (stealth) is an obvious one, and one that people sort of get, but if I start waxing rhapsodic about its datalinking capability, I'm going to put people to sleep. The same goes for its ability to provide AMRAAM guidance without ever switching on its radar, or provide instant visual reference on SAM launches and solutions to successfully defeat them.
Even if you buy into absolutely nothing about the F-35, consider that axing the program would cost us far, far more money than completing the contract possibly ever could. We would have to build something else, from the ground up, to replace it.
Medium of Death wrote:Obviously you'd imagine they'd have been able to out-perform the Harrier in all aspects but apparently not.
If I may ask, Seaward since this is something of your cup of tea, this is something that has bothered me for some time, but what are the tactical advantage to a VTOL design?
curran12 wrote: If I may ask, Seaward since this is something of your cup of tea, this is something that has bothered me for some time, but what are the tactical advantage to a VTOL design?
There aren't any.
The Marines like VTOL aircraft. The Marines are weird like that. The Navy lets them have VTOL aircraft as long as they promise to keep running a few squadrons of real planes to supplement carrier air wings.
Seaward, where exactly do the expansion limitations of legacy airframes come in to play? Aside from available space (something which there would presumably be workarounds for) and weight considerations (which again, there would presumably be workarounds for... considering how the Hornet became the Superhornet (might as well be a different plane), and the Eagle became the Strike Eagle (just made the same plane bigger), etc.)
In regards to the rest of your argument, I'm still in the 'meh' category, though I get that you're a better authority on the subject, I still question some of your logic on the matter. For example, the Mach 2 thing... wouldn't the ability to do Mach 2 be an asset for a *strike* fighter? Stealth does not equal invisible, we know that the enemy will be able to scramble air defenses if we're penetrating their airspace (and considering the likely adversary they're being designed to combat is China, I highly doubt we're going to be entirely able to neutralize them in advance of such a mission), wouldn't you want the capability to ingress/egress as quickly as possible? Beyond that, consider their range for a moment, surely we would have difficult doing deep penetration missions over contested airspace (again, we cannot rely on a Gulf War situation where we completely destroy an opponents air defense capability on day one), we sure as hell wont be flying tankers in to refuel them in such a situation...
I just cannot see the F-35 being practical, and the idea of raiding the program for developments that can be pulled for use in recapitalizing the existing fleet and/or purchasing new upgraded airframes while we develop new airframes that can take better advantage of those technologies than those legacy airframes seems more effective, practical, and more solid than relying solely on the F-35 program.
Note, I do not advocate completely axing the project. The Marines need their planes (although, I sincerely doubt that they're going to find the F-35 to be the right plane for the job), our allies need their planes as well, but I think we could benefit from scaling back our planned purchases and going to the high-low mix that was advocated in the article. Realistically, we (the USAF) do not NEED a fleet of 1700 jack-of-all-trades-ballistic-missile-tracking-super-stealthy-close-air-support-air-superiority-strike-fighter-superplanes, particularly when they cost that much and still leave us with some obvious capability gaps. I acknowledge that there ARE situations where we will need jack-of-all-trades-ballistic-missile-tracking-super-stealthy-close-air-support-air-superiority-strike-fighter-superplanes, but not 1700 of them, and if we're determined to successfully fight an air campaign the way we have in the recent past, all those additional capabilities that we're paying through the nose for become unnecessary and redundant within a few days or weeks. At that point, legacy platforms like the A-10, F-15, F-16, F-18, etc. become just as viable, capable, effective, and efficient (if not moreso) at performing the necessary missions for the duration of the campaign (service life issues aside, but if we're talking about purchasing new airframes anyway, then its a moot point).
The Marines like VTOL aircraft. The Marines are weird like that. The Navy lets them have VTOL aircraft as long as they promise to keep running a few squadrons of real planes to supplement carrier air wings.
I never really understood that, specifically the 'as long as they promise' part. Couldn't the Navy just as easily cut the Marines budget back a tad and provide those additional squadrons itself and leave the Marines to their VTOL thing?
chaos0xomega wrote: Seaward, where exactly do the expansion limitations of legacy airframes come in to play? Aside from available space (something which there would presumably be workarounds for) and weight considerations (which again, there would presumably be workarounds for... considering how the Hornet became the Superhornet (might as well be a different plane), and the Eagle became the Strike Eagle (just made the same plane bigger), etc.)
It's worth noting the Super Hornet is a different plane. It was called the Super Hornet to get Congress to sign off on it more easily as an interim solution, but it's not a Hornet, just with extra stuff. It's a different airframe. It's based on the Hornet, but it's bigger, heavier, and has some noticeable structural/planform differences.
Limitations can come from anywhere. Space and weight are big deals; so is power, software compatibility, etc. Put it this way: try installing a modern nVidia GPU into a desktop PC from, say, 1995. You'll end up rebuilding the entire thing just to get it to work. You can't just slot in a modern GPU; you'd need a modern motherboard. You'd need modern memory to run on that motherboard. You'd need a modern power supply. The list goes on. If you keep the case but replace everything inside of it, that's not really what you set out to do. When it comes to integrating avionics into aircraft, it's an incredibly apt analogy, even if the space and weight are available.
In regards to the rest of your argument, I'm still in the 'meh' category, though I get that you're a better authority on the subject, I still question some of your logic on the matter. For example, the Mach 2 thing... wouldn't the ability to do Mach 2 be an asset for a *strike* fighter? Stealth does not equal invisible, we know that the enemy will be able to scramble air defenses if we're penetrating their airspace (and considering the likely adversary they're being designed to combat is China, I highly doubt we're going to be entirely able to neutralize them in advance of such a mission), wouldn't you want the capability to ingress/egress as quickly as possible? Beyond that, consider their range for a moment, surely we would have difficult doing deep penetration missions over contested airspace (again, we cannot rely on a Gulf War situation where we completely destroy an opponents air defense capability on day one), we sure as hell wont be flying tankers in to refuel them in such a situation...
No, Mach 2 wouldn't make much sense on a strike fighter. Mach 2 makes sense on single mission interceptors, but we don't build those anymore. You burn a lot of fuel getting that fast. You do not have a lot of sustained flight time at Mach 2. Guys who fly Mach 2-capable fighters their entire careers would measure the time actually spent at or above that speed throughout the entire course of their career in minutes.
As far as range goes, the F-35 has better range than the aircraft it's replacing.
I just cannot see the F-35 being practical, and the idea of raiding the program for developments that can be pulled for use in recapitalizing the existing fleet and/or purchasing new upgraded airframes while we develop new airframes that can take better advantage of those technologies than those legacy airframes seems more effective, practical, and more solid than relying solely on the F-35 program.
Okay Legacy aircraft seem more practical based on what, exactly? (And, as an aside, the F-35 is already part of the high-low paradigm the Air Force has been using for decades. The F-22's the high slot, the F-35's the low slot. The F-22 is the 5th gen F-15, the F-35 is the 5th gen F-16.)
What do the F-16 or F-18 bring to the table that the F-35 doesn't? My answer is "nothing," while the F-35 brings huge advantages over either of them. They can't do anything the F-35 can't do. Conversely, the F-35's got longer legs, better survivability, will easily smoke either of them in an air-to-air scenario (and before either is aware the F-35's there), and can accomplish with equal ease all the strike-oriented missions they're currently tasked with.
I never really understood that, specifically the 'as long as they promise' part. Couldn't the Navy just as easily cut the Marines budget back a tad and provide those additional squadrons itself and leave the Marines to their VTOL thing?
No. The Navy doesn't really control the Marines' budget.
In my basic understanding of things. if say, you come up with a super duper light engine package or electronics for say the F15, you do not just install it, test it and say its good to go.
The whole airframe has to be re-evaluated. You resort to millions of dollars in finding the best place to put ballast to counter the lightness that you have introduced.
Super hornet was a new build, I believe.
edit: Should leave this stuff to Seaward.
I actually just skimmed through the report mentioned and I agree with the parts stating that the decline of Airforce EW/SEAD assets need to be reversed. The sparkvark was a great force multiplier. and though its time had come I have often wondered what the air force was thinking having no real replacement available. 20 years of flying over Iraq and high fiving in the pentagon probably hasn't helped.
Even with the f-35's capability a dedicated EW/SEAD sqdn or two should be a definite presence.
Is the future plan not to have squadrons of drones with one or two human pilots flying alongside meaning that having less of these planes isn't really a problem?
Mr. Burning wrote:I actually just skimmed through the report mentioned and I agree with the parts stating that the decline of Airforce EW/SEAD assets need to be reversed. The sparkvark was a great force multiplier. and though its time had come I have often wondered what the air force was thinking having no real replacement available. 20 years of flying over Iraq and high fiving in the pentagon probably hasn't helped.
Even with the f-35's capability a dedicated EW/SEAD sqdn or two should be a definite presence.
They're going to go with Growlers, which isn't a bad choice.
Medium of Death wrote:Is the future plan not to have squadrons of drones with one or two human pilots flying alongside meaning that having less of these planes isn't really a problem?
That may be the future plan, but that's "decades" future rather than day after tomorrow future. Drones are good at a lot, but air-to-air and complex threat environments aren't on that list.
chaos0xomega wrote: Seaward, where exactly do the expansion limitations of legacy airframes come in to play? Aside from available space (something which there would presumably be workarounds for) and weight considerations (which again, there would presumably be workarounds for... considering how the Hornet became the Superhornet (might as well be a different plane), and the Eagle became the Strike Eagle (just made the same plane bigger), etc.)
It's worth noting the Super Hornet is a different plane. It was called the Super Hornet to get Congress to sign off on it more easily as an interim solution, but it's not a Hornet, just with extra stuff. It's a different airframe. It's based on the Hornet, but it's bigger, heavier, and has some noticeable structural/planform differences.
Yup, I even stated it might as well be a different plane, though I suppose that statement can be interpreted to mean that it is the same plane.
Limitations can come from anywhere. Space and weight are big deals; so is power, software compatibility, etc. Put it this way: try installing a modern nVidia GPU into a desktop PC from, say, 1995. You'll end up rebuilding the entire thing just to get it to work. You can't just slot in a modern GPU; you'd need a modern motherboard. You'd need modern memory to run on that motherboard. You'd need a modern power supply. The list goes on. If you keep the case but replace everything inside of it, that's not really what you set out to do. When it comes to integrating avionics into aircraft, it's an incredibly apt analogy, even if the space and weight are available.
While I see what you're getting at, I take some issue with the analogy because all legacy platforms currently in service, to my knowledge, have been (and still are being) upgraded, in some cases substantially. So while the 'case' might be from 1995, you end up with a 'motherboard' from 2003, and 'RAM' from 2009, etc. While I'm sure that some aspects of the F-35s advancements cannot be ported, I would think (actually I know, considering they are already backfeeding some of those advancements into legacy platforms) that many of them could, particularly if the boys at Boeing, etc. are trying to steal some business away from LockMart with new upgraded builds of legacy airframes.
No, Mach 2 wouldn't make much sense on a strike fighter. Mach 2 makes sense on single mission interceptors, but we don't build those anymore. You burn a lot of fuel getting that fast. You do not have a lot of sustained flight time at Mach 2. Guys who fly Mach 2-capable fighters their entire careers would measure the time actually spent at or above that speed throughout the entire course of their career in minutes.
The USAF seemed to prefer the high-speed penetration/tactical/strike fighter/bomber design back in the Cold War days so I would think the concept has some merit, similarly the F-15E remains capable of performing that exact mission.
As far as range goes, the F-35 has better range than the aircraft it's replacing.
The F-18 and A-10 (and I believe the AV-8), yes. As I understand it its about 50/50 on the F-16 depending on how you're comparing them, but now that the F-35 is expected to also replace part of the F-15 fleet given the F-22s cancellation and the lack of an apparent alternative, theres a bit of a shortfall there.
(And, as an aside, the F-35 is already part of the high-low paradigm the Air Force has been using for decades. The F-22's the high slot, the F-35's the low slot. The F-22 is the 5th gen F-15, the F-35 is the 5th gen F-16.)
Yes, except that the cuts to the F-22 mean that there isn't enough 'high' and in this case it seems that even the low is 'higher' than any reasonable competitor will be for quite some time.
What do the F-16 or F-18 bring to the table that the F-35 doesn't? My answer is "nothing," while the F-35 brings huge advantages over either of them. They can't do anything the F-35 can't do. Conversely, the F-35's got longer legs, better survivability, will easily smoke either of them in an air-to-air scenario (and before either is aware the F-35's there), and can accomplish with equal ease all the strike-oriented missions they're currently tasked with.
