SAC Hammers Gates on JSF

SAC Hammers Gates on JSF

The Joint Strike Fighter program has more than $6.5 billion in unspent money — “more than the budgets of many entire federal agencies” — and the first two production planes are a year late and the costs keep climbing, problems that the Senate Appropriations Committee says are symptomatic of Pentagon management problems. The committee cited “the lack of proper control in the defense budget process” and urged the Gates’ Pentagon “to regain control over its budget.”

How frustrated is the Senate panel with the management of the F-35? They say they considered scrapping all JSF funding for the year. All. Only the country’s “urgent need” for new fighters stayed the committee’s hand, the report says. Exercising restraint, the panel thinks 10 of the 42 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft requested by the Pentagon should be cut. That works out to $1.5 billion.

Finally, the SAC sent a clear signal to General Electric and Rolls Royce — and to the Obama administration — that the battle over the F136 engine for the F-35 is not over: “The incongruence of the insistence on canceling the second engine program which is a near model program and which most analysts expect would curtail long-term costs of the entire JSF program with equal insistence on the need to fully fund the JSF program is hard to rationalize,” the defense subcommittee report says.


We obtained a portion of the SAC report.

Join the Conversation

Good Evening FFB,

I agree FFB, but why not just cancel the whole thing. Lets see cancel 10 and that saves $1.5 billion USD. Am I correct that that makes the F-35 a $150,000,000.00 per copy air plane.

Was not the F-35 suppose to be no more the $110,000,000.00 and if the price went up the project could be canceled. Well the price went up.

Lets see we are going to sell some of these to Israel for only $96,000.000.00 each.

Maybe someone could tell me what’s wrong with this ?

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

Will you please stop building the F-35 ? My mental sanity is at stake.

Air Power Australia in 3–2-1…

It seems that all the marketing PowerPoint and snake oil from Lockmart and the Pentagon doesn’t seem to be having the desired impact these days.

The JSF program is skating on thin ice, and the recent “re-phasing” of the F-35B is just the latest issue in a long line of sliding development schedules. With the continuing economic misery and no end in sight, the F-35 is quickly becoming something that all good politicians want to distance themselves from.

And Boeing is standing in the background, ready to deliver new and improved F-15SE’s and Super Hornets, that are proven technology with a real price tag.

Does a house of cards make a sound when its falls?

To refresh memories — honorary secretary Gates knew exactly why to kill F-22 production last year — so to give Congress no option but keep on keeping sick F-35 dog alive. He didn´t manage to do same with F/A-18E/F/G, only thanks to Congress intervention forcing Pentagon into multi-year buy of another batch of 132 planes. If this is not meticulous planning, what else is? Eliminate competition, then monopolize fighter market. One fighter to rule them all … in darkness to bind them. Es tu culpa, Roberto!

Like a broken record (or a badly-scratched CD), my mind,keeps going back to the ill-fated TFX / F-111 project where the Defense Department decided to build a “one-size-fits all” fighter and failed miserably. We used to say, somewhat cynically, that MacNamara’s tenure at Ford ( before coming to the Pentagon) was a 50% success. He built the Edsel and put four seats in the Thunderbirsd. Well, he personally chose the prime contractor for the TFX and made development of the fighter one of his pet projects. Look what we got for all those billions — - the F-iii that was foisted off onto SAC, and that SAC hated because it had no legs. and really hadn’t been designed as a bomber.

In my mind, I’m looking down the road a couple of years hence and discovering that neither the Navy nor the Air Force will really have a first-line attack fighter — - just a second-best all around machine that changes jet fuel into noise, but not much else.

It’s recession guys. The price should be lower than the original price. Say 50% off.

Naah, the poor djoos deserve the F-35 for free! Do you know how much lobbying for Zion costs them?

150! an people complaing about the f-22s price, now the f-22 cancelation makes less sence that it allredy did

Whatever you bought would be abosolete in ten years (if not sooner). Stupid move that only the truely clueless could endorse.

the gate was close for one successor of f-16, in USA and in all the world
f-15 and f-18 was here and foreign aircraft to

Technology has improved since the 60’s in case you didn’t notice. Oh, BTW the most successful fighter ever was used by all three services too. That would be the F-4 Phantom II. Funny how so many conveniently forget that.

The obvious solution is to keep building C-17’s.

So we cancel the JSF and F-22 program. Looking 10+ years out… Do we then send up aging F-15s, F-16s, and F18s against 5th generation Russian Sukoi T-50s and Chinese J-14 fighters so they can be shot down, huh? Thats so smart!

Well I see BS is riding the hog high today.….…Now,I have said cutting the F35 all along made sense. How ever, buy more F16 and F15 series fighters to add to and replace current fighters that are near end of life.

Good MOrning Folks,

Just one small question. The governments fiscal year is over in about two weeks, will that $6.5 billion still be unspent, ha-ha-ha ?

Will those unused funds allocated for the F-35 program be used as Congress had intended them to be used?

Or if not used, ha-ha-ha again, will the $6.5 billion go back in to the general fund, as a credit to next years budget and debited for the 2010–2011 F-35 budget?

Or will by October 1st. the funds will have found a home that they were never allocated for and the US tax payer will be jacked for $6.5 billion?

I know it’s a dumb question but hey somebody had to ask it.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Ok then, so 10+ years out we send up “brand new” F-15s and F-16s to be shot down by Russian T-50s and Chinese J-14s. That makes a lot of sense to me! (not really!)

the world’s dumbest JFACC might do as you suggest. OR we could just smoke the enemy’s C2 and air force while they are on the ground with cruise missles, stealth attacks, cyber attack, UAVs, and special ops.

So we should only have an Air Force of 187 F-22s and let the older fighters age out and retire? With no new F-22s being built and the JSF cancelled? Why buy new F-15s and F-16s to use in the 2020s when they will be obsolete technology by then? With T-50s and J-14s being the fighters of choice for the Russians and Chinese? You make no sense to me!

then try reading again. what’s more important: winning an air to air battle or winning a war? if we truly find ourselves at a disadvantage in air-to-air engagements, then destroy the enemy on the ground. The F-15 air to air engagement record through all history is 104 to ZERO. when we lose one in A/A combat, then I may be convinced new fighters are a top national security priority. as a nation we are exposed to much greater risk from other threats. so our overall net risk exposure would be reduced by killing the F-35 program, and reassigning the resources to other programs to address the other threats. The problem is too many people like you think it’s more important to have shiny new fighters (or jobs in their Congressional district) than it is to make best use of limited resources to improve national security.

I dont agree with you that we should wait until our F-15s are outclassed by foreign fighters before we start to even think about getting new fighters. We should always have air-to-air superiority combined with the ability to destroy them on the ground. Since we have limited resoureces we should stop doubling the national debt with spending run amok and have a balanced budget and limit pork barrel spending and the growth in entitlement programs. Defending the nation comes first before social programs that never end and only grow larger and larger…

ok i’ll concede to you there is value in new fighters. fine we solved that with F-22. ok maybe i’ll even concede to you that the JSF has value. we still deserve better than a muff job of a program. and from a net benefits perspective, other programs give us better return in national security results. they should scrap the thing, or atleast fire all the senior leaders involved. maybe that will teach people to stop screwing up.

There are 500+ F15s in our inventory. Over time buying a squadron a year we should reactivate the F-22 program and not stop with only 187 planes. I hope the next Administration will do that! The Air Force originally wanted 750 F-22s, we should buy 650 to 750 like they wanted in the beginning. Plus the programs that you like as well. And since the JSF is superior to the F-16 and J-11s/Su-27s we should buy enough to replace the F-16s when they have served their full term. The more you buy of a plane the less the per unit cost. By the time the 2020s arrive the cost per plane will be much lower than in the first production run.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010–01.html
“the F-35 will no longer be a usable combat aircraft for roles other than Counter Insurgency (COIN), though more cost effective and more appropriate solutions already exist for this role.”

