After nearly a week on this topic nobody has come with why we need the F-35. The has not been a single mission that has come up that would be unique to the F-35, not one.

Some say we need it for the fighter threat from China/Russia, so OK a miracle cold happen and both these countries could build a fifth generation fighter, India is indicating that they will build the Russian Mig 35 this decade in a quantity of 160, the US still will have 187 F-22’s, with normal technology/avionic upgrades the F-22 will most likely retire in 25 years as still the only 5th. Generation fighter in the world.

Some of you think that there is a ground support role like dropping JADAM II’s for 10K feet. Other the obvious absurdity of using a $100 million dollar plus airframe as a bomb truck, but If that is really, really, needed, might I suggest that the AF bring out the 419 T-37’s (A-37 Dragonfly). This is a proven ground attack air frame, it is in air refuelable, a 3K weapons load, has the ability to go down on the deck and get dirty with the Infantry and carries an extra pilot (set of eyes), also it can be outfitted to do what ever ISR the ground pounder need. The best part is we already own them.

FYI this week the first Army Warriors will start operations in Iraq with the 1st. Cav Division, in Phase 0 of their certification.

The first missions will be ISR in support of ground operations with hanging Hellfire II’s to come later, then the mission will have the Warriors serve as a quick reaction force for units out in the bush. All opperational control will be out of Division HQ’s in country.

Just one more reason why it just a waste of money to buy any of the F-35’s.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

“The F-117 during the 1991 conflict was used over Bagdad exclusively, it suffered no loses and had about a 60% target hit rate.”

I’m looking at an af.mil PDF right now, that summarizes the F-117 strikes on Baghdad and states a target hit rate of over 87%. Where do you keep getting these mystery numbers that you use to denigrate the performance of high-tech American aircraft?

You do not need to fly below 10,000 feet to provide ground support with JDAMs. If the F-35 can’t do it, then how did F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s, not to mention huge ungainly B-52s, do it in Afghanistan and Iraq?

“The only example that I can think of where US stealth aircraft went against a modern air defense system, the S-300PM2, was in Kosovo and the Serbs managed to bring down an F-117. That was the beginning of the end for the Nighthawk.”

The F-117 was not shot down because it went against an S-300 and couldn’t handle it. It was shot down by an old SA-3 missile (and I’m sure you’re going to turn around and use that as “proof” of the stealth plane’s supposed ineffectiveness)…only because the Air Force was negligent and sent its F-117s on the same exact courses night in and night out, so that it got predictable enough for the Serbs to pick up faint signals and position their defenses for a close shot.

A few points to consider the F-35, it will never be used for ground support, period. The F-35 like all AF A/F15’s and 16’s will not come below 10K ft. They are to expensive and to few to risk to “low tech” ground fire, RPG’s or the odd SS-16/SS-18 shoulder fired missile that might appear on a battle field.

On the deck ground support is the mission of the A-10’s and the AH’s. Not uberexpensive Fighters. They will drop laser/radar/IR or what ever guided munitions form 10K but that the extent of their ground contribution. Beside of those restrictions the AF’s window of 15–30 minutes to be on station for ground assistance is to long, the fighting most likely is over by the time the AF gets there.

An example of a 180 degree turn in tactical air deployment is the AH-64 Apache and what happened at Karballa in Iraq. The concept of an Apache strike died when 38 went in, one went down, 37 returned only to be sent back to CONUS for major repairs, target not hit. Now Apaches only operate in conjunction with ground forces, not as a stand alone strike force.

On stealth, question where has it ever been tested?

The only example that I can think of where US stealth aircraft went against a modern air defense system, the S-300PM2, was in Kosovo and the Serbs managed to bring down an F-117. That was the beginning of the end for the Nighthawk.

In Iraq during either war stealth was really seriously tested, (AF after actions on both Gulf War’s I and II). The F-117 during the 1991 conflict was used over Bagdad exclusively, it suffered no loses and had about a 60% target hit rate.

The AF admits in the AA’s, that the radar, AAA and SAM environment in Baghdad was on the “primitive” side. During the ten years of no-fly no Iraqi radar, or SAMS scored any hits on patrolling aircraft and towards the the end the USAF and Navy were got so good at taking out radar and SAMs they started using inert, instead of HE’s or CBU’s, practice bombs to take out Iraqi radar and SAM sites. In 2003 any air defense was a no show. The few Iraqi pilots who took to the sky went up blind and came down in a fire ball.

Looking at the evidence it would be hard not to say that all the money put into stealth has been well ill spent . It has yet to be challenged by any state of the art radar or sensor systems.

Our current enemies don’t have access to or much interest in ADS’s. Iran has old Soviet S-300’s that they now don’t want to finish paying for, claiming they don’t work. Meanwhile Russia has said that it’s done developing the S-400 system and most likely either manufacture a only few for export to try and recover the money it spent and then abandon the technology entirely. Russia says that it will start developing an S-500, but gave no time window one has to assume with past Russian projects that a working S-500 is sometime in the distant future.