Well for one thing they cost a fraction of the price to purchase, operate, and maintain, and are more applicable and more realistically suited to the conflicts we are likely to face, rather than the conflicts we seemingly *want* the F-35 to face. Beyond that, it can be argued that the actual benefits derived from the F-35 over legacy platforms (in terms of in situ/real world application) are so miniscule that the cost is unjustified. On top of that, given fiscal reality (as the article pointed out, did you read it at all? You're spending more times addressing my points rather than addressing the article directly, which is what I would prefer for you to do, since that was written by someone who comes from a similar realm of expertise as you do), the F-35 has in actuality resulted in a smaller and less capable Air Force, a trend that is expected to continue for quite some time more, which I suppose is where the difference in opinion may come in, as the Navy (and I suppose Marines) have more to gain from the F-35, and have sacrificed less/maintained more capability in its pursuit than the AF has (to the point that, as I understand it, the USAF is actually in violation of some congressionally mandated force/mission requirements).
chaos0xomega wrote: While I see what you're getting at, I take some issue with the analogy because all legacy platforms currently in service, to my knowledge, have been (and still are being) upgraded, in some cases substantially. So while the 'case' might be from 1995, you end up with a 'motherboard' from 2003, and 'RAM' from 2009, etc. While I'm sure that some aspects of the F-35s advancements cannot be ported, I would think (actually I know, considering they are already backfeeding some of those advancements into legacy platforms) that many of them could, particularly if the boys at Boeing, etc. are trying to steal some business away from LockMart with new upgraded builds of legacy airframes.
Have legacy aircraft been upgraded? Absolutely. I think F-16s finally finished off on Block 62 or something like that. But no, it's simply impossible to integrate the F-35's avionics into a legacy plane. You might be able to plug in some derivative, with reduced capability, but half of what makes the F-35's suite so impressive is the way it all works together.
And Boeing is trying very hard to push both the Block III Super Hornet and the Advanced Super Hornet. I like a lot of the Block III improvements - I think the EPE engines would solve a lot of the Super Hornet's problems - but even the prototype Advanced is a markedly inferior aircraft to the F-35. That's the best we can do, with the newest legacy in inventory.
The USAF seemed to prefer the high-speed penetration/tactical/strike fighter/bomber design back in the Cold War days so I would think the concept has some merit, similarly the F-15E remains capable of performing that exact mission.
Yes, it did. First it preferred high altitude penetration, then the U-2 got shot down and we realized Russian missile ceilings made that tactic suicidal. So they switched to high speed, low altitude penetration. Then we figured out VLO (stealth), and that's been the preferred method since. And for multiple good reasons. For one, we're the leader in that field, whereas we're certainly not with speed. Everybody else can go as fast as we can, so there's no room for technological advantage. For another...well, as I just said, there's no room for technological advantage. We pushed both speed and altitude until we couldn't push any farther, and then the counters to them caught up. We're not there with stealth yet, so it's the way to go until the countermeasures catch up.
The F-18 and A-10 (and I believe the AV-8), yes. As I understand it its about 50/50 on the F-16 depending on how you're comparing them, but now that the F-35 is expected to also replace part of the F-15 fleet given the F-22s cancellation and the lack of an apparent alternative, theres a bit of a shortfall there.
Definitely the Harrier, yes. VTOL aircraft have pathetic range.
And no, the F-35 doesn't have the range of the F-15, at least when the F-15's running with tanks. That doesn't really concern me or the Air Force, though, because the F-35 isn't taking over the pure air superiority role.
Yes, except that the cuts to the F-22 mean that there isn't enough 'high' and in this case it seems that even the low is 'higher' than any reasonable competitor will be for quite some time.
I agree that there isn't enough 'high,' but there's nothing to be done about that now. We still have more F-22s than the Russians are ever likely to have fatbat T-50s or the Chinese will ever have wtfdoesthisthingactuallydo J-20s.
Well for one thing they cost a fraction of the price to purchase, operate, and maintain,
True now, yes. We'll be saying the same about the F-35 in 40 years when someone's inevitably arguing we should just upgrade it instead of procuring the X-Wing or whatever.
and are more applicable and more realistically suited to the conflicts we are likely to face, rather than the conflicts we seemingly *want* the F-35 to face.
I don't think so. Again, we don't lose capability with the F-35. It's not an inferior choice for third world jihadi hunting when compared with the Hornet or Viper. You could make the argument that the A-10's a better CAS performer (owing entirely to the fact that it's slow as balls and can loiter until Christmas), but the A-10's an extremely mission-limited aircraft now; it can do daylight CAS in friendly air. That's it.
Beyond that, it can be argued that the actual benefits derived from the F-35 over legacy platforms (in terms of in situ/real world application) are so miniscule that the cost is unjustified.
And that's going to be my most profound point of disagreement. Even in situations where its survivability, its very low observability, its ability to network better than anything else we have, its workload reduction features all don't matter, it's still a ridiculously easy aircraft to strike with. It's simply better at putting bombs in specific patches of mud than everything it's replacing.
On top of that, given fiscal reality (as the article pointed out, did you read it at all? You're spending more times addressing my points rather than addressing the article directly, which is what I would prefer for you to do, since that was written by someone who comes from a similar realm of expertise as you do), the F-35 has in actuality resulted in a smaller and less capable Air Force, a trend that is expected to continue for quite some time more, which I suppose is where the difference in opinion may come in, as the Navy (and I suppose Marines) have more to gain from the F-35, and have sacrificed less/maintained more capability in its pursuit than the AF has (to the point that, as I understand it, the USAF is actually in violation of some congressionally mandated force/mission requirements).
I've read the article, yes. It's not anything new, and the basic idea - scrap or reduce the F-35, replace with mythical 4th gen upgrades - has been floated since the program began. It's a variant of the, "Super Hornet?! No, Tomcat 21!" argument, only with the disingenuous removal of capability from the 'is it worth it?' equation entirely. The Air Force has some issues with their SEAD fleet (or lack thereof), no question about it, but the notion that we can keep updating aircraft that are at the end of their life cycles because we're always going to be fighting in Afghanistan from here on out and won't realistically need anything more advanced than what we flew in Vietnam just doesn't truck with how we design and acquire aircraft.
Furthermore, he's just dead wrong on that approach saving money in the long run. It's not just developing and then buying the plane that costs money; it's keeping it flying, keeping it based somewhere, etc. You want to save money, you either cut the F-35 completely and don't build anything else to replace it, or you cut the F-16, the legacy Hornet, and the A-10, and buy the F-35. You do not buy fewer F-35s and keep everything else, because that's the most expensive option. You're keeping six logistics ecosystems up and running instead of trimming down to one.
The USAF seemed to prefer the high-speed penetration/tactical/strike fighter/bomber design back in the Cold War days so I would think the concept has some merit, similarly the F-15E remains capable of performing that exact mission.
Yes, it did. First it preferred high altitude penetration, then the U-2 got shot down and we realized Russian missile ceilings made that tactic suicidal. So they switched to high speed, low altitude penetration. Then we figured out VLO (stealth), and that's been the preferred method since. And for multiple good reasons. For one, we're the leader in that field, whereas we're certainly not with speed. Everybody else can go as fast as we can, so there's no room for technological advantage. For another...well, as I just said, there's no room for technological advantage. We pushed both speed and altitude until we couldn't push any farther, and then the counters to them caught up. We're not there with stealth yet, so it's the way to go until the countermeasures catch up.
Lets speak hypothetically, if tomorrow the anti-VLO/stealth radar technology were to suddenly proliferate (and thus deny the F-35 of one of its strongest advantages), taking into consideration all of the likely side-effects on air combat that would occur as a result, would the F-35 still continue to be a worthwhile investment (in your opinion)? While I doubt we'll see this occur for at least another 10 years, more likely 20 I think, its not out of the realm of the possibility, as I *know* that the capability already exists, whether or not our likely adversaries have that capability however is beyond me.
And no, the F-35 doesn't have the range of the F-15, at least when the F-15's running with tanks. That doesn't really concern me or the Air Force, though, because the F-35 isn't taking over the pure air superiority role.
So long as we still have available F-22s... there really aren't that many of them, thankfully the current geo-political climate doesn't require that anyway.
I agree that there isn't enough 'high,' but there's nothing to be done about that now. We still have more F-22s than the Russians are ever likely to have fatbat T-50s or the Chinese will ever have wtfdoesthisthingactuallydo J-20s.
I'll refrain from slamming either plane, while I agree with you generally, I would hate for it turn out that either one was actually a quality piece of hardware that gave us a run for our money.
True now, yes. We'll be saying the same about the F-35 in 40 years when someone's inevitably arguing we should just upgrade it instead of procuring the X-Wing or whatever.
Hopefully sometime in the next 40 years someone figures out how to make a great quality aircraft at a reasonable price.
I don't think so. Again, we don't lose capability with the F-35. It's not an inferior choice for third world jihadi hunting when compared with the Hornet or Viper.
No, but the operating cost of the F-35 to go hunt Jihad Joe is a lot higher than it is with the F-16 or F-18, and you're paying mostly for capabilities and functionality that is entirely unnecessary to performing that mission. Thats why the article proposes what I like to think of as a four tier system:
1. High-High: F-22
2. High-Low: F-35
3. Low-High: Cheaper Legacy airframes (F-15, etc.)
4. Low-Low: Cheaper Legacy airframes (A-10, F-16, light attack, etc.)
Basically the idea would be to keep a small proportion of the really high end air combat platforms and supplement them heavily by much cheaper platforms. I really don't see (in a perfect world scenario) what the issue would be with such a system. You wouldn't necessarily want to send F-35s out to sortie over Afghanistan/Iraq anyway, again paying a lot for capabilities that are wholly unnecessary for the mission and at the end of the day you're just unnecessarily wasting the airframes service life when there is potential for it to do something more worthwhile.
And that's going to be my most profound point of disagreement. Even in situations where its survivability, its very low observability, its ability to network better than anything else we have, its workload reduction features all don't matter, it's still a ridiculously easy aircraft to strike with. It's simply better at putting bombs in specific patches of mud than everything it's replacing.
Whats the actual % gain in performance from that though? Are we arguing the difference of centimeters or something actually substantial and meaningful?
It's not anything new
It was only published this month...
The Air Force has some issues with their SEAD fleet (or lack thereof), no question about it, but the notion that we can keep updating aircraft that are at the end of their life cycles because we're always going to be fighting in Afghanistan from here on out and won't realistically need anything more advanced than what we flew in Vietnam just doesn't truck with how we design and acquire aircraft.
I think the point is more to be prepared for a broader spectrum of operations and levels of intensity, rather than we're only ever going to fight low intensity conflicts (or to be prepared only to fight a modern air war against a peer adversary which doesn't yet exist). Its not like its being argued that we divest entirely of the F-22/F-35.... beyond that I would argue we need to take a step back and re-evaluate our acquisitions process and what our priorities and needs actually are.
Furthermore, he's just dead wrong on that approach saving money in the long run. It's not just developing and then buying the plane that costs money; it's keeping it flying, keeping it based somewhere, etc. You want to save money, you either cut the F-35 completely and don't build anything else to replace it, or you cut the F-16, the legacy Hornet, and the A-10, and buy the F-35. You do not buy fewer F-35s and keep everything else, because that's the most expensive option. You're keeping six logistics ecosystems up and running instead of trimming down to one.
Once upon a time, six 'logistics ecosystems' would have been considered a very small number, at least for the USAF, though I believe this was also the case with the Navy. I've yet to find anything that indicated that this incurred additional costs and logistics problems (for the Air Force, I know carrier maintenance crews had issues due to space limitations aboard ship).
I've never understood why the US didn't just go full F22? The F22 worked, it was a finished plane with proven capabilities. Why spend all this money on another "almost but not quite as good" F22? I know the F35 has a tactical bomber role but surely the F22 can fill that role without designing a whole new air frame for it.
Ouze wrote: The F22 cannot be exported, so there is no cost-offsetting variant.
Congress didn't want to have it exported, were they afraid it would fall into Russian or Chinese hands if it was exported? I suppose that makes sense but we're exporting the F-35 which probably has just as much in the way of complicated avionics that we don't want falling into Chinese hands.
Ouze wrote: The F22 cannot be exported, so there is no cost-offsetting variant.