“the only viable … strategy […] is to terminate the Joint Strike Fighter program immediately, redirect freed funding to further develop the F-22 Raptor, and employ variants of the F-22 aircraft as the primary fighter aircraft for all United States and Allied TACAIR needs.
If the US does not fundamentally change its planning […], the advantage held for decades will be soon lost… ”

“the marginal cost of buying one additional [F-22] aircraft has come down to (just!) $138 million, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that a larger order of 70 additional aircraft could have brought that number down to $70 million a pop.“
http://​www​.weeklystandard​.com/​C​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​P​u​b​l​i​c​/​A​rti

Not if they were F-22’s and F-15SE’s

“when we lose one in A/A combat”… Then will be too late, once one air to air combat is lost, the war is lost.

Less JSFs and more F-22s I would agree to that!! =)

See: http://​www​.ausairpower​.net/​r​a​p​t​o​r​.​h​tml

Quote:
“Since the end of the Cold War, the Russian and Chinese defence industries have absorbed most of the advanced technology in the globalised market. The most recent generation of radars, Surface to Air Missiles and fighter aircraft they have developed can produce air defence systems which are completely impenetrable to all United States combat aircraft other than the F-22A Raptor and B-2A Spirit. The new stealthy Sukhoi PAK-FA directly challenges the F-22A Raptor. The result of this is that the United States will lose access to many theatres of operation on the global stage, as these new weapons proliferate, unless the United States deploys ~700 F-22A Raptors — the number originally planned for in the first place.”

There Are NO Alternatives to the F-22 Raptor

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is NOT a Substitute for the F-22 Raptor

The widely held view in Western bureaucratic circles, that the F-22 and F-35 are interchangeable aircraft, is not true and can never be true. The F-22 provides close to three times the capability of the F-35 at a similar unit procurement cost. The F-35 lacks the performance of the F-22, the survivability of the F-22, the firepower of the F-22, and the deployability of the F-22. The limitations of the F-35 are inherent in its basic design and cannot be fixed by design modifications or upgrades. Poorly defined basic specifications for the F-35 and inadequate prototyping have resulted in an expensive aircraft which cannot be used in combat situations other than benign, requires support by a lot of F-22 Raptors and aerial tankers, and requires long concrete runways for overseas deployments”

http://​www​.ausairpower​.net/​r​a​p​t​o​r​.​h​tml

Quote:
“Most of the legacy US fighter fleet was built during the late Cold War period, and was designed during the 1970-1980s. Not only are these aircraft no longer able to survive against modern Russian designed fighter and air defence technology, but the F-15C, F-16A-D and F/A-18A-D air combat fighters are increasingly suffering from airframe structural fatigue life exhaustion. Much of the F-15C fleet has also suffered from manufacturing defects in their structure, further shortening the life of these fighters. The F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter fleet was recently retired altogether. Unless the United States industry manufactures a significant number of new and survivable fighters over the next decade, we will observe a large reduction in United States fighter fleet sizes. Of all of the fighters currently being produced in the United States, only the F-22 provides a good return on investment.”

Source: http://​www​.ausairpower​.net/​r​a​p​t​o​r​.​h​tml

If the proposal was to cancel the JSF and restart the F-22 program with the intention of buying 563+ of them I would support that! Thanks altor for posting the ausairpoer​.net site!

But if the JSF was cancelled and the F-22 program restarted. What plane would replace the Navy’s fighters on the aircraft carriers?

To the poster “BradM”

You wrote: “Defending the nation comes first”

Defending what nation? Are you talking about today?

I’m assuming you’re being sarcastic. :) But yes, the primary goal of the Federal govt should be defending the USA. The percentage of GDP of the defense budget is what? 5%? 6%? Thats not too much to ask for! Even 7%!

Good Evening Folks,

To FFB. Who know how much this useless piece of hardware will cost. Somebody said we need to F-35 and the F-22 to defend the country, From Mexico and Canada? Give me a break.

What ever the cost of a F-35 might turn out to be FFB it is to much. At $150 million or $250 million each. The cost long ago passed being absurd. That money cold repair a lot of school roofs before winter, could help a lot of sick people and go a long way in feeding the 7.1 million additional American who now are living below the poverty line in this country, and thats just for one of these future beer cans.

The F-35 is not for the defense of the United States or any place else, it is just for placating sick minds who see evil in anything witch they don’t understand, which unfortunately is a great deal.

I’ve always found it interesting that those who want to kill others, that’s what these fighters are just expensive killing machines, have never had the stomach to do any of the killing themselves.

Perhaps FFB if they had ever felt the warm blood of others on flowing down their hands and saw life disappearing for a struggling body that they had just used some of these devices on, as some of us have, they would not be so excited about buying these machines of death.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

Thanks for once again showing how you have no clue what you are talking about.

If were up to me I’d be looking into a partnership/manufacturing deal with the Gripen NG. 4.5+ Gen with super cruise, can land and take off on any 800 meter stretch of highway. Can be Carrier Launched with very little modification and will out turn a JSF any day.Plus will carry a lot more payload than the JSF. Oh and you can get 2 for the price of 1 JSF.

In defense of the JSF: the JSF will be superior to all 4th Generation fighters that are equal to or inferior to the F-15. But in situations when facing F-22 like fighters (T-50, J-14) it should be F-22s that engage them while the JSF does close air support, tactical bombing and air defense missions. In air-to-air combat the F-35 would be superior (4 times superior) to foreign fighters that are equal to or inferior to the F-15.

“The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 (JSF) aircraft …The USAF has conducted an analysis of the F-35’s air-to-air performance against all 4th generation fighter aircraft currently available, and has found the F-35 to be at least four times more effective. Major General Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the “F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois”. The Russian, Indian, Chinese, and other air forces operate Sukhoi Su-27/30 fighters.“
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​L​o​c​k​h​e​e​d​_​M​a​r​t​i​n​_​F​-35

Also:
“In the context of selling F-35s to Israel to match the F-15s that will be sold to Saudi Arabia, a senior U.S. defense official was quoted as saying that the F-35 will be “the most stealthy, sophisticated and lethal tactical fighter in the sky,” and added “Quite simply, the F-15 will be no match for the F-35.”“
– Entous, Adam. “U.S.-Saudi Arms Plan Grows to Record Size: Addition of Apaches, Black Hawks Swells Deal to $60 Billion.” online​.wsj​.com, 14 August 2010. Retrieved: 16 August 2010.

In air to air combat how does the Gripen NG 4.5+ compare to F-15s?

We would buy only 2,000 F-35s instead of 2,443 and buy 813 more F-22s for a total of 1,000. That should last us to 2040 nicely! =)

correction: “would” should be “could” above

It was designed to go up against the Mig-29 & SU 30 series of fighters. So put top of the line US avionics in it and you should get a 4.8 or 9 gen fighter out of it. At around 60 million a piece. They are already using AESA radars, but put in the new APG-82 AESA radars and they have the electro-optical MAWS system working.

Please read this, I think your JSF of 4–1 is lacking. That was based on non-updated legacy fighters, not what is out there today
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010–1.h

How stealthy is it? According to this article [The Untimely Demise of the F-22, pg 2] even the F-35 isnt stealthy enough to penetrate Chinese air defenses that a F-22 is the prefered aircraft.

“Indeed, that same day Fulghum quoted another Air Force official, this one identified only as a “senior intelligence officer.” “The F-35 is not an F‑22 by a long shot,” he told Fulghum, “there’s no way it’s going to penetrate Chinese Air Defenses if there’s ever a clash.” Concerns about the F-35’s ability to penetrate sophisticated air defenses center on doubts about just how stealthy the plane will be. A study published earlier this year by Air Power Australia (Australia is one of the F-35 partner countries) concluded that the Joint Strike Fighter is “demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft in the sense of designs like the F-117A, B-2A, and F-22A.” The F-22 can also fly higher, faster, and farther than the F-35 and all while carrying twice as many air-to-air weapons in stealth mode.”