It would seem that any future stealth development would only serve the Russian efforts, no other countries are currently working or planning a ADS to deal with existing US stealth, to develop a counter system. Why not let them spend the money to counter what’s already on the table, then up the bar and make them start all over again as they had to do with abandoning the costly S-400 ADS?

Perhaps this is a good time to take a breather on stealth technology, move it to the back burner and spend our money on what is needed in the wars we are currently involved in.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Addressing issue 1: When you consider the sensors and targeting systems that are built into the airframe (negating the need to carry ATGS pods such as LANTIRN, Sniper or LITENING), that explains much of the greater empty weight of an F-35A versus an F-16. For CAS and strike missions, this is an advantage as far as maneuverability, range and speed (less drag from pods and pylons if only internal stores are used). But in the air-to-air role, where the targeting systems aren’t needed, it’s just deadweight.

Also, the another significant portion of the operating weight (note I mentioned empty weight earlier) is the greater internal fuel capacity versus an F-16. This is an advantage in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions since it reduces the need for externally-mounted fuel tanks, providing the same advantages as the paragraph above.

Issue 6: I just wanted to add that only two air-to-air missiles can be carried internally, and only the later versions of the AIM-120 family. The AIM-9X can only be carried on pylons under the wings. For stealth combat air patrol missions, it’s a bit of a gamble to only carry two AIM-120’s. If the enemy possesses radar jamming capabilities, it’s good to have an IR backup in the form of the AIM-9X. Even the most sophisticated flares have little effect against today’s IR missiles, and the only jamming that would work is laser-based. Fortunately the AIM-120 does possess a “home-on-jam” ECCM capability. Still, having an IR-based backup is desirable.

Originally I had an overall negative view on the F-35. I’ve come to respect it’s current and potential air-to-ground capabilities, and recognize the advantages it possesses over legacy fighters. However, I continue to believe that this fighter is no substitute for the F-22.

Also, while the initial investment cost is high, there is a huge amount of savings to be found in the future. Very few people think of the maintenance (to include maintenance training) and supply costs when it comes to debating fighter weapon systems. Rather than having three distinct airframes (F-16, F/A-18 and AV-8B) with three very distinct supply lines (less than 1% parts commonality), having one family of airframes with 80% parts commonality between the three variants is extremely cost-effective. That’s where the real savings comes from, especially when you look over the life of the airframe (likely to be 35 years) spread across thousands of aircraft. Historically, production, maintenance and supply costs go down over time and once significant numbers have been bought. The F-22 was never given that chance because it’s high initial price scared too many, resulting in too few being purchased and it was barred from being sold to our closest allies. But yeah, back to my original point: even if the initial unit price reaches what the F-22’s was, in the future it would have paid itself off in savings from merging three airframe families as well as with our partner nations.

RSF, I find that I’m generally on the same page as you, cheers.

http://www.alert5.com/2010/01/two-spanish-eurofig…

1. Continuing weight management problems resulted in a total redesign of the airframe through the SWAT initiative. Even after the SWAT work, the F-35 remain one of the heaviest single engine fighters in history. This compromises both the planes power to weight ratio (and performance), and ability to carry ordnance.
2. Issues around reliability of both of the F-35 engines, and the necessary multiple redesigns of both power plants have been costly and added unnecessary expenses to the program.
3. May 3rd 2007 test flight, AA-1 is almost lost during a test flight due to a total failure of the electrical system. After control is restored by test pilot Jeff Knowles, the plane is put down in an emergency landing at 220 knots due to the flaperons not working, resulting in damage to the wheels and undercarriage. A 270 volt power component is identified as the culprit, and since the F-35 uses electro-hydrostatic actuators, a costly redesign of the entire electrical system is required.
4. The F-35C is designed around an under capacity Hamilton Sundstrand electrical generator generating only 65% of the necessary power output, and again requiring a serious and expensive system redesign.
5. The alterations to the airframe to add the large canted weapons bays have compromised the under body RCS, and also may require weapons to be deployed at subsonic speeds due to the large bay panels that now extend into critical airflow.
6. Stealth requirements have reduce the number of missiles that can be carried internally in a2a missions, putting the F-35 at a disadvantage when facing foreign fighter threats that can carry 3 times the missile load.
7. The large amount of computer code required for the F-35 (8 million lines) means that the initial production examples of this fighter will have little or no a2a capability, and will be essentially bomb trucks. This will impact nation partners like Norway which need a new fighter (now) that can be used in the regular intercepts of Russian aircraft that are required.
8. The 2009 test schedule was a dismal failure at 10% of the test flights being completed. At this point, of the nine pre-production airframes, only two have the marginal ability to fly.
10. The overall projected airframe performance puts the F-35 at a disadvantage when facing the new fighters from Russia and China. Since the JSF was designed to operate in a high/low mode with the F-22 flying cover, the smaller number of Raptors will put the F-35 in a a2a mission that it is poorly suited for.