Congress didn't want to have it exported, were they afraid it would fall into Russian or Chinese hands if it was exported? I suppose that makes sense but we're exporting the F-35 which probably has just as much in the way of complicated avionics that we don't want falling into Chinese hands.
chaos0xomega wrote: Jihadin, the economic ties argument holds no water really, history has shown us time and time again that economic ties, even economic integration, is NOT a barrier to war. Europes economy, prior to BOTH world wars (especially prior to world war 1) was more closely tied together than ours and China's is today. We know how that turned out.
Might be a bit pedantic, but economic integration is a barrier to war. It isn't the absolute barrier some claim it to be, but it is still a strong barrier that makes war less likely.
Oh, and international trade was at something of a high watermark before WWI, but it's overstating the case to claim it was more inter-connected than the world is today. International trade as a % of GDP overtook 1914 levels somewhere in the early 80s.
I'm going to agree with Seaward on 95% of the stuff in here. I'm not a serious pilot. just an Aerospace Engineering major with a lot of friends in the Navy, so I don't have access to as much "on the job" knowledge as he does. There are a few things I do know though,
1. Most times military aircraft development programs roll the cost of R&D into their aircraft purchases, so the first few aircraft off the line are more expensive since they're offsetting the research cost. That way we can show a profit on every aircraft, which makes the business types feel good about themselves. This has the side effect that it's incredibly hard to "back out" of a lost cause program because every time you reduce the number of aircraft you want the rest get more expensive to compensate. This is also true of other military programs. Look at the LCS debacle for an example of how a badly designed program can cost way too much.
2. The F35 is kind of a lost cause at this point. It has a ton of moving goalpost performance requirements that make it not nearly as good as it was supposed to be, but we can't axe it because it's creating jobs for the congressman's districts... It was designed to be equivalent or slightly better than current EU or Russian fighter designs before it started having magical moving performance requirements, so I have no idea where it ends up now. Our current generation of fighter aircraft are pretty much competitive with whatever other people can put in the air today, but we sure aren't wining any theoretical air engagements 10 years from now.
3. We are still using the same under wing jamming pod as we used in Korea (seriously). We have a serious electronic attack deficiency. So much that even in the face of current budget cuts we're still fast tracking a replacement.
So basically this comes down to the fact that our current air capacity is ok, but I'm seriously worried about how things will be in the future. This assuming a direct conflict with the EU or Russia is on the table. I doubt it will be, but even then we're increasingly running into the situation where manned aircraft are just a recoverable first stage for missiles or bombs, such that a cruise missile launched from a submarine could accomplish anything an aircraft carrier can do barring the intimidation factor.
I'd like to see a lot of aircraft carriers phased out in favor of submarines and potentially militarized satellites. Of course the whole "you can't militarize space" laws might be a problem there.
Seaward wrote: That may be the future plan, but that's "decades" future rather than day after tomorrow future. Drones are good at a lot, but air-to-air and complex threat environments aren't on that list.
I've heard it said that the F-35 will be the last manned fighter. That it will last a few decades and its replacement will be some kind of drone/AI aircraft. Is that plausible?
Doubt it A drone pilot does not have peripheal(sp) vision to name one. Actually. I'm going on the limb to better describe it as "eyeballs to brain to react". Now if we get that nasty little bugger of Necron fighter, maybe a Cyclon pilot.
Jihadin wrote: Doubt it A drone pilot does not have peripheal(sp) vision to name one. Actually. I'm going on the limb to better describe it as "eyeballs to brain to react". Now if we get that nasty little bugger of Necron fighter, maybe a Cyclon pilot.
Using multiple cameras it would be possible to give a drone pilot a perfect 360 degrees field of vision.
Ensis I believe is a drone pilot. That multiple screen for a 360 view is distracting. Seaward the pilot for fix wing and I was a crew chief for rotary. I rather have unrestricted view instead of the "break" between screens. I want to go with two maybe three more generation of computerization to get the effect of a total cockpit screen one can sit in at a desk with no lag from aircraft to pilot on ground
Also Ensis I'm calling you out. Have you looked into USAjob. If not I come down from Gig Harbor and nut check you
Jihadin wrote: Doubt it A drone pilot does not have peripheal(sp) vision to name one. Actually. I'm going on the limb to better describe it as "eyeballs to brain to react". Now if we get that nasty little bugger of Necron fighter, maybe a Cyclon pilot.
Using multiple cameras it would be possible to give a drone pilot a perfect 360 degrees field of vision.
There are human factors issues with this. Another barrier to remotely piloted fighters is lag in the loop associated with remote piloting. The first unmanned fighter that is capable of holding its own with manned fighters will likely be autonomous.
Seaward wrote: It works better than others. There's nothing I'd rather fly for a strike; the only thing I'd rather fly on an air superiority hop would be an F-22, and if I confirmed what I suspect about the AN/APG-81, maybe not even that.
Serious question here: if the F-35 is better for strike missions and potentially better for air superiority then why does the F-22 exist? Do we just keep them because we already built a bunch of them before realizing that the F-35 made them obsolete, or is your preference for the F-35 in the air superiority role just your personal opinion that other pilots wouldn't share?
chaos0xomega wrote: While I see what you're getting at, I take some issue with the analogy because all legacy platforms currently in service, to my knowledge, have been (and still are being) upgraded, in some cases substantially. So while the 'case' might be from 1995, you end up with a 'motherboard' from 2003, and 'RAM' from 2009, etc.
Yes, that's exactly the point. You buy the computer in 1995, and it works just fine. Then you buy a new motherboard in 2003 and it works, but it's not as much of an upgrade as you could have if you bought a whole new computer. Then you buy some new RAM in 2009 and it's an upgrade over what you had in 1995, but way less than a top-end computer would have in 2009 and you have to get it from some small manufacturer that just happens to have some stock of obsolete RAM left gathering dust in the corner. Then in 2011 you look into buying a new video card, and the only upgrade that fits your motherboard is an ancient one from 1998 that costs you 90% of the cost of a high-end modern one on ebay when you finally find someone still selling it. And forget about putting a new motherboard in to use a modern video card, your case has all the screws in the wrong place, and your 1995 power supply can't handle it anyway. So yeah, your computer is better that what you started with in 1995 but you're getting diminishing returns on each new upgrade and you keep paying for something that isn't as good as you could get if you just accepted the up-front cost of buying a whole new computer.
And of course for planes it's even more complicated. It's not just space and weight issues you have to deal with, where the weight goes is a big factor. For example, you might upgrade the avionics to modern hardware that is smaller and lighter, but then you'd just have to put a bunch of lead weights in the space you freed up so that you don't mess with the plane's center of gravity. Or you find that you've freed up some space, but not enough to fit an entire new box of hardware without making structural changes (which are not cheap), so you just paid money to redesign the electronics without gaining anything in return. And oops, that faster CPU also draws more power, and you can't upgrade the power supply to a better one without making the plane too nose-heavy in certain conditions, so your upgrade comes at the cost of removing weapon options.
A better analogy than computer hardware is probably software: when you write a new piece of software the code is probably very elegant and it works nicely. You can add in new features later and still have a working product, but each new addition makes things more complicated and requires new workarounds to fix the problems you encounter. Eventually you have a tangled mess of code that hardly anyone understands, and each upgrade means spending huge amounts of time just trying to figure out how all the relevant pieces work and what the new upgrade might break. And at that point it's better to just spend a bit more time and effort and write a whole new piece of software from scratch, with better performance and fresh upgrade room available.
Ouze wrote: The F22 cannot be exported, so there is no cost-offsetting variant.
Congress didn't want to have it exported, were they afraid it would fall into Russian or Chinese hands if it was exported? I suppose that makes sense but we're exporting the F-35 which probably has just as much in the way of complicated avionics that we don't want falling into Chinese hands.
F-22 is an air superiority plane.
Different role than the F-35.
So you're saying it cannot perform ground support?
Like at all? Didn't it used to be designated the F/A-22? Or is the /A just the idea Lockheed Martin's marketing and sales department?
chaos0xomega wrote:Lets speak hypothetically, if tomorrow the anti-VLO/stealth radar technology were to suddenly proliferate (and thus deny the F-35 of one of its strongest advantages), taking into consideration all of the likely side-effects on air combat that would occur as a result, would the F-35 still continue to be a worthwhile investment (in your opinion)? While I doubt we'll see this occur for at least another 10 years, more likely 20 I think, its not out of the realm of the possibility, as I *know* that the capability already exists, whether or not our likely adversaries have that capability however is beyond me.
Yeah, it'd still be worthwhile. If suddenly the playing field in terms of detection was absolutely leveled, across the board, and the F-22 was as easy to spot via radar or other sensors as a 747, the F-35 would still be a good investment. It'd be no worse than what we currently fly, and offer several important but un-sexy capability upgrades.
I'll refrain from slamming either plane, while I agree with you generally, I would hate for it turn out that either one was actually a quality piece of hardware that gave us a run for our money.
I think that's unlikely.
No, but the operating cost of the F-35 to go hunt Jihad Joe is a lot higher than it is with the F-16 or F-18, and you're paying mostly for capabilities and functionality that is entirely unnecessary to performing that mission. Thats why the article proposes what I like to think of as a four tier system:
1. High-High: F-22
2. High-Low: F-35
3. Low-High: Cheaper Legacy airframes (F-15, etc.)
4. Low-Low: Cheaper Legacy airframes (A-10, F-16, light attack, etc.)
Basically the idea would be to keep a small proportion of the really high end air combat platforms and supplement them heavily by much cheaper platforms. I really don't see (in a perfect world scenario) what the issue would be with such a system. You wouldn't necessarily want to send F-35s out to sortie over Afghanistan/Iraq anyway, again paying a lot for capabilities that are wholly unnecessary for the mission and at the end of the day you're just unnecessarily wasting the airframes service life when there is potential for it to do something more worthwhile.
The operating cost for the F-35 isn't going to be higher than the F-16 or the F-18 were at the start of their life cycles. Development and acquisition cost is obviously higher, but I bet if we combined the development/acquisition costs of all the planes the F-35's replacing, it wouldn't look like that much of a boondoggle.
And the Air Force is keeping F-15s in service, while the Navy's keeping Super Hornets in service. Streamlining the number of different platforms we're using across the board saves money, though, and axing F-16s and legacy Hornets - not to mention the A-10 - is a cheaper alternative than keeping everything flying indefinitely without replacements on the horizon.
Whats the actual % gain in performance from that though? Are we arguing the difference of centimeters or something actually substantial and meaningful?
It's substantial. Without getting too technical, an example I like is the F-35's ability to passively detect - without the use of radar - hostile aircraft, launch an AMRAAM D, and then passively guide it, all while undetected, all while never triggering the target's radar warning receiver. If you want a higher pK, you can let the AMRAAM go active in the last three seconds of the intercept. That capability doesn't really exist on anything else at the moment.
It was only published this month...
I know, but the argument's been around for a while, and it just doesn't hold any water. Using the Comanche as an example of how to do things is also, at the very least, fraught with peril; the Army never got the Comanche, they stuck with the OH-58, and now they're retiring the OH-58 and still don't have a replacement program for the Comanche.
F-35 pricing is falling now that there's an ass-kicker in charge of the program on the DOD side and LRIP is getting up to speed. It's going to wind up probably right around Super Hornet costs. That's not at all a bad deal.
I think the point is more to be prepared for a broader spectrum of operations and levels of intensity, rather than we're only ever going to fight low intensity conflicts (or to be prepared only to fight a modern air war against a peer adversary which doesn't yet exist). Its not like its being argued that we divest entirely of the F-22/F-35.... beyond that I would argue we need to take a step back and re-evaluate our acquisitions process and what our priorities and needs actually are.
Which is why the Air Force is picking up a few A-29s for low-intensity COIN stuff, and the Navy's looking at them for special operations support. Super cheap. Far cheaper than keeping 4th gens flying. For literally anything else, the F-35's just as good or better.
EmilCrane wrote:I've never understood why the US didn't just go full F22? The F22 worked, it was a finished plane with proven capabilities. Why spend all this money on another "almost but not quite as good" F22? I know the F35 has a tactical bomber role but surely the F22 can fill that role without designing a whole new air frame for it.
Aside from the mentioned issues regarding export, the F-22's wildly expensive, requires specialized maintenance facilities, can't land on a carrier, and is at best an average strike aircraft.
sebster wrote:I've heard it said that the F-35 will be the last manned fighter. That it will last a few decades and its replacement will be some kind of drone/AI aircraft. Is that plausible?
I think it's plausible that it'll be the last major exclusively manned fighter we build. All the back-of-a-cocktail-napkin 6th generation conceptualizing right now involves an aircraft that can be flown manned or unmanned depending on the mission.