In the same article on page 1 its says the marginal cost of F-22s could be $70 million a plane down the line if 70 more were ordered.
http://​www​.weeklystandard​.com/​C​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​P​u​b​l​i​c​/​A​rti

To Mr. Byron Skinner

You wrote: “Am I correct that that makes the F-35 a $150,000,000.00 per copy air plane.”

The maths are correct, but the F-35’s unit cost climbed again since that Senate report (this article contains no dates) : According to Wikipedia, Lockheed Martin’s taximeter is presently at (quote) “US$191.9 million (flyaway cost for FY 2010)”
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​F​-​3​5​_​L​i​g​h​t​n​i​n​g​_II
(Data box in the upper right corner)

At this pace, do you believe that the first series production F-35s will cost only 250 million $ apiece?

Yep on the “70 million” but its more like 120 million with all the developmental costs added in, but 70 million from now on in a large enough order. You then arm 1/2 of the first wave of F-22’s with Smart bombs & take out the air defenses systems first, then send in the “Bomb Trucks” to take out the rest of the infrastructure you want gone. The Gripen can handle twice the G’s a JSF can, carry twice the payload and will be able deal with the SU 30–35 family of fighters that would come up after them. And at 2 for the price of 1 you would have a lot more of them in the air to deal with those approaching enemy fighters.

More reasons to have the F-35 and F-22 work together and buy more F-22s even if it means less F-35s! Thanks tee!

You must of read something I didn’t the JSF would lose against most updated legacy SU-30–35 fighters! Cancel that and add lots more F-22’s and F-15SE’s

I “like” the implied message at the end of the article. “Now that the F-22A Raptor program is being terminated with insufficient aircraft to deliver air dominance, this role is now being assigned to the F-35 JSF. Given the intent of the OSD to employ the F-35 Joint Strike fighter as an air dominance fighter, the fundamental and unanswered question is: HOW? … Postscript: Please don’t mention the PAK-FA. ”

With only 187 F-22As and Su-35S beating the F-35 and with the PAK-FA (Sukhoi T-50) backing up the Su-35S it will be the Russians “sanitising the airspace and delivering air dominance…”

Ok you convinced me that the F-22A working with the Gripen is a better pair than the F-22A working with half as many F-35s =)

I thought you liked the Gripen NG to work with the F-22’s? We are agreeing I believe that we are testing what is best in a pairing. The F-22A paired with the F-35, or the Gripen NG (twice as many as the F-35), or paired with the F-15SE’s. Which pairing do you prefer to last us to 2040?

Perhaps you are suggesting the pairing of F-22A/Gripen NG for the Navy and the F-22A/F-15SE for the Air Force? Both pairings are superior than the F-22A/F-35C and the F-22A/F-35A?

F-22 and the Gripen NG. The Gripen is 4.5+ Gen and can be Upgraded with US avionics, which would up it to 4.8 or 9 Gen. It can be launched from a carrier with a tail hook added. It is already reinforced structurally to be able to do short landings and take off’s 800 meter. Which would work for the Navy and the short landing and take off, would allow the Marines to have an expeditionary fighter capability. Any strength of road 800 meters or longer to refuel & rearm. Which can be ferried in by chopper or V-22.

The JSF and F-22 are self-licking ice cream cones. Pilots shouldn’t be allowed to make these decisions. They’re still living in the stone ages and unwilling to give up turning & burning and yanking & banking a $100M piece of equipment. Most people pay to ride the roller coaster on fixed track. They get paid to make their own. The WWI thinking behind the Maginot line didn’t work so well in WWII for the French.

Software is so sophisticated and computing power so great now that UAVs can out think human reactions, are cheaper and lighter with higher performance –they’re not hauling overpaid zoomies around. A jailbroken iPhone programmed by a Pakistani or Korean immigrant (you hardly see Americans working at tech companies anymore) attached to a JATO with fins would give the U.S. taxpayer better bang for the Yuan.

Really, Is a fraction of a dB of LO or STOVL really going to matter? Fundamentally, does the expense of these impressive machines help us compete for the same limited natural resources as a burgeoning middle class of 1.3 billion Chinese demanding energy to run their new automobiles and air conditioners? Better brush up on your Cantonese and Mandarin. Quantity has a quality all its own.

Postscript: Please don’t mention the PAK-FA working as allies with the Chinese J-14 (together) against the U.S. with only 187 F-22A’s and the Su-35S beating the F-35.

So you like the Gripen NG more than the F-15 Silent Eagle?

The F-15SE only if you HAVE TO BUY AMERICAN. The Gripen NG was designed from the start to be able to refuel & rearm on a highway by truck. in 10 minutes. In a real shooting war runways will get plastered by cruise missiles and most likely unusable for awhile. The Gripen NG updated and in larger numbers would be a lot more survivable and be able to stay in the fight in the first for the 48 hours which is crucial. Where the F-35A depends on nice long runways to operate. Marines would have a more survivable platform because of the ability to use roads if they had too. The Navy still will need to defend there carriers, but that’s a given.

I’m sure Saab would do a joint venture/manufacturing deal here in the states, so it would be built here by Americans etc. etc. I just want the best plane for our guys at the best price. The Gripen NG gives twice the bang for the same $$$

To the poster “tee”

You wrote: “Oh and you can get 2 for the price of 1 JSF.”

———————————————————————-

Part 1 / 4

———————————————————————-

For the price of 1 single F-35 you get ~ 3,2 Gripens, and in the future increasingly more, as the F-35’s unit price escalates shamelessly and the Gripen’s price doesn’t. And I’m NOT even comparing the Gripen’s superior quality to the F-35’s… Anyway, now you inspired me:

———————————————————————-

1 F-35 costs: 192 million $ each

2.443 F-35s cost:
2.443 F-35s x times 192 million $ each = 469 billion $ (slightly rounded figure, I know)

But Lockheed Martin promised that mass production of all national and foreign F-35s would lower the complete program cost to only 323 billion $ , and Lockheed Martin is a honourable corporation, so let’s obey and blindly accept their 323 billion $ figure.

(Continued)

Part 2 / 4

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

But for the price of the 2.443 F-35s ( = those 323 billion $ above) you can alternatively possess:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1 Gripen costs: 61 million $ each

2.443 Gripens cost:
2.443 Gripens x times 61 million $ each = 149 billion $ (slightly rounded figure, never grew, “could” even sink with large mass production)

.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…

So, by buying 2.443 Gripens INSTEAD OF 2.443 F-35s you S-A-V-E :

323 billion $ – 149 billion $ = 174 billion $ S-A-V-E-D

This means: By buying 2.443 Gripens you actually SAVE MORE money than you pay!!!

(Continued)

Part 3 / 4

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

How many ADDITIONAL F-22s (to the ones already ordered and included in the U.S. Defense budget) can you buy with the 174 billion $ which you just SAVED by buying 2.443 Gripens instead of 2.443 F-35s?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1 F-22 costs: 150 million $ each

174 b(B)illion $ S-A-V-E-D : 150 m(M)illion $ = 1.160 ADDITIONAL F-22s

With the 174 billion $ which you SAVED by wisely buying 2.443 Gripens instead of 2.443 F-35s you could buy yourself ANOTHER 1.160 F-22s.

I repeat, for the ultra-slow thinking: If you buy 2.443 Gripens instead of 2.443 F-35s, you get an ADDITIONAL 1.160 F-22
F-O-R
F-R-E-E ! (Courtesy of Socialist, 60 % I.R.S.-paying Sweden…)

Now add these 1.160 ADDITIONAL F-22s to the (ludicrous) “187” F-22s already ordered and budgeted:

1.160 new F-22s + 187 old F-22s = a new total of 1.347 F-22s

Part 4 / 4

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Summary: If you buy 2.443 Gripens instead of 2.443 F-35s, you get:

1) 2.443 Gripens

2) ADDITIONALLY 1.160 F-22s FOR FREE !!!