Again I ask the question, how can this plane be considered a “lower cost” alternative to flying and functional F-22? Could we have a lower price and better developed F-22 if the huge amount of funds diverted to the F-35 had been used for the Raptor? How can we be selling the F-35 to our partner nations as a alternative to the F-22 when it is completely inferior in performance?

The F-35 cost is fast approaching the F-22 levels.

To further clarify what I said: UAS won’t be able to operate in a high-noise environment designed to actively counter the use of UAS. A UAV will simply lose signal and go into fail-safe mode, returning to the nearest friendly airstation. Manned fighters will still be able to operate in a high-noise environment, though they won’t be able to use their GPS capabilities.

And this is where I went into using laser-guided bombs and free-falling bomb. And I totally did not say anything about “Gun runs” against ground forces, as I explicitly said “air-to-air” combat in addition to IR missiles.

I have attempted to avoid mentioning UAV’s vs. the F-35 but it appears that’s all the left for a reason to by the F-35, so here I go. I will address you 3 points.

1. Laser Guided bombs (weapons). Reapers have been for many months using the GBU-12 and quite effectively. It is a laser guided weapon. UAV’s also have used the AIM-9X Side winder in an air/ground mode quite successfully.

2. The use of free fall munitions have been avoided in use by the UAV,s for the simple reason they have a tendency to cause collateral damage, which is according to General Mc Crystal to be avoided at all cost. There is no technical reason that a UAV couldn’t drop a conventional bomb if that was required.

3. The “Gun Run”, this is a secondary mission of modern A/F aircraft. At cost’s of in excess of $50 million for the least expensive and the F-35 surely will go beyond the $100 million when deployed it doesn’t make sense to expose such an expensive airframe t ground fire, MANPODS and RPG’s when you have A-10’s, Apache’s and Cobras that are dedicated aircraft. Te Gun (30mm cannon) on a modern fighter aircraft is purely a legacy system with no practical application.

4. Four following post. The ETOS that will appear on the F-35 in or about 2025 is already on the Reaper, will be on the Warriors (Spring of 2010) and the Avengers( sometime in 2011) by the time the F-35 comes out this ETOS will be a museum piece at Wright Patterson AFB and Ft. Bliss. I think it would be a safe bet that by 2025 ALL of the targeting ISR that is cutting edge now will be old low tech stuff.

In fact by the time the F-35 is ready to be operational in the 2025 time window I would think that all of todays technology leading cutting edge UAV’s will have long been scrapped, and we would be looking not a a fifth generation manned fighter but a fifth generation UAV’s that will be doing things not even imagined in 2010.

Even the most passionate supporters of the manned aircraft will have to admit that the learning and technology curves for the UAV has a much higher and is moving upward faster then the almost flat curve of the manned fighter.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I have attempted to avoid mentioning UAV’s vs. the F-35 but it appears that’s all the left for a reason to by the F-35, so here I go. I will address you 3 points.

1. Laser Guided bombs (weapons). Reapers have been for many months using the GBU-12 and quite effectively. It is a laser guided weapon. UAV’s also have used the AIM-9X Side winder in an air/ground mode quite successfully.

2. The use of free fall munitions have been avoided in use by the UAV,s for the simple reason they have a tendency to cause collateral damage, which is according to General Mc Crystal to be avoided at all cost. There is no technical reason that a UAV couldn’t drop a conventional bomb if that was required.

3. The “Gun Run”, this is a secondary mission of modern A/F aircraft. At cost’s of in excess of $50 million for the least expensive and the F-35 surely will go beyond the $100 million when deployed it doesn’t make sense to expose such an expensive airframe t ground fire, MANPODS and RPG’s when you have A-10’s, Apache’s and Cobras that are dedicated aircraft. Te Gun (30mm cannon) on a modern fighter aircraft is purely a legacy system with no practical application.

4. Four following post. The ETOS that will appear on the F-35 in or about 2025 is already on the Reaper, will be on the Warriors (Spring of 2010) and the Avengers( sometime in 2011) by the time the F-35 comes out this ETOS will be a museum piece at Wright Patterson AFB and Ft. Bliss.

In fact by the time the F-35 is ready to be operational in the 2025 time window I would think that all of todays technology leading cutting edge UAV’s will have long been scrapped, and we would be looking not a a fifth generation manned fighter but a fifth generation UAV’s that will be doing things not even imagined in 2010.

Even the most pashinate supporters of the manned aircraft will have to admit that the learning and technology curve for the UAV has a much high faster and accending curve the the manned fighter

I’ve had to edit a number of posts in the last few days that strayed from making pungent, articulate and focused comments about defense issues. Those who make personally insulting comments risk being barred from our site. Be vociferous and rant all you want about the defense enterprise and critique arguments. Don’t sling mud and get personal.

On with the debate! Politely…