Peregrine wrote:Serious question here: if the F-35 is better for strike missions and potentially better for air superiority then why does the F-22 exist? Do we just keep them because we already built a bunch of them before realizing that the F-35 made them obsolete, or is your preference for the F-35 in the air superiority role just your personal opinion that other pilots wouldn't share?
The F-22's undoubtedly the best air superiority fighter in the world right now, and nothing in development or even on the proposal table, F-35 included, looks like it's going to change that. I think, if the current budgets and planned upgrade paths hold, the F-35 might wind up with a slight Within Visual Range edge due to it being slated for high-angle off-boresight (HOBS) missile capability that the F-22 is currently locked out of due to sequester cuts.
Jihadin wrote: Doubt it A drone pilot does not have peripheal(sp) vision to name one. Actually. I'm going on the limb to better describe it as "eyeballs to brain to react". Now if we get that nasty little bugger of Necron fighter, maybe a Cyclon pilot.
Now, sure, but we're talking after a few decades of advances, when the F-35 is due for replacement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I think it's plausible that it'll be the last major exclusively manned fighter we build. All the back-of-a-cocktail-napkin 6th generation conceptualizing right now involves an aircraft that can be flown manned or unmanned depending on the mission.
Ah, interesting. I hadn't thought of there being versatility like that. Thanks.
EmilCrane wrote: I've never understood why the US didn't just go full F22? The F22 worked, it was a finished plane with proven capabilities. Why spend all this money on another "almost but not quite as good" F22? I know the F35 has a tactical bomber role but surely the F22 can fill that role without designing a whole new air frame for it.
Beyond the inability to export it, the F-22 simply wasn't designed for that mission. Most of the discussion about making it air-to-mud capable centered around enlargening the fuselage and giving it a delta wing so it could carry more ordnance.
3. We are still using the same under wing jamming pod as we used in Korea (seriously). We have a serious electronic attack deficiency. So much that even in the face of current budget cuts we're still fast tracking a replacement.
The Growler most certainly is not, or rather it won't be once the NGJ becomes operational.
I'd like to see a lot of aircraft carriers phased out in favor of submarines and potentially militarized satellites. Of course the whole "you can't militarize space" laws might be a problem there.
While I would love this (the aircraft carrier part particularly) the reality is that we're not at a point where that is really feasible (if we want to maintain our current posture and dominance). Anti-carrier technologies and doctrines are rapidly advancing (though I don't believe they have yet reached a point where carriers have become a lost cause), slowly pushing them into the realm of floating high value targets, but as of yet there has been no breakthrough technology that can offer us the same capabilities. Until the day that we actually lose a modern supercarrier, or we figure out a way to fly missions to anywhere in the world from CONUS (or other overseas bases) in a more cost and time effective manner, carriers are here to stay.
Seaward wrote: That may be the future plan, but that's "decades" future rather than day after tomorrow future. Drones are good at a lot, but air-to-air and complex threat environments aren't on that list.
I've heard it said that the F-35 will be the last manned fighter. That it will last a few decades and its replacement will be some kind of drone/AI aircraft. Is that plausible?
Plausible, yes, that doesn't make it likely. The AF is already soliciting 6th generation concepts, thus far all the concept artwork I've seen featured cockpits, though I think it likely that they will pursue an 'optionally manned' design.
Jihadin wrote: Ensis I believe is a drone pilot. That multiple screen for a 360 view is distracting. Seaward the pilot for fix wing and I was a crew chief for rotary. I rather have unrestricted view instead of the "break" between screens. I want to go with two maybe three more generation of computerization to get the effect of a total cockpit screen one can sit in at a desk with no lag from aircraft to pilot on ground
Also Ensis I'm calling you out. Have you looked into USAjob. If not I come down from Gig Harbor and nut check you
Seaward wrote: It works better than others. There's nothing I'd rather fly for a strike; the only thing I'd rather fly on an air superiority hop would be an F-22, and if I confirmed what I suspect about the AN/APG-81, maybe not even that.
Serious question here: if the F-35 is better for strike missions and potentially better for air superiority then why does the F-22 exist? Do we just keep them because we already built a bunch of them before realizing that the F-35 made them obsolete, or is your preference for the F-35 in the air superiority role just your personal opinion that other pilots wouldn't share?
I can't speak for Seaward, but I don't believe the F-35 really will be better in the air superiority role. Most of the people that talk it up in that function are basing it on the assumption that the F-35s capabilities will be unmatched/uncountered (i.e. the stealth aspect coupled with its radar/sensor capability will allow for enhanced BVR air combat, etc.), and that the seemingly current air combat paradigm of missile slinging will remain the status quo. We made similar assumptions in the past (see also: Vietnam) which turned out not to be true, much to our detriment. Granted, I admit that the technologies of the day had not yet matured to a point where the theory was really practicable, but the way I see technological advancement (in the military realm) is as a back and forth along a continuum. For every new technological development there is usually an attempt by someone else to counter it, so while I do think, for some amount of time Seawards assessment on the future of air combat will be accurate, I do believe that the pendulum will swing back in the opposite direction (as it seemingly almost always does), and when that occurs I think the F-35 will be woefully unprepared and ill-equipped, and I think that reversal will occur sooner than most people think.
A better analogy than computer hardware is probably software: when you write a new piece of software the code is probably very elegant and it works nicely. You can add in new features later and still have a working product, but each new addition makes things more complicated and requires new workarounds to fix the problems you encounter. Eventually you have a tangled mess of code that hardly anyone understands, and each upgrade means spending huge amounts of time just trying to figure out how all the relevant pieces work and what the new upgrade might break. And at that point it's better to just spend a bit more time and effort and write a whole new piece of software from scratch, with better performance and fresh upgrade room available.
I like this analogy, a lot actually, but then I'm forced to point out something like Eve Online, a game originally developed 11 years ago which is still kicking today, that has been continually upgraded (both hardware and software wise) since it was first released, and functions and behaves absolutely nothing like it did when it first came to existence. Despite those upgrades, and the expectation of resulting code bloat, the code remains relatively streamlined, in fact some of the upgrades actually resulted in a DECREASE in code complexity while still enhancing game performance and capabilities, etc. Yes, there are still some issues in the game, a few of which, for the time being at least, have no readily apparent workarounds and which the game developers (and thus the players) are apparently stuck with.
My point here isn't that you're wrong, rather it is that its possible, with a smartly managed program, to upgrade a legacy platform and still have it perform to a high standard. Obviously, as you pointed out, there are limitations to this, particularly as it applies to aircraft, and I wouldn't expect an upgraded F-15/16/18/what-have-you to outmatch an F-22 or F-35, but I would expect that it is possible to make it well more than 'good enough' for what we actually NEED, and considering fiscal realities, that should be our priority right now. Beyond that, think outside the box a little bit, an upgraded legacy platform can mean a lot of things. The Superhornet for example, while not at all the same as a Hornet, derived much of its design from it, and thus R&D and production costs were drastically lowered while providing the Navy with a significantly improved (and superior) aircraft.
Whether it should, however, is another matter entirely.
I think that's unlikely.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Once upon a time (long LONG LONG ago) the Russkies actually built a few quality fighters, they're eventually going to figure out how to again. Besides that, if the debate is centered around the concept that missile slinging is the future of air combat, then I do believe the Russians have an edge over us in that department, don't they? While our recent missile development has certainly caught up (if not surpassed) anything the Russians have produced, historically I believe they typically had us beat there.
The operating cost for the F-35 isn't going to be higher than the F-16 or the F-18 were at the start of their life cycles. Development and acquisition cost is obviously higher, but I bet if we combined the development/acquisition costs of all the planes the F-35's replacing, it wouldn't look like that much of a boondoggle.
I've heard both sides being argued (that the F-35 has higher/lower operating costs), at this point I'm not sure who to believe, but given how much more sophisticated and less robust the F-35 design seemingly is, I'm inclined to think that its going to have higher lifetime costs.
And the Air Force is keeping F-15s in service, while the Navy's keeping Super Hornets in service.
The Navy is also buying NEW superhornets... the USAF isn't buying new F-15s. The F-15 fleet has been grounded a few times due to structural defects and just general aging (note: F-15E doesn't have these issues as they are newer airframes, but its not the same plane), and increasing numbers of them are being retired, and with sequestration/budget issues that retirement process is being accelerated.
Streamlining the number of different platforms we're using across the board saves money, though, and axing F-16s and legacy Hornets - not to mention the A-10 - is a cheaper alternative than keeping everything flying indefinitely without replacements on the horizon.
I agree with the last part, HOWEVER, in regards to the 'streamlining', it seems the jury is still out. I've heard a few sources from the Pentagon/USAF/USN claim that the F-35 acquisitions process actually turned out to be more expensive than if the USAF, USN, and USMC each pursued their own separate programs.
F-35 pricing is falling now that there's an ass-kicker in charge of the program on the DOD side and LRIP is getting up to speed. It's going to wind up probably right around Super Hornet costs. That's not at all a bad deal.
I would agree with you if that turns out to be the case, but I have my doubts, especially considering how successful the Superhornets program was and how cheap it was by comparison to the acquisition of a new design.
Which is why the Air Force is picking up a few A-29s for low-intensity COIN stuff, and the Navy's looking at them for special operations support. Super cheap. Far cheaper than keeping 4th gens flying. For literally anything else, the F-35's just as good or better.
Unless somethings changed recently, the AF isn't doing that anymore. The contract was scrapped and they have to redo the RFP, etc. Beyond that the USAF, evidently, isn't acquiring the planes for itself, rather its acquiring them for the Afghans.
The F-22's undoubtedly the best air superiority fighter in the world right now, and nothing in development or even on the proposal table, F-35 included, looks like it's going to change that. I think, if the current budgets and planned upgrade paths hold, the F-35 might wind up with a slight Within Visual Range edge due to it being slated for high-angle off-boresight (HOBS) missile capability that the F-22 is currently locked out of due to sequester cuts.
LordofHats wrote: I vote we make a jet fighter that launches smaller jet fighters. Lets call them Dragoons
The giant robot is optional
We did that in the Cold War (or tried it anyway), look into 'parasite fighters', FICON, and XF-85 Goblin. Also similar are the USS Akron and USS Macon, as well as the F9C Sparrowhawk.
@Seaward: What are your thoughts on F-35 for export partners - Canada in particular? We don't have pre-installed infrastructure to support (i.e. airbases, tankers etc), nor would we be buying in quantity. There are also concerns about the cold weather worthiness of the F-35.
My personal feeling is that we should eschew the 5th gen qualities (since we are unable to buy F-35 in quantity) and go with something cheaper like Grippen NG just so we have enough airframes to rotate in and out of service just to maintain coverage!
keezus wrote: @Seaward: What are your thoughts on F-35 for export partners - Canada in particular? We don't have pre-installed infrastructure to support (i.e. airbases, tankers etc), nor would we be buying in quantity. There are also concerns about the cold weather worthiness of the F-35.
My personal feeling is that we should eschew the 5th gen qualities (since we are unable to buy F-35 in quantity) and go with something cheaper like Grippen NG just so we have enough airframes to rotate in and out of service just to maintain coverage!
I think it's a good buy for export partners, and a lot of them seem to think so, too. I know the RCAF really wants it, though it seems like a lot of Canadian politicians really don't.
I don't think the Gripen NG would end up being significantly cheaper. The Swiss bought their 22 Gripens at $150M. Just doing a quick Wikipedia browse, it's coming in at $113M right now, whereas the worst case F-35 scenario is $125M in 2020. I've seen 2020 projections for the F-35 hitting as low as $80M. The Gripen's price will obviously come down, too, provided it gets enough orders to get into serious production.
But, let's assume for the sake of argument that the Gripen saves you some money over the F-35. You're still paying at least 70% of the F-35's cost for an aircraft that'll get soundly smoked by the plane you didn't buy, both in terms of its air-to-air and strike capabilities. Picking a 4th gen when 5th gens are on the table for not that much more just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
As far as Canadian-specific concerns, I think they tend to get a bit overblown. Aerial refueling's not going to be an issue. We handle a lot of that for you guys already, anyway, including all of your arctic stuff, if memory serves. Arctic runway conditions are a problem the Norwegians are going to solve for you thanks to their purchase - my understanding is they've already figured out a drogue chute for icy runways that doesn't affect the 'stealth' characteristics.