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

To me, the truly shocking part is not the repeatedly checked over (and simple) reality of these figures (which could still be influenced by several non-linear external factors, I know, but NEVER to the point of proving me completely wrong!), but to imagine what kind of “Senate” it takes

1) NOT to make such simple calculations by themselves, each Senator alone, several years ago, with a 15-$-cell phone’s calculator or by asking their chauffeurs to make them on a paper napkin

2) NOT to react in the ONLY intelligent, responsible way when they finally come to grasps with this mind-boggling reality.

Mega-autism or Mega-crime? A troll’s conspiracy theory, I know.

freefallingbomb,don´t forget it, 70 million F-22 each, not 150.

“the marginal cost of buying one additional [F-22] aircraft has come down to (just!) $138 million, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that a larger order of 70 additional aircraft could have brought that number down to $70 million a pop.”

freefallingbomb,don´t forget it, 70 million eacg F-22 http://​www​.weeklystandard​.com/​C​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​P​u​b​l​i​c​/​A​rti

Reply to all Whiners whom complain peevishly and lackey supporters of the current administration.
I am employed with Lockheed Aeronautics ON THIS PARTICULIAR PROGRAM and have been since its conception. The JSF is far superior to existing aircraft, including the F-22. All military programs that I have worked on since being discharged from the Navy in 1979. Previous programs (B1-B, B2, and C-17 F-22) have all gone through particular challenges that are unique to that aircraft. Air supremacy is imperative for our national defense and in supporting our ground troops. Supporting our military should be this nation’s number one priority, regardless of cost.
In other words the Democrats and narrow-minded liberals pushing for Democratic Socialism whom spout negative dribble do not support A constitutional republic.
GS
GS.

To the poster “altor”

Part 1 / 5

You wrote: “the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that a larger order of 70 additional aircraft could have brought that number down to $70 million a pop.”

1) Did Lockheed Martin / Boeing sign this statement, or just pay for it?

2) And do the laws of rationalized production and of economies of scale etc. only apply to the U.S.A.?? COME ON , EVEN YOU can think two consecutive steps all by yourself!

Obviously, just like the F-22 right now costs a whopping 150 million $ each because only ~ 187 are on order, the Gripen presently also costs 61 million $ each because so far only ~ 213 were built: They’re BOTH in the same situation!

(Continued)

Part 2 / 5

So, if you say that mass production lowers the F-22’s price, you have to say the same about the Gripen, too: If the Center for Strategic and International Studies determined that mass production lowers the F-22’s price from 150 million $ each to 135 million $ each, or even to a very acceptable 70 million $ each, what – do you think – does the same logic say about the Gripen’s initial price of 61 million $ each, given mass production? U.S. AMERICANS : YOU WOULD EVEN HAVE FIGHTER JETS CHEAPER THAN 20-MILLION-$-E.F.V.s, THAT’S WHAT !

Conclusion: Even when you mass produce both planes and BOTH their prices fall, IN THE END the F-22 may very well CONTINUE TO COST as much as 2,4 Gripens, JUST AS IT DOES NOW !!! Why the F@€& do you U.-S. Americans always W-A-N-T to pay 3 times as much as really necessary for everything??? Are you such great tippers?

Plus: In case you haven’t really understood my post (or maybe you even did, it’s me who didn’t get your answer) : I suggested the Gripen as an alternative to the fat girl F-35, NOT to the F-22 !!

(Continued)

Part 3 / 5

In relation to the F-22 I can say: MAINLY because of the (presently) prohibitive F-22’s price, and because I consider myself a citizen of the World, I increasingly suggest customized, Americanized (license-built or co-produced)

1) Russian 100-million-$-PAK-FAs (including their NAVALIZED version! A fly-off against an air wing of F-18s, anyone?)

or

2) 63-million-$-Eurofighters

or

3) 40 million-Sukhoi-Su-35 BMs

as an alternative to the 150-million-$-F-22s. Go ahead, do the maths – with or without mass production!

(Continued)

Part 4 / 5

I’m convinced that the icy winds of international arms competition can only benefit the 2 decadent U.S. warplane manufacturers today (both in terms of R & D / bang for buck as well as in terms of cost control / business ethics), especially if they realize that from now on, in these “hard” times of increasingly deep peace, trust building, cooperation and escalating weapon systems costs, ALL fighter jet (tank? Missile? Submarine? Etc.) procurements / programs will ALWAYS BE GLOBAL , with evaluations being made by a highly international team of reputed, independent technicians!!! (A handkerchief for the departing lobbies in the Pentagon)

(Continued)

Part 5 / 5

And to those pitiful chauvinists among you who clearly stopped evolving in the Cold War: Do you REALLY think that if the U.S.A. suffered a miraculous change of attitude tonight and offered their help (“cooperation”) to the Europeans and to the Russians (like during the Apollo-Soyuz program) to
1) finish the Eurofighter’s last versions,
2) to upgrade the Gripen,
3) to perfection the PAK FA,
4) to get the Bulava S.L.B.M. Flying
and
5) to mass produce a small, cheap successor to the Space Shuttle (the reusable, manned Kliper?),
and get its fair share of the sales profits too, that any of us would sob “But but… then we lose a secret…” ?

Eurasia ( = your biggest ALLIES , money lenders and clients, remember??) is not a madhouse – yet.

So: Do you want to be part of the SOLUTION or part of the PROBLEM ? (Fear not: Sex with us not involved)

F-22 has a tailhook and is carrier capable. Navy/Marines opted for a single engine, “lower cost” F-35 which promised more mission flexibility. They could use the F-22.

F-117 is hardly a fighter, it is a subsonic stealth bomber capable of dropping 2 bombs. The fighter designation is really an inaccuracy.

…or maybe there really is something to this proposed cost savings of the second engine…

actually, rather than buying a foreign fighter aircraft, early on in the Raptor’s development, there were plans for a navalized swing wing model, but they were scrapped as the plans for the Superhornet came up.
i think its time to revise those plans, because a one size fits all aircraft is jsut failure waiting to happen.

gripen NG was one f-18 after f-16 (gripen) not comparable, just one european fighter can be comparable, that’s the rafale

actually dude, your flat out wrong. the Navy and Marines both wanted a twin engine aircraft (as if one goes out, you can still land on the other one) the airforce talked them into going with a single engine design.

sferrins on the right track.…

They are still not worth the radar evading coatings they are enclosed in if they go down like.…. well you use your own best metaphor here… and when it comes to the defense of my country I am all in… lets consider that the governement DCAA auditing agencies manage what is called “price reasonableness” for the items, parts, and services our country acquires… lets make sure they do their jobs and from there understand that these programs are extremely complicated and expense to ensure we are “King of the hill”.. .it is way to easy for us arm chair auditors and military experts to sit here and throw the stones…

Gee, look at the B-52s and KC-135s and how long they’ve lasted, and how about the venerable C-130. They just keep making them and modifying to meet today’s demands. Why not rewing the F-15s, put new equipment in them and make them last 30 more years.

It is much easier to refurbish a large subsonic aircraft than a supersonic fighter expected to pull more than 7Gs. Decades of this makes it much better to simply buy a new aircraft.

Freefallingbomb, it is more difficult to navalize an aircraft than you think. There is a chance the PAK-FA’s landing speed won’t be low enough for safe carrier landings without some serious modifications, plus you need to consider the extra ton of weight or so from strengthen landing gear and other components.

