Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

The F22 cannot be exported, so there is no cost-offsetting variant.

 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.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 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.

I really enjoy reading these threads.

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

 purplefood wrote:

 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.

 whembly wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:

 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?

It can attack ground targets, yes.

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.

I vote we make a jet fighter that launches smaller jet fighters. Lets call them Dragoons



The giant robot is optional

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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

Did Ensis post in this thread??

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:
It can attack ground targets, yes.

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.

Is this the same system, or is that something else? It looks like they're still working on it in some capacity at least.
http://defensetech.org/2014/05/23/air-force-tests-f-22-helmet-mounted-cueing-system/

 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.

I always enjoy reading Seaward's comments in these threads

@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.

I think sebster's post is spot on.

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.