But if Canada's really that worried about it, I'd say pick up the C instead of the A, sort of like how y'all went with the CF-18 over the F-16. Naval variants tend to be a lot tougher. If it can handle carrier ops, it can handle Canadian airfields. And hey, drogue-based aerial refueling.
@Seaward: I think the controversy in Canada is because the purchase was sole sourced without tender and the government stubbornly claimed that Canada was guaranteed FIXED $75M each despite this being very unlikely based on what was (and is) happening with the other partners. Consideirng the furror about the price already, it is unlikely that Canada will pursue the C variant. Paid use of US infrastructure to patch holes in infrastructure to operate these planes is also not currently factored into their budget projections. IIRC, Canada operates its own fleet of tanker aircraft that currently service the 18's.
Another common reason why the Canadian public is chafing at the F-35 is that Canadian air deployments as of late seem to have involved either symbolic depolyments like our current 6 planes to Ukraine, or are used against countries who's air defences have already been pacified such as Lybia. In each case, an obsolete generation 4.5 aircraft would be more than sufficient to perform the role of cheerleader or bomb truck. Our anemic aircraft numbers (65 planned to replace 80 18's) and proximity to the US's comparitively enormous aircraft numbers means that in the event of a stand up fight vs the Russians or the Chinese, Canada is pretty much reliant on the assistance of the USAF. In addition, the low numbers of aircraft suggest there would be few planes available for roles outside of defense, making the strike capabilities of the F-35 a seemingly odd priority. Absent an actual conflict: for escorting the odd Bear that flys by our borders, a generation 4.5 fighter would appear to be more than sufficient. In the end, Canadians just want to know that their tax dollars are being well spent, and the government has been very opaque on this subject, bending only after significant public opposition.
The fact that Norway is doing some rigorous Artic testing is reassuring.
Well, realistically, what the F-35 is really doing is effectively outsourcing/crowdsourcing the US national security, rather than directly strengthening your own. The point of Canada, Norway, or anyone else purchasing the F-35 is increased interoperability of your forces with American forces, in addition to supplementing American airpower with additional airframes flown by our allies so we can generate more sorties during coalition operations.
In other words, you should buy the F-35 because its good for America, and whats good for America is good for you.
keezus wrote: @Seaward: I think the controversy in Canada is because the purchase was sole sourced without tender and the government stubbornly claimed that Canada was guaranteed FIXED $75M each despite this being very unlikely based on what was (and is) happening with the other partners. Consideirng the furror about the price already, it is unlikely that Canada will pursue the C variant. Paid use of US infrastructure to patch holes in infrastructure to operate these planes is also not currently factored into their budget projections. IIRC, Canada operates its own fleet of tanker aircraft that currently service the 18's.
Another common reason why the Canadian public is chafing at the F-35 is that Canadian air deployments as of late seem to have involved either symbolic depolyments like our current 6 planes to Ukraine, or are used against countries who's air defences have already been pacified such as Lybia. In each case, an obsolete generation 4.5 aircraft would be more than sufficient to perform the role of cheerleader or bomb truck. Our anemic aircraft numbers (65 planned to replace 80 18's) and proximity to the US's comparitively enormous aircraft numbers means that in the event of a stand up fight vs the Russians or the Chinese, Canada is pretty much reliant on the assistance of the USAF. In addition, the low numbers of aircraft suggest there would be few planes available for roles outside of defense, making the strike capabilities of the F-35 a seemingly odd priority. Absent an actual conflict: for escorting the odd Bear that flys by our borders, a generation 4.5 fighter would appear to be more than sufficient. In the end, Canadians just want to know that their tax dollars are being well spent, and the government has been very opaque on this subject, bending only after significant public opposition.
The fact that Norway is doing some rigorous Artic testing is reassuring.
They all seem like good points to me, but really they're an argument for no planes, like New Zealand. But if you are going to have an airforce, and spend money to upgrade to new planes, it seems like you're best off spending the little bit more and getting latest tech.
I mean, there doesn't seem much point spending the money if you're getting a plane that, in the one instance you'll actually really absolutely need them they're not good enough.
chaos0xomega wrote: I like this analogy, a lot actually, but then I'm forced to point out something like Eve Online, a game originally developed 11 years ago which is still kicking today, that has been continually upgraded (both hardware and software wise) since it was first released, and functions and behaves absolutely nothing like it did when it first came to existence. Despite those upgrades, and the expectation of resulting code bloat, the code remains relatively streamlined, in fact some of the upgrades actually resulted in a DECREASE in code complexity while still enhancing game performance and capabilities, etc. Yes, there are still some issues in the game, a few of which, for the time being at least, have no readily apparent workarounds and which the game developers (and thus the players) are apparently stuck with.
Actually, EVE is a pretty good example but for the exact opposite reason. They've had a lot of problems with trying to make new features work with the existing code, and in at least one case they had to admit that it couldn't be done because nobody understood how the relevant stuff worked anymore. And this is after spending a vast amount of effort on upgrades, probably to the point where they could have made an entirely new game if their customers had been willing to accept no updates for a while in exchange. So, like trying to upgrade an F-16 endlessly, it's a case of the existing stuff imposing some real limits on what you can do and how much it will cost. The main difference is that EVE is just a game, so if a feature can't be done or isn't practical then you just have some possibly unhappy customers, not a dead pilot.
Obviously, as you pointed out, there are limitations to this, particularly as it applies to aircraft, and I wouldn't expect an upgraded F-15/16/18/what-have-you to outmatch an F-22 or F-35, but I would expect that it is possible to make it well more than 'good enough' for what we actually NEED, and considering fiscal realities, that should be our priority right now.
But there are two problems here:
1) You're spending a considerable fraction of the cost of a new F-35 to get your upgraded F-16, especially if you consider the cost of the additional R&D work to make a new F-16 upgrade (something that is already done for the F-35). Would you consider it a reasonable decision if you spend 90% of the cost for 70% of the plane? If the budget is your primary concern then you cut something else and buy good fighters, you don't settle for awful performance-per-dollar ratios just to save a little money on the total cost.
2) You're still stuck with the problem of limited upgrade potential. Even if your engineers work a miracle and manage to cram everything you wanted into the F-16 despite thinking it had reached its limits you're going to have serious problems with the next round of upgrades. The F-35 will have upgrade potential available and can probably take most of it without many problems, while you're right back to a choice between buying new F-35s and spending a huge amount of money trying to upgrade your F-16s again while the performance gap gets even bigger. If you're going to have to buy the F-35s anyway (and it's really unlikely that you'll make it to the F-35's successor without needing a new fighter) you might as well do it now and avoid throwing away money on F-16 upgrades with a limited useful life.
Here's a civilian example I'm more familiar with: you can get an old Cessna 150 for about $15k. It's a pretty low-end plane, but it gets the job done if you just want to fly for fun without spending too much money. Or you could get a new plane for $1-200k that will be much nicer, have much better performance, modern LCD-screen instruments, etc. But that's kind of expensive, so let's buy an old 150 and upgrade it. $10k for new instruments (and a new panel to hold them, new electrical wiring, etc), $10k to overhaul the engine (which is getting kind of old), labor costs to install everything, etc. Oh, and we don't want to be embarrassed when we take our friends flying, so let's buy a new interior and some new paint. Congratulations, now we've managed to drive up the cost to pretty close to that brand new plane, except it's still slower, only has one and a half seats, and you'd better hope your passenger is under 170 pounds or you're going to be lucky if you can carry enough fuel to make a trip around the traffic pattern. Still think it's a good idea to try to make that cheap plane into a nice one?
The Superhornet for example, while not at all the same as a Hornet, derived much of its design from it, and thus R&D and production costs were drastically lowered while providing the Navy with a significantly improved (and superior) aircraft
Sure, but that's because the original plane had upgrade potential remaining, and they used it well. The point is that there's a limit to how long you can keep doing that and still have a viable alternative to buying a whole new plane, and there's a pretty convincing argument that we've either reached that point now or will reach it soon enough that we might as well just buy the F-35s now instead of throwing money at trying to delay the inevitable.
No amount of retrofitting is going to lower the RCS of the F16 - especially once you start hanging gak off the pylons - so the entire idea is a total nonstarter for domestic use, period.
Ouze wrote: No amount of retrofitting is going to lower the RCS of the F16 - especially once you start hanging gak off the pylons - so the entire idea is a total nonstarter for domestic use, period.
I wouldn't agree with that entirely. I think you could probably do much the same with the F-16 as Boeing did with the Advanced Super Hornet, which, between the signature reduction measures and the "stealth" weapon pod, managed to knock the RCS down considerably.
The trouble is, it only knocked it down to about 0.5 meters squared, whereas the F-35 sits at a pretty comfortable 0.005.
chaos0xomega wrote: I like this analogy, a lot actually, but then I'm forced to point out something like Eve Online, a game originally developed 11 years ago which is still kicking today, that has been continually upgraded (both hardware and software wise) since it was first released, and functions and behaves absolutely nothing like it did when it first came to existence. Despite those upgrades, and the expectation of resulting code bloat, the code remains relatively streamlined, in fact some of the upgrades actually resulted in a DECREASE in code complexity while still enhancing game performance and capabilities, etc. Yes, there are still some issues in the game, a few of which, for the time being at least, have no readily apparent workarounds and which the game developers (and thus the players) are apparently stuck with.
Actually, EVE is a pretty good example but for the exact opposite reason. They've had a lot of problems with trying to make new features work with the existing code, and in at least one case they had to admit that it couldn't be done because nobody understood how the relevant stuff worked anymore. And this is after spending a vast amount of effort on upgrades, probably to the point where they could have made an entirely new game if their customers had been willing to accept no updates for a while in exchange. So, like trying to upgrade an F-16 endlessly, it's a case of the existing stuff imposing some real limits on what you can do and how much it will cost. The main difference is that EVE is just a game, so if a feature can't be done or isn't practical then you just have some possibly unhappy customers, not a dead pilot.
Source for this please? I've been playing eve since pretty much the start and I don't recall this ever being the case. The only thing that comes close is the whole lag issue caused by the server load of ship inventory, player skills, implants, etc. and their database structure, which isn't a case of them not understanding, rather that being an element of the core game engine which they cannot undo without a complete overhaul. Other than that, the only real issue they've had making a new feature work is the whole walking in stations thing which consumed a lot of resources and nobody really wanted in the first place (and has turned out to be a complete dud).
1) You're spending a considerable fraction of the cost of a new F-35 to get your upgraded F-16, especially if you consider the cost of the additional R&D work to make a new F-16 upgrade (something that is already done for the F-35). Would you consider it a reasonable decision if you spend 90% of the cost for 70% of the plane? If the budget is your primary concern then you cut something else and buy good fighters, you don't settle for awful performance-per-dollar ratios just to save a little money on the total cost.
You're not going to spend 90% for 70% though, it would be more like 50% for 70%, particularly as the systems which you would be porting over to the legacy airframe have already been largely paid for (and will presumably be re-used/upgraded in future airframes as well) as part of the F-35 project, so theres a bit of a sunk cost fallacy in this argument.
2) You're still stuck with the problem of limited upgrade potential. Even if your engineers work a miracle and manage to cram everything you wanted into the F-16 despite thinking it had reached its limits you're going to have serious problems with the next round of upgrades. The F-35 will have upgrade potential available and can probably take most of it without many problems, while you're right back to a choice between buying new F-35s and spending a huge amount of money trying to upgrade your F-16s again while the performance gap gets even bigger. If you're going to have to buy the F-35s anyway (and it's really unlikely that you'll make it to the F-35's successor without needing a new fighter) you might as well do it now and avoid throwing away money on F-16 upgrades with a limited useful life.
Scrapping the F-35 and recapitalizing the existing fleet has a two-fold advantage. 1. It stops (and if you supplement with new-build fighters it actually reverses) the growing USAF fighter gap (which the F-35 won't be able to do for almost another 10 years, assuming the most recent project schedule holds true). 2. It buys us time to re-evaluate our needs
Here's a civilian example I'm more familiar with: you can get an old Cessna 150 for about $15k. It's a pretty low-end plane, but it gets the job done if you just want to fly for fun without spending too much money. Or you could get a new plane for $1-200k that will be much nicer, have much better performance, modern LCD-screen instruments, etc. But that's kind of expensive, so let's buy an old 150 and upgrade it. $10k for new instruments (and a new panel to hold them, new electrical wiring, etc), $10k to overhaul the engine (which is getting kind of old), labor costs to install everything, etc. Oh, and we don't want to be embarrassed when we take our friends flying, so let's buy a new interior and some new paint. Congratulations, now we've managed to drive up the cost to pretty close to that brand new plane, except it's still slower, only has one and a half seats, and you'd better hope your passenger is under 170 pounds or you're going to be lucky if you can carry enough fuel to make a trip around the traffic pattern. Still think it's a good idea to try to make that cheap plane into a nice one?