Why should we investing in foreign aircraft that are inferior in many respects when we could simply build and develop the F-22 further, and create a F-35 that is delivers what is promised (including low cost). Hell with the money and political red tape your talking about getting past we could get the Navy a modern version of the NATF proposal. Now that is something wthat ould get even the most die-hard Tomcat fanboys drooling. You seem under the impression that the government won’t manage to screw up foreign co-development and production like it does with domestic designs.

So often it isn’t the design that it is the problem, it is the way so many things are managed (or mismanaged).

William C:

Yes, creating a naval variant is not easy, but since the Gripen is already designed for operations from civilian roadways under primitive conditions, its much closer to carrier capable then you think.

While its highly unlikely that the US will ever invest in Russian fighters, Free falling bomb has a point about the US insisting on using only American designed aircraft in the current economic conditions. Using the Gripen as an example, we could have outfitted our ANG units needing new aircraft with this plane at 60 million each quite easily, and they would have been perfect for quick reaction and air sovereignty duties. The Gripen is cleared for use with all current US missiles, can operate with Link 16, and the NG is flying with GE F414G engine which of course is US made.

On the topic of foreign aircraft being inferior, I would say that direct performance comparisons between presently flying Euro-canards and front line US fighter (other then the F-22) demonstrates that’s just not true.

And on the F-35, we’ve all be waiting for how years now for Lockmart to actually fly a battle ready JSF? The fallacy that the F-35 is some kind of cheap alternative to the F-22 continues to pushed by Pentagon and Lockmart, and this line of reasoning is no less flawed now then its been in the past. How capable is the F-35 when compared with current US/Foreign fighters? See the attached below for the answer:
http://​ericpalmer​.files​.wordpress​.com/​2​0​1​0​/​0​9​/​sup

I see you have absolutely no undersatnding of LRIP.

But here is a hint, the 1st several years of LOW RATE production are VERY expensive & just as happened with previous fighters the unit cost drops each year.

Full rate production F-35 are not going to cost anywhere near what they cost today.

To the poster “Cocidius”

Part 1 / 4

You answered to the poster “William C.”: “The fallacy that the F-35 is some kind of cheap alternative to the F-22 continues to pushed by Pentagon and Lockmart”

Uhh… I was flabbergasted too when I read “William C.”‘s bomb claim: “…a F-35 that […] delivers what is promised (including low cost).”

Should I tell him that the F-35 is already 42 million $ ( = 28 % ) over the F-22’s head or should you?

(Continued)

Part 2 / 4

Now, the F-35 is already so expensive that for the price of ONE F-35 ( = 192 million $ each), the U.S. Armed Forces could get TWO clearly superior replacements, for example these two combinations here:

1 F-22 (150 million $ = ANOTHER F-22 F-O-R F-R-E-EEEEE , Mr. “William C.”!!!)
+ ( = AND !)
69 % of 1 Gripen (61 million $ apiece),

or

1 F-22 (150 million $ = another F-22)
+ ( = AND !) 1 Sukhoi Su-35 BM (40 million $ apiece), AND STILL HAVE 2 million $ of pocket change left! (Use it to buy decent 7,62 mm rifles for your poor infantrymen. It will save you a lot of airstrikes)

Etc. .

(Continued)

Part 3 / 4

Obviously Lockheed Martin could / would license-build all those foreign planes too, for face saving’s, jobs’ or November election’s sake, whatever: Or do you really, really think that it will be necessary to inquire the Swedish or the Russkis politely if they minded that at all: A 2.443 planes order? Is this cabaret?
All the U.S.A. had to do ( TODAY , TOMORROW – ANY DAY OF THE WEEK ) is to gnarl “Me wants” or to lift ONE finger, and they ALREADY GOT their 2.443 “second fiddles” to the F-22 – no more interminable, decade-long test flights necessary to see if they can hover.

(You can always use the existing F-35 prototypes afterwards to launch weather balloons. Ooops, no can do: Weather balloons actually fly higher than F-35s…)

(Continued)

Part 4 / 4

1) Did you know that the first of the 3 new “Ford”-class super-carriers, eponymously called “Gerald R. Ford”, will have taken less time to finish from sharpening the pencil [in 2005] to ship launch [in 2015] than A-N-Y of the F-35 that are supposed to use it – IF they even show up by then!?

2) Did you know that for the price of the F-35 programme ( 323 billion $ ) the U.S. Navy could alternatively get 63 (I repeat: 6–3, 6–3, 6–3, 6–3, 6–3, 6–3… copy???!!!) BRAND-NEW “Ford” SUPER-carriers at only 5,1 billion $ each, instead of the planned “3” ?? GIVE ME THE GRIPEN IMMEDIATELY !!!

To poster BradM

To answer how stealthy is the Gripen NG here are some old (2008)“RCS” numbers from the SWAF.
Now the effective detect range of the Gripen NG’s new AESA radars would be greatly extended
compared to the figures below.

* Gripen’s frontal RCS: about 1/5 of F/A-18C/D’s, 1/3 of F-16C/D Block40/42’s, and 1/2 of Mirage-2000–5’s.
* Detective range of PS-05A radar (JAS-39): a little shorter than AN/APG-65/73 (F/A-18C/D), but 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.
* While combating with the basic type of MIG-29 (MIG-29G??) in BVR engagement:

* JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.
* M2000-5: the effective range for Mirage to detect MIG-29 is 32 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Mirage.
* F/A-18C/D: the effective range for Hornet to detect MIG-29 is 25 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Hornet.
* F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.

It would have been hard to imagine, much less calculate the statistical likelihood of ever enduring a SECDEF worse than Robert McNamara, whose regime did horrific damage to our defense posture for generations. That is, until the supremely inept, arrogant and wholly ill-equipped Donald Rumsfeld. An idiot of unspeakable magnitude.

Let’s just say that you have no idea what it would be like to live in a world where the US does NOT have air superiority. They can fly over us now and go home. And you worry about terrorists on our soil. How about strikes from the air if we don’t continue to improve out Air Force?

To the poster “tee”

You wrote: “I own stock in LM which I bought in 1998 when I first thought that the JSF was going to do what was originally promised from LM in ‘Capabilities / Delivery times / and Cost’. (…) I would much rather personally lose money than see our pilots and my country lose the ultimate game.”

Oh, don’t worry: The Senate Appropriations Committee already ordered Gates to “to regain control over his budget.”

Oh, now you’re getting all sentimental about (literal) Defense? First an anti-missile umbrella, then Homeland Security, then L.C.S.s, the minutemen border patrols, now dog fights over America. What next: Machine gun nests protecting beaches?

You mean the T-50 the Russians won’t be able the afford and the fifth-generation fighter that the Chinese don’t have the expertise to build? Yeah, I don’t think so.

Please Google “Author Bias”. The underlying motives of AAP have been covered ad nauseum on DoD Buzz and DefenseTech alone.

The future belongs to UCAV’s and the Pentagon knows this, but until the technology matures has to keep with manned weapon systems. The F-35 is the last manned fighter we will build and all the teething problems did exist on the F-15, F-16, and F-18 programs in the beginning. The F-22 is a great aircraft, but at only 188 in the inventory, would be hard pressed to deter anyone. Scale back the F-35 requirements and build a cheap disposable aircraft like the F-16 and F-18. Then when the UCAV technology matures we can send them in to destroy the enemies integrated air defenses. Use the manned aircraft for follow up strikes on undefended targets.

188 F-22s fighters with an almost 100% kill ratio, on top of everything else we already have is hard depressed to deter a possible threat!?- LoL.

I don’t recall the F-4 starting out as a joint USN-USAF project. I thought it was a Navy fighter that later migrated to the USAF (like the A-7). I recall reading some complaints that the F-4 carrier roots made it extra heavy (with loss of range) for USAF use.