So heres the thing, civilian/general aviation aircraft don't have that big a difference in performance within the same general 'category'/'performance bracket' So assuming that we're comparing a stock 150 (because there are a LOT of modifications, upgrades, and variants available) to a new 162:
The 162 will have a cruise speed approx. 5 knots faster than the 150, but the 150 has a higher maximum. (112 vs 107, 118 vs 141)
The 162 will have a max takeoff weight 300 lbs less than the 150, although the same useful load. (1600 vs 1320)
The 162 will have a wing loading of 1 lb/ft^2 greater than the 150. (11 vs 10)
The 162 will have a service ceiling 1500 ft higher than the 150 (15500 vs 14000)
The main substantial difference is that the 162 has a much greater range and a much better rate of climb (both of which have been dramatically improved in 150s via some of the aforementioned upgrades, etc.). Despite this the 150 is still considered by most to be an easier aircraft to operate and fly than the 162, so while it is 'better' in terms of performance criteria, it isn't necessarily a 'better' aircraft to own, and that old beater of a 150 (assuming it still has a healthy amount of time left on it, lets assume it does to keep the analogy apples to apples) is more than 'good enough' for many peoples needs.
Now lets look at the upgrades you mentioned there... aside from the fact that most of them aren't really necessary, nor do they improve the general performance of the aircraft, a lot of the 'equivalent' upgrades for the USAF fighter fleet have already been performed (glass cockpit, engine upgrades, etc.). In other words, we've already paid for those things, and thus already have them.
Sure, but that's because the original plane had upgrade potential remaining, and they used it well. The point is that there's a limit to how long you can keep doing that and still have a viable alternative to buying a whole new plane, and there's a pretty convincing argument that we've either reached that point now or will reach it soon enough that we might as well just buy the F-35s now instead of throwing money at trying to delay the inevitable.
Except they're not the same plane, and I mean that in every sense of the term. The Superhornet is derived from the Hornet and all its associated R&D work, etc. but they have very little in common beyond a simple cosmetic similarity, and even then the Superhornet is considerably larger in every way. Regardless of the fact that it *IS* a different plane, the fact that it was derived from the Hornet meant that its development and production costs were DRASTICALLY lower than simply starting over from scratch (ala the F-35).
Beyond that, I think you underestimate the potential that existing designs have. The F-15 for example, is capable of being upgraded with thrust vectoring (see also: F-15 ACTIVE and F-15 IFCS) as well as STOL capabilities (F-15 STOL/MTD). Then theres the F-15E (which as I understand it has no replacement yet), which the Koreans upgraded to the F-15K Slam Eagle which has a rather impressive suite of features, as well as the F-15SE Silent Eagle which features low observable/stealth shaping and RAM technologies to reduce its RCS dramatically (comparable to the F-35 in its front aspect, but otherwise clearly inferior from the sides/rear/above/below, although this is claimed to be as a result on export limitations imposed by Congress, and theoretically this aspect can be improved as well), as well as the same AESA radar, datalink, and electronic warfare suite as the F-35. Oh, and (compared to the F-15E) its also lighter, faster, more fuel-efficient, has an increased range, vastly improved avionics, and an increased payload. Unfortunately, the estimated pricetag of the aircraft, although still lower than the F-35s by a good bit, is presently too high to make it attractive, although Boeing has stated that the price would drop dramatically if there was increased interest in the plane.
And then the F-16... there is the new F-16E/F block 60 which have some pretty damned impressive improvements (many of which were derived from the F-35 program), and while the USAF doesn't fly them, the ones in use by the UAE are noted to be markedly superior to previous iterations of the aircraft in both performance and capability, and actually outperformed both the F-15 and Dassault Raffaels that they were pitted against in fly-off competitions during their acquisition process), oh and those cheeky bastards have decided to upgrade them EVEN FURTHER STILL. The cost per unit (including both development and production costs, paid for entirely by the UAE)? $37.5 million, which is still 1/3rd the price of the lowest (and IMO most unrealistic) estimates of the F-35. And yes, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the Block 60 IS superior to the F-16s in the USAF inventory, and some claim it superior to even our F-15s.
Beyond the Block 60s theres also the research/test prototypes like the F-16XL (delta wing, high-efficiency supercruise, high low-speed maneuverability, 2x the payload 1.5x the range), F-16 SFW (swept forward wing), F-16 VISTA/MATV (multi-axis thrust vectoring, also btw, the basis for many of the technologies used in the F-35), F-16X Falcon 2000 (cheaper than a Superhornet, longer legs, bigger payload, higher speed, more maneuverable), F-16 LOAN (testbed for LO nozzles used on the F-35), F-16IN (more advanced than even the Block 60), etc.
Then the Superhornet, which besides NOT being replaced with the F-35, continues to be acquired by the Navy, particularly the Growler variant which has extremely advanced EWAR features beyond those of even the F-35. Theres also the Advanced Super Hornet that Seaward just mentioned, though I admittedly don't know much about.
And just for gaks and giggles, the F-4 Phantom had a couple proposed 'super' variants. One of which was the F-4X/Peace Jack which offered performance comparable to the SR-71 with the added advantage of an offensive capability that rivaled even the F-15, so much so that the USAF killed the program because of the threat it presented to the F-15 program. Another, the IAI F-4-2000 Super Phantom which could supercruise, exceeded the Hornets flight performance and capability in every way, and was similarly scrapped because it endangered sales of the F/A-18.
chaos0xomega wrote: You're not going to spend 90% for 70% though, it would be more like 50% for 70%, particularly as the systems which you would be porting over to the legacy airframe have already been largely paid for (and will presumably be re-used/upgraded in future airframes as well) as part of the F-35 project, so theres a bit of a sunk cost fallacy in this argument.
You very well could end up spending 90%. The F-35 is going to wind up cheaper than a lot of 4.5 gen options once it hits full production.
Scrapping the F-35 and recapitalizing the existing fleet has a two-fold advantage. 1. It stops (and if you supplement with new-build fighters it actually reverses) the growing USAF fighter gap (which the F-35 won't be able to do for almost another 10 years, assuming the most recent project schedule holds true). 2. It buys us time to re-evaluate our needs
That's an extremely temporary advantage that comes at the expense of a long-term solution.
And we don't need to reevaluate. We know what our needs are.
Beyond that, I think you underestimate the potential that existing designs have. The F-15 for example, is capable of being upgraded with thrust vectoring (see also: F-15 ACTIVE and F-15 IFCS) as well as STOL capabilities (F-15 STOL/MTD).
We could've built the F-35 with thrust vectoring. We chose not to. Thrust vectoring's a nice but essentially cosmetic feature. Post-stall maneuverability isn't something that's worth designing for. It was in the '80s, when the F-22 was designed, before the AIM-9X and its ilk came along, but it's not anymore.
Then theres the F-15E (which as I understand it has no replacement yet), which the Koreans upgraded to the F-15K Slam Eagle which has a rather impressive suite of features, as well as the F-15SE Silent Eagle which features low observable/stealth shaping and RAM technologies to reduce its RCS dramatically (comparable to the F-35 in its front aspect, but otherwise clearly inferior from the sides/rear/above/below, although this is claimed to be as a result on export limitations imposed by Congress, and theoretically this aspect can be improved as well), as well as the same AESA radar, datalink, and electronic warfare suite as the F-35. Oh, and (compared to the F-15E) its also lighter, faster, more fuel-efficient, has an increased range, vastly improved avionics, and an increased payload. Unfortunately, the estimated pricetag of the aircraft, although still lower than the F-35s by a good bit, is presently too high to make it attractive, although Boeing has stated that the price would drop dramatically if there was increased interest in the plane.
Nah. Whoever claims the Silent Eagle's frontal RCS would be comparable to the F-35's is trying to sell you something. And if we want to play the estimated price tag game, go look at the F-35's estimated price tag before it entered LRIP, and compare that to the Silent Eagle's.
The Silent Eagle's found no buyers. That's pretty strange, if it's just as good as the F-35 and significantly cheaper.
And then the F-16... there is the new F-16E/F block 60 which have some pretty damned impressive improvements (many of which were derived from the F-35 program), and while the USAF doesn't fly them, the ones in use by the UAE are noted to be markedly superior to previous iterations of the aircraft in both performance and capability, and actually outperformed both the F-15 and Dassault Raffaels that they were pitted against in fly-off competitions during their acquisition process), oh and those cheeky bastards have decided to upgrade them EVEN FURTHER STILL. The cost per unit (including both development and production costs, paid for entirely by the UAE)? $37.5 million, which is still 1/3rd the price of the lowest (and IMO most unrealistic) estimates of the F-35. And yes, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the Block 60 IS superior to the F-16s in the USAF inventory, and some claim it superior to even our F-15s.
There isn't much if anything on Block 60 F-16s that can be traced back to the F-35, I don't think.
There are some other relevant statistics to consider when comparing the two, though:
The F-35 has roughly 1/1000th the RCS of the F-16 Block 60.
The F-35 has better flight performance when loaded than the F-16 Block 60 does.
The F-35 has far better avionics/situational awareness aids.
The F-35 is capable of carrying a heavier payload, and carrying it farther and faster.
And the list actually does go on.
Then the Superhornet, which besides NOT being replaced with the F-35, continues to be acquired by the Navy, particularly the Growler variant which has extremely advanced EWAR features beyond those of even the F-35. Theres also the Advanced Super Hornet that Seaward just mentioned, though I admittedly don't know much about.
The only reason the Super Hornet isn't being replaced by the F-35 is that it's slated to be replaced in 2035 at the end of its service life by whoever comes out on top of the Next Generation Air Dominance program. If NGAD gets canceled, then F-35's will absolutely replace it. We won't be SLEPing the Super Hornet.
As for what you need to know about the Advanced Super Hornet: it's the best attempt to provide an alternative to the F-35, using the newest 4.5 gen fighter we have, and it's still solidly inferior to the F-35.
And just for gaks and giggles, the F-4 Phantom had a couple proposed 'super' variants. One of which was the F-4X/Peace Jack which offered performance comparable to the SR-71 with the added advantage of an offensive capability that rivaled even the F-15, so much so that the USAF killed the program because of the threat it presented to the F-15 program. Another, the IAI F-4-2000 Super Phantom which could supercruise, exceeded the Hornets flight performance and capability in every way, and was similarly scrapped because it endangered sales of the F/A-18.
Yeah, I'd take a lot of that sort of stuff with a grain of salt. Nearly every aircraft we've ever retired has had some "Super" variant proposed by its maker. There was the Super Tomcat, the next-generation A-6, the 15-odd theoretical F-16 variants you mentioned above, etc.
We rarely go for them. Not because we're idiots, but because spending a lot of money on designs that have been stretched to the absolute limits of what they're capable of doing is a dumb move when you can buy new aircraft with plenty of room to grow that, even in their infancy, still exceed the capability of the upgraded alternatives.
Here's the bottom line: there is no 4th gen aircraft, flying or on the proposal table, that can hold a candle to the F-35.
@Seaward: Assuming CF-18 end of service life is now, does it still make sense to early-adopt F-35 at present costs, or purchase Super Hornet as a stopgap and transition to F-35 like Australia?
Our gov't is stubbornly (some might say with willful stuidity)pegging fly away cost at $75M/plane.
chaos0xomega wrote:In a sick and twisted sort of way, I'm actually really hoping/really looking forward to that turning out to be false.
That's weird. It's making me wonder if I need to go back to basics and explain how radars work, why small radar cross section is better than large, etc.
keezus wrote:@Seaward: Assuming CF-18 end of service life is now, does it still make sense to early-adopt F-35 at present costs, or purchase Super Hornet as a stopgap and transition to F-35 like Australia?
Our gov't is stubbornly (some might say with willful stuidity)pegging fly away cost at $75M/plane.
$75M flyaway might be accurate by 2022 or whenever you guys plan to acquire them.
And no, I don't see the Super Hornet making a lot of sense if you're going with the F-35 eventually. You'd be buying it for ten years.