Good Morning Folks,

Looks like you had a good weekend FFB. I enjoyed your posts a lot, you were on a roll. As expected you smoked out why people are defending the F-35 either self interest, they have stock in LM or the F-35 is their paycheck, then of course there are manboys who believe in the myth of a Christ like second coming of the F-22 and have deep fantasies of an F-22 carrier variant.

Of course what is lacking is any evidence or reason why the US or NATO NEEDS the F-35. BradM’s statement of The Russian Federation’s Sukhoi PAK-FA-50 (T-50) (in production of it occurs this will be an Su. aircraft most likely an Su-35, in India it most likely will be the Su-35BM) is some truth mixed with a large dose of personal speculation that is unsupportable by any evidence.

The only performance specifications on this aircraft are statements by Mr. Putin and are purely speculation. The single flying R&D prototype of this airframe appears to be only for the purposes of development and testing and not an indication of what any production Su-35 may be.

The PRC of course have scrapped their J-11’s/J-12’s that were the heartburn of the American winger, news flash: “China has a Generation 5 Fighter”, just a year ago, the PRC only made about 30 J-11/12 planes it looks like. They are currently residents of the PRC’s PLAAF aircraft boneyard on Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

While Yes, The Russian Federation has placed an order for 59 then for 60 of what is being called at the moment the PAK-FA T-50 there is no indication that The Russian Federation intends to buy any more of the PAK-FA T-50’s or the Sukhoi 35.

In fact the principle buyer/producer of the PAK-FA T-50 appears to be India, who has said, but has not committed to ordering/building 150.

The delivery date of 2014 given by Vladimir Putin who has become the self appointed spokesman for the Russian Federation Security Forces is very much in doubt.

Indicating that The Russian Federation is going to have an armada of 200–400 can not be supported by any evidence or even reckless statements by Russian Federation officials.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

Why build anything new at all????? We can just nuke our enemy off the map. Think of all the $$$$$ we can save not building the F35 or any of its engines. C’mon wave…think what you are saying before you say it.

Amen bro… preach it to the ill informed :o)

If you dont think that by 2015 to 2020 they wont be building those planes then you both are ill informed morons! ;-)

More reasons the post Obama Administrations should restart the F-22 fighter program and buy more than the 187 SecDef Gates capped the program at.

Some interesting reading: http://​en​.rian​.ru/​m​l​i​t​a​r​y​_​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​1​0​0​9​1​7​/​1​6​0​6​1​9​264

“Tel Aviv earlier said that the purchase of F-35 fighters would effectively eliminate the threat from Russian-made S-300 air defense systems because a series of computer simulations had clearly demonstrated that new U.S. stealth fighters outperform the Russian missiles.”

“The Russian Air Force plans to acquire over 60 T-50s, Zelin said.

“Everything is on schedule…The plane will be delivered to the Russian Air Force from 2015 onwards,” he said.”

See: http://​en​.rian​.ru/​m​l​i​t​a​r​y​_​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​1​0​0​8​1​4​/​1​6​0​1​9​8​822

Sixty planes is just the first order. I would expect them to buy more than 200 up tp 400 perhaps. Go to the Wikipedia page it says that with India’s help they plan to build 1000 planes. 400 each for India and Russia and 600 for export.

See: http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​S​u​k​h​o​i​_​P​A​K​_FA

Russia to make 1,000 stealth jets http://​in​.reuters​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​t​o​p​N​e​w​s​/​i​d​I​N​I​n​d​i​a-4

“On November 9, [2009] General He Weirong, deputy commander of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), confirmed long-standing speculations that the PLAAF is developing fifth-generation fighters (fourth-generation in Chinese standard), which may be in service within 8 to 10 years, and certainly by 2020. During an interview with state-owned China Central Television (CCTV) two days ahead of the 60th anniversary of the PLAAF on November 11, Deputy Commander He announced that the next-generation fighter would soon undergo its first flight, closely followed by flight trials (Xinhua News Agency, November 9). The senior military officer’s disclosure reflects the considerable progress that the PLAAF has made in force modernization, which has exceeded Western expectations in terms of the pace of development and the capabilities of its defense industrial base. ”

See: http://​militarystrat​.wordpress​.com/​2​0​1​0​/​0​1​/​0​7​/​chi

Good Afternoon Folks,

To BradM. What a difference a year makes. Two crashes where the PLAAF’s #1 and #2 test pilots died. The cause of the crashes engine vibration problems and fuel feeding. The Russians have filed an international complaint against China for violating licensing agreements on jet engines and other properitery systems form the Su-27 of which the J-11’s and J-12’s were based.

Just for giggles let look at the evidence of what China has for air power.

As of August 2010 the PRC has scrapped all aircraft J-7 and older aircraft, they have 130 J-8’s that are sitting waiting for embargoed US parts and Boeing to come back and finish modernization, they also have 20 UH-60 Helicopters on the same status. The J-9 has been abondoned in the 1980’s, there were 80 J-10 made, most likely none are flying. Purchased for Russia in the 1980’s and early 90’s For the PLAAF 69 Su-27’s and 127 Su-30M, for the PLAN 24 Su-30MKi’s

By my addition if all these air craft could be put into the air at once the total PRC fight/attack force would be at max. 300 aircraft. The most recent being the 1960’s early 1970’s technology Su-27s made in the old Soviet Union. Traditionally the PLAAF and PLAN have been able at best to put 50% of their aircraft in the air. Oh by the way these figure come for one of your favorite sources wikipedia.

On multi engine military transports the PLAAF has 17 Soviet era Il-76’s four converted by Israel to AWACS. For the big party the PLAAF could put six Il-76’s in the air for a parachute drop.

To put it in prospective BradM. All of China’s air power would crumble in an engagement with a single US aircraft carrier.

Those are the real numbers the ideal that the PRC could conduct any formable air strike against ay body is pure myth and on exist in the warped minds of wingers and their peculiar tanks.

The Chinese are NOT our most likely opponents in a conventional air, naval or land war.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

The sense I get from all of you is that you are all ignorant(not in a bad way,most of you seem quite intelligent,ignorance is not the same as unintelligent) of the one thing that the 2 programs offer that the –15s,-16s, and Super Hornets do not. Standardization​.As we all know, you cannot take a tail fin from an F-18 at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton and put it on an F-16 in Homestead. The F-22 and F-35,when full deployed, would fix the issue.Parts wpuld be available at a lesser cost and maintenance would be easier as well. BradM was correct in his statement. The Chinese(our most likely conventional opponent in the future) are heavily investing in Stealth tech and we must remain a leader in that area. Both the F35 and F22 are designed as a generation ahead of what ever else the rest of the world has.If the cost of these aircraft is a continuing issue then lets cut programs that are truly not necessary.We currently have 13 aircraft carriers underway which is 10 more than the next largest fleet of them and that is from an ally.We have money set aside for ten more when the first of the current carriers is not slated for retirement until 2030 at the earliest​.As long as we have the current carrier force we can build the 35 and 22 without wasting a dime​.As parts become standardized the cost will come down and more aircraft can be purchased.These are 2 programs we cannot do without.I would hate to see these aircraft go the way of the comanche.

More bad news for supporters of the F-22A Raptor fighter.

read: http://​www​.militarytimes​.com/​c​o​m​m​u​n​i​t​y​/​o​p​i​n​i​o​n​/ai

Please cite sources for parts compatibility between the F-22 and the F-35.

No the fallacy is the BS made up crap that YOU & others put forth that ‘the F-35 is some kind of cheap alternative to the F-22′!

The F-35 is a SUPPLIMENT to the F-22. AKA the F-35 is the F-16 replacement & the F-22 is the F-15 replacement in the high/loe mix.

Good Evening Folks,

To FFB. Here is some information I have form notes taken on August 15, 2010 article from RIA Novisti.

The article was comparisons of Russian Federation fighters and US fighters by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Mig-27, Su-27,Su-30, Su-33=to F-4C and F-4J

Mig-29=to F-15C

Mig-31=to F-14D

Mig-35=to F/A-18 E/F and F-16D

The Russian Federation Air Force consist of appox. 320 Mig-31’s (500 build) that are in the process of modernization at the rate of 10 per year that started in 2008.

The Mig-29KUB Naval carrier fighter is going back into production for the Russian Federation and export/license to India. The Russian Federation has not yet announced how many Mig-29KUB’s the will buy but it is estimated to be less then a 100, India will license to manufacture 48 to go with the 16 Mig-29’s they are getting with a carrier purchase. In late August India added 24 more to the license.

The modernized/refurbished Su.-27, Su-30 and Su-33’s, are for export only. The Su-35 is being build in India under license and the production run is expected to be 160 for India. It is noted that one modernized/refurbished Su.27 went down last week on factory trials, the crew survived. Vietnam and India are the two countries that have so far bought the Su-27 modernized.

The Russian Federation no longer considers the PRC a customer for military hardware. The Russian Federation is marketing the licensing of advanced military platforms, weapons and systems to Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

It would appear that the Russians are in no hurry to build an air force that would be either a peer or near peer to the current USAF/USN with out any F-22’s or F-35’s. As you said they are more into the export market for aged refurbished air frames to second string countries in Africa, Middle East and latin America.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

To the poster “BradM”

Part 1 / 4

Excerpt from your link: “Fewer F-22s, the retirement of 250 F-15s and F-16s by the end of this year, delays and cost overruns with the F-35: All are proof of America’s declining air power and increasing vulnerability to attack by a nation-state with newer warplanes. Soon, the U.S. simply won’t have the ability to wage a modern air war. By then, sadly, it will be too late to do anything about it.”

(Continued)

Part 2 / 4

The author believes that one day, in a not too distant future, the U.S.A.F. may eventually face obliteration in the air, even PERMANENT loss of aerial supremacy and irrelevance (which in turn “could” affect land and sea operations, even national security = EVERYTHING ). He puts the blame for this (among other, minor causes) on the U.S.A.F. not possessing enough F-22s, say several thousands.
This happens, as we all know, exclusively because of their high unit price / financial constraints.
But I wonder what’s worse: Facing certain defeat at the enemy’s hands or facing only an improbable defeat by sharing that technology with others and making the F-22 “N.A.T.O.‘s F-4 Phantom of the 2010’s” ? Defeat is defeat, so why don’t the belt-tightening U.S. Armed Forces (risk to) sell F-22s now to EVERY OTHER interested ally & half-ally in the World (except “Israel”–>China), thus RADICALLY lowering their unit price, thus becoming finally able to afford as many F-22s as they want and stay top dog for another 30 years?

(Continued)

Part 3 / 4

And I’m even talking about a plane that’s CHEAPER THAN THE F-35 !!! So, if lack of air power alone can terminate your Empire soon, wouldn’t it be intelligent to forget about those 2.443 aborted F-35s and buy 2.443 F-22s instead, plus a few fighter-bombers with the 42 million $ of THE SURPLUS MONEY THAT’S LEFT EACH TIME ?

Do you really think that any of your foreign F-35 clients “would mind that much” to get
1) 1 original, non-diluted F-22 version
+
2) 1 new U.S. American fighter-bomber of their free choice
instead of every F-35 they ordered, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME MONEY ?? I can hardly imagine their faces when they hear that offer!

Alternatively: Do you U.S. Americans really WANT TO go down in the next wars with your “secrets” instead, just to feel special in relation to everyone else, even in relation to ALL your allies, which you treat as suspects at best, as subjects at worst (marble tower) ?

(Continued)

Part 4 / 4

The Russians never get plagued by complexes about selling their armed MiG-29s, Su-30s and Su-35s etc. to any banana republic with money and a mail address, and recently we French even ruined the sale of an extremely large arms package to Saudi Arabia by pressing the Saudis too hard to include some ( COMPLETELY UNWANTED ! ) 4,5th-generation Rafales in it…! Other than certain scared posters here, both our nations already figured out that selling our best hi-tech around doesn’t minimally threaten our fatherlands – only enrichen them, which comes in handy in times of economical crisis.

It’s CLEARLY beginning to affect you and your Empire, but I insist that there is really no bogeyman out there in the dark: There aren’t any “terrorists” out there, never were! 11 / 9 was an inside job, and your whole “G.W.O.T.” would give us only a good laugh if it wasn’t so criminal!

To Mr. Byron Skinner:

I can see in the “Recent Comments” column that you posted something to me, but I just can’t find your post anywhere, at least now, on the 21.9.2010 in the early morning. I guess that – as usual – it got stuck again in some twilight zone of this Web-site.

Sorry.

P.S.: It happens more often than you imagine, so I’m NOT “ignoring” your posts somehow.

Why are we wasting our time and money on this garbage? Acq program cost estimate has increased from $231B to $323B (40% overrun) (for less platforms, BTW). Procurement Unit cost increase from $69M to $112M, (62% overrun). This is given DoD’s optomistic learning curve assumptions, which historically do not get realized anyway. Never again authorize a MS B for a 10 year development program that doesn’t result in a good product, just uncertainty. Listen and learn, people: if there are not real consequences to acquisition program mismanagement, and bad behavior is rewarded, then future programs will repeat the same mistakes. Ya’ll need to learn how to develop a product. F-35 hasn’t even completed flight test, you got NOTHING. You’re comparing performance of a NOTHING dream machine, with war-proven weapons.

Good Morning FFB,

I know what you are talking about. It is the job of the managers/editors to defer to the wishes of those who pay the bills. I have no problem with that.

The points that I’ve been trying to make are rather simple FFB. If you take the total numbers of aircraft of BOTH the PRC and The Russian Federation together, they still pose no threat to either the US or the EU. The threat form either of, or both of these countries working together, to first rate powers such as the EU and the US exist only in the minds of those who as you smoked out in your postings this weekend have a vested economic interest in the defense industry, or are just a little to involved in their personal fantasies.

The so called $100 billion in defense savings over the next 10 years that Sec. Gates is so proud of, is chump change and most of it will not come out of the hides of Lockheed Martin or Boeing, but the little guys, local vender who supply the toilet paper, trash pick up services and service copy machines and computers to local military bases.

Already the USN is waving contracts in front of Northrop Grumman for work after 2013 on ships that have either been canceled (LSD-25 and LHD-10) or the Navy has said they don’t need (a new generation of oilers) to keep Avondale Ship Yard open. This is quite simply corporate welfare or the most gross of levels.

Avondale is a facility that has been producing San Antonio Class LPD’s that ALL have had to go to other yards to have extensive repairs before going to the fleets, re: the U.S.S. New York. Why do we need this facility?

Instead of looking to bombing the daylights out of anybody that we don’t like and call it “Power Projection”, the United States needs to start doing “Soft” Power Projection.

Strange as it may seem but countries that are doing OK economically tend to shed autocratic governments and not want to go to war. If a country is be exploited by corrupt and oppressive governments and the people are hungry they tend to want to kill somebody.

The bright spot FFB is that with in the Dod and among the next generation of leaders (Lt. Colonels and Colonels) that will soon be coming into the senior leadership positions of the American Military there is a strong vain of the opinion that supports “Soft Power Projection”. I had the chance to talk with some last month while in DC. There may be some flicker of light at the end of the tunnel.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

I dont understand the Saudi. Isreal forces the US to sell less capable aircraft (F-15) to the Saudies. If i was I Saudi I would go to Russia and buy the most advanced Su they have. The Su-35 is more than a match for the JSF-35, which is NOT a stealth fighter like the F-22. Chuck in a billion to there PAK-FA program so that you can get a foot in the door for that plane when it comes on line. Because the US was stupid enough too stop production on the F-22. So no more F-22’s and they would not sell them outside the USA anyway.