Don't really feel like digging for old forum threads, but at least one current one is the problem of off-grid boosting. CCP devs have said that they think it's a problem and would really like to limit it to on-grid only, but the fleet bonus system is a mess and they can't figure out a way to impose the restriction. At least one "nobody understands it" thing was the billboards next to the stargates, any suggestions for changes were answered with "sounds cool, but the guy who wrote that code doesn't work here anymore and nobody knows how it works". Could they make it worth with an unlimited budget? Sure, but in the real world it's a very relevant problem.
You're not going to spend 90% for 70% though, it would be more like 50% for 70%, particularly as the systems which you would be porting over to the legacy airframe have already been largely paid for (and will presumably be re-used/upgraded in future airframes as well) as part of the F-35 project, so theres a bit of a sunk cost fallacy in this argument.
Argue about the exact percentages, but the basic point remains: the upgraded F-16s are cheaper per-plane, but you're overpaying for something that gives you way less plane-per-dollar than spending that money on F-35s.
And no, you can't re-use the old airframes because of serious fatigue life issues (as in past X flight hours you start to have fun things like in-flight structural failures). The decision is between new super-F-16s and new F-35s, not putting some new electronics into all the old fighters we already have.
1. It stops (and if you supplement with new-build fighters it actually reverses) the growing USAF fighter gap (which the F-35 won't be able to do for almost another 10 years, assuming the most recent project schedule holds true).
No it doesn't, unless your plan is to spend all of the money you'd spend on F-35s on buying new upgraded F-16s or whatever, in which case you're not fixing the budget issue. If you want to save money you're going to be buying the same number of fighters, the only question is which fighters they will be.
(And, again, using the existing airframes is not an option. They're going to the scrap yard soon no matter what new planes you buy.)
2. It buys us time to re-evaluate our needs
It buys us time, but at what cost? If the conclusion is "buy F-35s" then all we've done is spend a bunch of money on planes we don't want. Buying time only makes sense if the old planes will be good enough to reach the point where the F-35's successor is available, and that doesn't seem like a very convincing argument when that hypothetical replacement hasn't even moved beyond the "here's some CGI pictures of a cool plane" stage.
So assuming that we're comparing a stock 150 (because there are a LOT of modifications, upgrades, and variants available) to a new 162:
Actually my comparison was between the 150 and a new 172 (or similar plane from another manufacturer), which is a whole new class of plane. It's faster, much more comfortable, and can actually haul a passenger and bags along with enough fuel for legitimate travel instead of just flying around the local area. The 162 is a light sport plane with severe performance limits imposed by the FAA, and not really a fair comparison.
and that old beater of a 150 (assuming it still has a healthy amount of time left on it, lets assume it does to keep the analogy apples to apples) is more than 'good enough' for many peoples needs.
Yes, which is the whole point. The old 150 is a great purchase if you want to fly occasionally for fun and budget is an issue. But it's a great purchase because it is cheap. Dumping a bunch of money into upgrades turns it into an expensive plane that still has the same limits, and completely negates the reason why anyone would want to buy one.
It's the same with fighters: if all you want is some cheap fighters to pretend that you have a relevant air force then sure, buy some F-16s. But if you want top-end performance then you buy F-35s, you don't desperately attempt to cram all the new hardware into your old F-16s.
Biggest advantage of the F 35 is the passive IR search and track. That is the true stealth feature, not the marginal x band protection it has, primarily in the forward aspect. Being able to passively track a bogey without radiating anything or using GCI/AWACS cuing is a monster advantage. Especially for the CVN since the Hawkeye emission is like a megaphone yelling OH HAI GUYS THE CARRIER IS THIS WAY. Getting a rough hack from the SLQ 32s on the pickets, maybe a few SPY sweeps then getting vectors for a favorable WVR intercept is mean. Especially given the Russian/Chinese aversion to WVR knife fighting.
Still, let's all agree that the Marines have to sit quietly outside next time the adults are laying down new fighter requirements. Someone should have slapped the vice commandant who said OO what about a supersonic stealth jump jet? Right guys? Guadalcanal!
Still, let's all agree that the Marines have to sit quietly outside next time the adults are laying down new fighter requirements. Someone should have slapped the vice commandant who said OO what about a supersonic stealth jump jet? Right guys? Guadalcanal!
I think everyone is in agreement on this, right gents? Common ground? lol
Seaward wrote: $75M flyaway might be accurate by 2022 or whenever you guys plan to acquire them.
Original projection was purchase in 2016. It will likely be later now, since the public raised significant furror in 2012 that the $75M price appeared grossly inaccurate, despite gov't claims that our price would be fixed by the time of purchase. Since then, the sole source plan was scrapped in favor of a new process (which again slants the requirements towards the F-35).
I used to be of the opinion that Canada doesn't stuff to counter our supposed enemies' top-end stuff since it is unlikely that any beligerent nation would actually attack us "nice guys", since our gov't (prior to 2006) was internationally known for being generally even handed and our military was usually used internationally for humanitarian / peacekeeping missions or UN sanctioned actions. Of course, in a post 9-11 world, there's always terrorists and nutters, but they would be attacking using methods which high-tech military equipment can not combat. These days, with our govt's more aggressive stance - it seems to makes sense to buy more advanced equipment that can perform in a strike role, but I can't shake the feeling that we may be sacrificing quantity of airframes for seldom used strike capability due to the overal numbers in the planned purchase (65). IMHO, I think that our monies would be better served buying drones for sovereignty and spend some money replacing our coastal search and rescue aircraft.
I'm obviously not in the military, so I may be talking out my arse.
Saw it, havent watched, been too busy, videos are inconvenient :C
Though based on previous discussion, Seaward considers Pierre to be a washed-up has been know nothing (or something like that), since he's still thinking in terms of the 'last generation' and has no actual combat aviation experience himself.... or something like that...
I'm Sorry but Pierre sprey gets paid to say bullgak about anything.
He compaired the M1A2 Abrams to the m48 patton and had the patton better in every category compaired to the abrams (Except for Combat maneuverability which was a "Tie")
I'm Sorry but Pierre sprey gets paid to say bullgak about anything.
He compaired the M1A2 Abrams to the m48 patton and had the patton better in every category compaired to the abrams (Except for Combat maneuverability which was a "Tie")
Well thats a perverse twist on what he actually said, why dont you tell us how you really feel?
What he actually said is that the Abrams is too big, slow, and unwieldy to effectively support the infantry and are only really useful for fighting off a soviet tank horde in the fields of eastern europe... which is for the most part true.
chaos0xomega wrote: Saw it, havent watched, been too busy, videos are inconvenient :C
Though based on previous discussion, Seaward considers Pierre to be a washed-up has been know nothing (or something like that), since he's still thinking in terms of the 'last generation' and has no actual combat aviation experience himself.... or something like that...
I think he's not the designer of the F-15, for one thing.
He had a hand in the F-16, because he believed that all that fancy radar and medium-range AAM capability and ECM stuff that went into the F-15 was a waste of time and no match for a tiny fighter with a gun.
He was loosely involved in advising Colonel Boyd during the development of the F-15, thats how the F-16 got started, because he and Boyd protested all the 'gold plating' that was going into the F-15.
chaos0xomega wrote: He was loosely involved in advising Colonel Boyd during the development of the F-15, thats how the F-16 got started, because he and Boyd protested all the 'gold plating' that was going into the F-15.
Yeah. As I said, he's not the designer of the F-15. He's barely the co-designer of the F-16.
And he and Boyd were wrong. F-16s are meat on the table for F-15s. There's a reason the F-15 has the best air-to-air kill ratio of any aircraft in history (something like 250/0); it turns out maneuverability and energy retention aren't all you need to be an effective air superiority aircraft. Avionics and BVR weapons systems play a huge role.
Well thats a perverse twist on what he actually said, why dont you tell us how you really feel?
What he actually said is that the Abrams is too big, slow, and unwieldy to effectively support the infantry and are only really useful for fighting off a soviet tank horde in the fields of eastern europe... which is for the most part true.
Abrams is 1 foot longer and wider than an M48 patton
Without the governor the Abrams can reach a top speed of 105 mph, With it it tops out on road at 45 mph. 15mph faster than the patton
During desert storm the Abrams crews were told to slow down because they were outpacing their supply chain.
The purpose of any MBT is to engauge other Tanks...
This is not WW2 the main weapon is not the machinegun anymore.
effectively support the infantry
I'll take What is an IFV? for 200
Lets continue Pierre sprey compairsons with our own versions
Lets do a Aichi D3A vs F22 in destorying enemy ships
VS.
Anti-ship weapons:
Aichi D3A
550 LB bomb
F22 Raptor
None
Winner Aichi
combat maneuverability
Aichi D3A is able to dive towards enemy ships to enure the highest accuracy.
The F22 cannot Dive Bomb effectively
Winner Aichi
Cost
F22 Costs 150 million per play
You could buy about 15 thousand Aichi D3a for that much
Winner: Aichi
Survivability
The Aichi has take hits from .50 cals and 40mm boffors. Some people have survived these hits
The Raptor has yet to be hit with any Anti-air weapon
Winner: Aichi
Fire power
The Aichi carries 1,500 rounds of machinegun ammo
the F22 raptor only carries 480
Winner: Aichi
From these reports its clear that the Aichi d3a is a superior plane....
Jihadin wrote: Ensis I believe is a drone pilot. That multiple screen for a 360 view is distracting. Seaward the pilot for fix wing and I was a crew chief for rotary. I rather have unrestricted view instead of the "break" between screens. I want to go with two maybe three more generation of computerization to get the effect of a total cockpit screen one can sit in at a desk with no lag from aircraft to pilot on ground
Also Ensis I'm calling you out. Have you looked into USAjob. If not I come down from Gig Harbor and nut check you
Actually no... Not a "UAS Operator" (they strongly disliked my name for them of "RC enthusiast"), I was a 33W, so I fixed all manner of radio, computer/networking gear and electronics for everyone BUT the UAV guys
And I do have a pretty damn good job thus far, selling health and supplemental insurance
One question that I do have on the F-35/F-22 and the Air Force's haste to distance itself from one of it's greatest assets ever.... Do we know, as in real life actions, whether either one of these extremely expensive planes can handle the physical punishment as an A-10 has in combat, and still make it home?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: One question that I do have on the F-35/F-22 and the Air Force's haste to distance itself from one of it's greatest assets ever.... Do we know, as in real life actions, whether either one of these extremely expensive planes can handle the physical punishment as an A-10 has in combat, and still make it home?
Nah. There's nothing in the air that can endure the punishment an A-10 can endure.
But I dunno how useful that metric is anymore. The A-10 can take a ton of punishment, but that's because it needs to. It flies low, it flies slow, it's had gakky/non-existent ECM all its life, etc. And when it does get hit, it's still a mission kill even if it doesn't go down. We've not used it due to concerns about it getting tagged an awful lot over the past ten years.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: One question that I do have on the F-35/F-22 and the Air Force's haste to distance itself from one of it's greatest assets ever.... Do we know, as in real life actions, whether either one of these extremely expensive planes can handle the physical punishment as an A-10 has in combat, and still make it home?
Nah. There's nothing in the air that can endure the punishment an A-10 can endure.
But I dunno how useful that metric is anymore. The A-10 can take a ton of punishment, but that's because it needs to. It flies low, it flies slow, it's had gakky/non-existent ECM all its life, etc. And when it does get hit, it's still a mission kill even if it doesn't go down. We've not used it due to concerns about it getting tagged an awful lot over the past ten years.
It'll be a tough sell for me to want another aircraft flying over me to provide air support
But I dunno how useful that metric is anymore. The A-10 can take a ton of punishment, but that's because it needs to. It flies low, it flies slow, it's had gakky/non-existent ECM all its life, etc. And when it does get hit, it's still a mission kill even if it doesn't go down. We've not used it due to concerns about it getting tagged an awful lot over the past ten years.
I seem to recall it actually getting used a bunch in OIF, as well as Desert Storm/Shield.
It just lingers there. Waiting for the call of some grunts wanting to have their own version of Shoot an Insurgent Day that coincides with the Insurgents Shoot an American Day.
Jihadin wrote: It just lingers there. Waiting for the call of some grunts wanting to have their own version of Shoot an Insurgent Day that coincides with the Insurgents Shoot an American Day.
Wouldn't you rather have Spooky Gunship loitering around?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I seem to recall it actually getting used a bunch in OIF, as well as Desert Storm/Shield.
Once the air was sanitized, yes. We could'v used old A-1 Skyraiders to the same effect. (And we more or less will be, once the Light Air Support program and the A-29 get back on track.)
djones520 wrote: The A-10 gets used a ton. Despite making up about 10% of the USAF's CAS capable inventory, they've flown 20% of the missions for OIF and OEF.
I think that number's a little high, but even if not, I think it does a good job of illustrating that we can get by without the A-10. 80% of the mud-moving was done by something else; the plane can't be that crucial.
The fact that it was used so much more per airframe then every other aircraft just shows how great it is Seaward. If it wasn't such an exceptional CAS platform, they wouldn't be using it at a 2:1 ration per airframe then they do every other aircraft.
djones520 wrote: The fact that it was used so much more per airframe then every other aircraft just shows how great it is Seaward. If it wasn't such an exceptional CAS platform, they wouldn't be using it at a 2:1 ration per airframe then they do every other aircraft.
Actually, I think use/inventory ratio is still topped by the Harrier.
And it also depends entirely on how you're generating your numbers. Non-E F-15s are considered CAS-capable, for example, but they didn't get a ton of CAS time. The B-1B also gets factored into that, kind of hilariously.
chaos0xomega wrote: He was loosely involved in advising Colonel Boyd during the development of the F-15, thats how the F-16 got started, because he and Boyd protested all the 'gold plating' that was going into the F-15.
Yeah. As I said, he's not the designer of the F-15. He's barely the co-designer of the F-16.
And he and Boyd were wrong. F-16s are meat on the table for F-15s. There's a reason the F-15 has the best air-to-air kill ratio of any aircraft in history (something like 250/0); it turns out maneuverability and energy retention aren't all you need to be an effective air superiority aircraft. Avionics and BVR weapons systems play a huge role.
One could argue that they were actually correct... the F-16 ended up getting the same gold-plating type deal that the F-15 had and the final product ended up being drastically different from what they originally wanted to design. Boyd himself was, much like the F-15, disgusted with the result. Its discussed in his biography/biographies.
Abrams is 1 foot longer and wider than an M48 patton
Without the governor the Abrams can reach a top speed of 105 mph, With it it tops out on road at 45 mph. 15mph faster than the patton
During desert storm the Abrams crews were told to slow down because they were outpacing their supply chain.
The purpose of any MBT is to engauge other Tanks...
This is not WW2 the main weapon is not the machinegun anymore.
I don't believe anything you just stated was factually correct.
Hull Length of the M60 Patton (because that would be the closest equivalent of the Patton to the Abrams) - 22'-9"
Hull Length of the M1 Abrams - 26'-2"
Width of the M60 Patton - 11'-11"
Width of the M1 Abrams - 12'
Top Speed of the M1 Abrams with Governor - 45mph over improved surface
Top Speed of the M1 Abrams without Governor - 60mph over improved surface, severe damage to the drivetrain and injury to crew likely
Top Speed of the M60 Patton - 35mph over improved surface
During Desert Storm the armored formations almost outran their supply lines because nobody had anticipated how quickly they would be able to move due to a lack of resistance, not because they were unaware of what the rate of advance of an M1 Abrams was. Correlation does not equal causation.
The purpose of armor, as per the Army's own Armored Warfare Doctrine, is not to oppose enemy tanks, and even in WW2 the tanks primary weapon was not the machine gun, and in any case, for much of recent history American (and British) armor has been deployed in Iraq (and to a much more limited extent, Afghanistan) to support infantry and counterinsurgency operations, not to fight enemy armored columns. Beyond that, modern Armored Warfare Doctrine very much promotes the concept of a combined arms approach to warfare and the utilization of armored units to support infantry, as well as to utilize armor to achieve breakthrough against the enemy at a concentrated point. Besides, both the M60 and the M1 carry HE rounds specifically to handle enemy infantry
Beyond that, you ignore the fact that the Abrams is roughly 20 tons heavier than an M60 (which severely limits its ability to utilize existing road/bridge infrastructure), more logistically intensive, more expensive, and has only rarely been used by the US in the role it was actually intended for (although in those circumstances it was quite successful at it).
I'll take What is an IFV? for 200
An Infantry Fighting Vehicle? You mean those things that are typically used in units known as 'mechanized infantry' in order to help the infantry keep pace with the armored units they are typically fielded in conjunction with?
Lets continue Pierre sprey compairsons with our own versions
Lets not, so that I don't have to point out the obvious logical fallacy you have utilized which basically disqualifies the validity of your argument.
But I dunno how useful that metric is anymore. The A-10 can take a ton of punishment, but that's because it needs to. It flies low, it flies slow, it's had gakky/non-existent ECM all its life, etc. And when it does get hit, it's still a mission kill even if it doesn't go down.
During Gulf War 1 it didn't seem like they had too many issues operating in areas defended by SAM sites, provided that there were Wild Weasels around to support them. Its come up a couple times in the various memoirs I've read (mostly those of F-16 pilots mind you). In any case, that all depends, I think, on the ability to provide effective CAS from altitude which is what they would *like* the F-35 to do. Considering that 5 US operators were recently killed by a high-altitude CAS strike delivered by a B-1 a couple weeks back, supposedly due to inability of the crew to accurately determine the location of said operators, I don't put much faith in the concept. The B-1 is a multi-crew vehicle equipped with the same Sniper pod that every other coalition aircraft has. If they couldn't figure it out, what makes you think a lone F-35 pilot will be able to do the same while multitasking? A-10s and F-16s both have reported taking small arms fire while going in 'low and slow' (or as low and slow as possible in the case of the F-16), and I'm sure the same can be said for F-15E and F/A-18 crews, if the F-35 has to drop that low, I am 100% positive that the same will be said to them, they are stealthy, but that doesn't matter at all to the Mk I standard issue eyeball.
Beyond that, I've not heard of any instances where they weren't used over concerns of survivability. Publicly available information seems to indicate that, if anything, they are overused considering they have provided a number of sorties out of proportion with the actual number of airframes available/relative to other aircraft operating in theater.
Once the air was sanitized, yes. We could'v used old A-1 Skyraiders to the same effect. (And we more or less will be, once the Light Air Support program and the A-29 get back on track.)
If be 'we will be' you mean the Afghani Air Force, since the USAF has no plans to procure them for itself whatsoever, then you would be correct.
djones520 wrote: The fact that it was used so much more per airframe then every other aircraft just shows how great it is Seaward. If it wasn't such an exceptional CAS platform, they wouldn't be using it at a 2:1 ration per airframe then they do every other aircraft.
Actually, I think use/inventory ratio is still topped by the Harrier.
And it also depends entirely on how you're generating your numbers. Non-E F-15s are considered CAS-capable, for example, but they didn't get a ton of CAS time. The B-1B also gets factored into that, kind of hilariously.
If by hilariously, you mean to the detriment of our own personnel, then yes. Also the B-52 and the B-2 have been used to provide CAS strikes in the past.
chaos0xomega wrote: One could argue that they were actually correct... the F-16 ended up getting the same gold-plating type deal that the F-15 had and the final product ended up being drastically different from what they originally wanted to design. Boyd himself was, much like the F-15, disgusted with the result. Its discussed in his biography/biographies.
Not really. An F-16 with worse avionics and no AMRAAM capability doesn't exactly scream air dominance. It screams, "We're pretty sure those guys in flight suits still fight like it's World War II."
During Gulf War 1 it didn't seem like they had too many issues operating in areas defended by SAM sites, provided that there were Wild Weasels around to support them.
The same would be true of F-4U Corsairs.
In any case, that all depends, I think, on the ability to provide effective CAS from altitude which is what they would *like* the F-35 to do. Considering that 5 US operators were recently killed by a high-altitude CAS strike delivered by a B-1 a couple weeks back, supposedly due to inability of the crew to accurately determine the location of said operators, I don't put much faith in the concept. The B-1 is a multi-crew vehicle equipped with the same Sniper pod that every other coalition aircraft has. If they couldn't figure it out, what makes you think a lone F-35 pilot will be able to do the same while multitasking?
The fact that the B-1B isn't the only alternative, and Hornets/Rhinos/Vipers/Strike Eagles have all been doing CAS for the last ten years. Seriously, 80% of all CAS in OEF/OIF were done by something other than A-10s, if we go by the numbers above. Continuing to pretend like it's the only viable option is starting to border on the ludicrous.
Lancers would never be my first choice for a CAS hop. Their crews don't train for them nearly as much as everybody else, they fly a completely different profile that doesn't lend itself well to the mission, etc.
And the Sniper pod doesn't do all that much for not hitting your own guys if the TACP on the ground doesn't have what they need to get the video down.
A-10s and F-16s both have reported taking small arms fire while going in 'low and slow' (or as low and slow as possible in the case of the F-16), and I'm sure the same can be said for F-15E and F/A-18 crews, if the F-35 has to drop that low, I am 100% positive that the same will be said to them, they are stealthy, but that doesn't matter at all to the Mk I standard issue eyeball.
Getting downed by small arms fire is a one-in-a-million thing. Basing our fleet requirements around the possibility is a bit like using the lottery as your retirement plan.
Beyond that, I've not heard of any instances where they weren't used over concerns of survivability. Publicly available information seems to indicate that, if anything, they are overused considering they have provided a number of sorties out of proportion with the actual number of airframes available/relative to other aircraft operating in theater.
It depends on the time frame you're looking at. They weren't used at all in the opening stages of either Iraq or Afghanistan, at least not on anything even kind of defended. They saw a lot of use up until 2006, when the F-16 massively took over in the "most-used fixed-wing CAS platform" category.
I don't normally agree with Hagel, but he was spot on when he said, "The A-10 is a 40-year-old single-purpose airplane originally designed to kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield. It cannot survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft or air defenses."
If be 'we will be' you mean the Afghani Air Force, since the USAF has no plans to procure them for itself whatsoever, then you would be correct.
That's incorrect.
If by hilariously, you mean to the detriment of our own personnel, then yes. Also the B-52 and the B-2 have been used to provide CAS strikes in the past.
Just about everything has. Which, again, doesn't play well to the, "Oh my God, only the A-10 can do it!" crowd.
And no, that's not what I meant. Pointing out one instance of a B-1B doing blue on blue isn't proof of anything. The A-10's had its share of friendly fire incidents as well. Hell, there's video on YouTube of some of them.
If be 'we will be' you mean the Afghani Air Force, since the USAF has no plans to procure them for itself whatsoever, then you would be correct.
That's incorrect.
Cite your sources please, as I double checked this from a few different sources just to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering. The current plan is to acquire 20 aircraft for the Afghani AF.
A question to some of the jet-heads here if I may!
How do the F-22 and F-35 compare to some of the international competition in their respective roles?
So, for example
- The Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale
- Sukhoi SU-35 and Sukhoi PAK
- Any others (I read that China, Japan, India all have new jets on the drawing board?)
- Any others (I read that China, Japan, India all have new jets on the drawing board?)
Not sure about the others, but I'm VERY sure that Japan doesn't have anything on the drawing board, since they buy a few of the US fighters and maintain a small number of craft in keeping with their WW2 treaty.
There are a couple of Japanese jet fighters of their own design, mostly used as patrol craft, and reading about it some combined Mitsubishi/McDonald Douglas projects of modified F-15s and F-16s.
Japan has substantially increased its military spending over the past few years, and Prime Minister Abe is really pushing for a reversal of the post-WW2 treaties. The way that China is expanding its sphere of influence in that part of the world, I can imagine the US probably not doing that much to stop them, and support what is now a trusted ally.
Pacific wrote:A question to some of the jet-heads here if I may!
How do the F-22 and F-35 compare to some of the international competition in their respective roles?
So, for example
- The Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale
- Sukhoi SU-35 and Sukhoi PAK
- Any others (I read that China, Japan, India all have new jets on the drawing board?)
The F-22 and F-35 are better. Everything except the PAK-FA's 4th/4.5th generation. And the PAK-FA is kinematically impressive, but might not even make the Very Low Observable designation, if the Indians are to be believed.
- Any others (I read that China, Japan, India all have new jets on the drawing board?)
Not sure about the others, but I'm VERY sure that Japan doesn't have anything on the drawing board, since they buy a few of the US fighters and maintain a small number of craft in keeping with their WW2 treaty.
JSDF is actually a very well established Air Force, probably the best Far Eastern (not counting Australia in this) one in terms of equipment and training.
They have over 200 F-15's, about 90 F-2's (defense based F-16's) and about 80 F-4's. That's just their combat aircraft, they've got very good recon and logistic capabilities as well being able to conduct air refueling, anti-submarine ops, early warning and battlefield control. In terms of training, when I was stationed at Misawa their Air Wing of F-4's and F-2's was in the air just as often as our F-16's, so they certainly don't lack in terms of flight hours either.