Another problem with the JSF-35 is that all the countries that want to buy the JSF-35 are NOT allowed to modify or put upgrades on the plane. Other than Israel who somehow managed to get an exeption too that.
DUH?

Is I was a Saudi I would say I keep my 60 billion and stick you hardware where the sun doesn’t shine.

Why can’t the Europeans in Nato (the British, the Germans, and the French) with Swedish aid design a stealth fighter equivalent to the F-22A Raptor and better than the Soviet, ummm I mean “Russian” PAK-FA Sukhoi T-50? Lighten up on the high taxes and socialism and invest in your own defense too. :-)

All Western nations need to re-think thier increasing trends towards socialism, obscenely high taxes, and spending all the tax revenues on social programs while shorting national defense. The first 6%-7% of GDP should be towards national defense. Then the rest of the budget should be balanced and even a portion set aside for debt re-payment. No more deficit spending!

One can always hope that the next U.S. Administration re-starts the F-22 program. Once the Russians start building the PAK-FA in 2015 perhaps by then another couple hundred F-22’s will be ordered after the program is re-started. The Russians want to build (with India’s help) 1,000 PAK-FA’s. 400 for them and India and 600 for export. We cant fly F-15’s against the PAK-FA and hope to do well can we?

Do you other sources to state that the JSF vs the Su-35S would result in many victories over the Russian plane? How about the F-35A and C vs the PAK-FA because there arent enough F-22A’s to go around and in some clashes it will be the F-35 vs the T-50 (PAK-FA) in the years after 2015.

ACTUAL costs have NOT increased near as much as the BS numbers you quote.

To the poster “BradM”

Part 1 / 7

You wrote: “Why can’t the Europeans in Nato (the British, the Germans, and the French) with Swedish aid design a stealth fighter equivalent to the F-22A Raptor and better than the Soviet, ummm I mean ‘Russian’ PAK-FA Sukhoi T-50?”

First of all: I disagree with you calling the F-22 a “stealth plane”. It has a reduced radar cross section, the only true stealth planes out there are the (former) F-117 and the B-2.

(Continued)

Part 2 / 7

Second: Stealth cloaking is mainly aimed at enemy fighters, not against ground radars, whose detection range is relatively easily increased, even against stealth planes. (Although, once detected, stealth doesn’t shake off I.R.-seeking missile warheads either… and I still believe that that mouldy, decaying, climber-covered Serbian SAM-3 missile that shot down the HIGHLY STEALTHY F-117 was RADAR-guided, not I.R.-seeking. Could a F-22 have gotten near it?) And try to remain stealthy during a dog fight too!
Non-stealthy planes are more agile, too, because stealth is – literally – a drag on aerodynamics, and any feature which the F-22 has to compensate this (like thrust vectoring nozzles) has an even greater greater impact on normal = aerodynamically sound planes!

(Continued)

Part 3 / 7

Third: The Eurofighter took 9 years to develop, from 1985 – 1994 (E.F.A. program) and the F-22 10 years, from 1981 – 1991 (A.T.F. program). At that time there were NO PAK-FAs nor any U.S. American stealth fighters (the F-117 fighter-bomber, maiden flight 1981, isn’t exactly a match for fighter planes), so what radar-invisible fighter plane should we Euros have hidden ourselves from?

Fourth: You bedazzled U.S. Americans decided to apply stealth to fighters (easy), and to make them agile, too (difficult), we Euros and Russians thought that stealth isn’t worth all that fuss: For an infinite fraction of the F-22’s development costs we develop radars, other sensors (optronics) and ammunition for the Eurofighters and PAK-FAs that completely neutralize any residual advantage which the F-22 allegedly has over them.
And before you celebrate the F-22’s “hyper”-maneuverablility in combat: Take a look at these four criteria alone, which speak VOLUMES about the sacrifices which the F-22 had to incur for a reduced R.C.S. of theoretical value against high-tech enemies:

(Continued)

Part 4a / 7

—————————-

EUROFIGHTER
Weapons load (external) :7,5 tons
Max. weight: 23,5 tons

F-22
Weapons load (external = Choose: Weapons or stealth?) : ~ 2,2 tons (only?)
Max. weight: 38 tons (due to its larger internal fuel tanks, because external fuel tanks show up on radar. Can you picture what 61,7 % of internal, NON-JETTISONABLE , belly weight means during dog fights?)

—————————-

EUROFIGHTER
Ferry range: 3.790 km

F-22
Ferry range: 3.219 km (explain this, in view of its larger internal fuel tanks)

(Continued)

Part 4b / 7

—————————-

EUROFIGHTER
Unit price: 63 million $ ( = 42 % of a F-22. And I still haven’t read a single report about fly-offs that conclude that Eurofighters scored only “42 % of F-22s’ kills”. Absolute silence…)

F-22
Unit price: 150 million $ (can one F-22 really take on 2,4 Eurofighters?)

—————————-

EUROFIGHTER
Development cost: ~ 5,1 billion $

F-22
Development cost: 62 billion $ ( IMAGINE : What would the 5,1-billion-$-Eurofighter look like, had we Euros poured 12 times more money at it?)

(Continued)

Part 5 / 7

Agility in the air is harder to quantify, but the F-22’s MAXIMUM g-load is + 9 g, whereas the Eurofighter’s g-load is + 9 g, too, but SUSTAINED , allowing it for example to skim trees as the Tornado AND SIMULTANEOUSLY to dodge anti-aircraft artillery! It’s kind of a F-22 / Tornado hybrid = the ULTIMATE bird, with air-to-ground capabilities planned from the onset. That’s why it became crucial to develop special reclined chairs and anti-gravity suits with multiple pants for the Eurofighter pilots, to help them SURVIVE their own planes’ PERFECTLY NORMAL MANEUVERABILITY ! (Curious coincidence: The most agile birds on Earth, the swallows, also perform 9 g – 13 g maneuvres all day long, all life long, but relaxed. That’s why they never had any natural predators: Even the fastest falcon gets discouraged about zig-zagging behind swallows or avoiding dozens of obstacles at top speed as they do)

(Continued)

Part 6 / 7

But what REALLY perturbs me privately is that the 100 % Swedish Gripen turned out to be (at least!) as good as the quintuple-nationality Eurofighter, in nearly all aspects, and even at a lower price! This completely defies empirism. Only the brand “E.A.D.S.” helps to sell more Eurofighters than Saab’s Gripen – PRESENTLY !

Fifth: We Euros wanted to let you eccentric U.S. Americans spend hundreds of billions on this innovative technique first to see if it satisfies you. If it does, then maybe you can expect an European stealth fighter in 30 years from now, too. (Will the F-35 have entered series production by then?)

(Continued)

Part 7 / 7

Basically, I believe that that’s what you U.S. Americans did, too, with the F-22’s and the F-35’s protracted gestations: You waited until we rolled out our Eurofighters, Rafales and Gripens first to adjust your own planes’ capabilities to top them.

But we thankfully learn from your failures too, not only from your successes: Do you really think that you’ll EVER see an European F-35 or V-22 Osprey being developed in the next 300 years?

Just as I said: Let millionaire Uncle Sam waste many billions first, maybe then we decide to get up from the couch.

(Ah, et: Merci!)

those are from the latest GAO report, and track closely to the Pentagon’s numbers per the latest available SARs Dec 09: http://​www​.acq​.osd​.mil/​a​r​a​/​a​m​/​s​ar/ Does anyone know when the SARs are supposed to be published? Is DoD even uncapable of publishing a SAR on time? Presumably the #‘s are from the JET since the JPO has not built a credible case: http://​www​.aviationweek​.com/​a​w​/​g​e​n​e​r​i​c​/​s​t​o​r​y​_​c​han… note “lack of flight testing means a major part of the JET assumptions cannot yet be challenged. “It’s too early to prove them wrong,” he says.” Whose #‘s are based on BS?????

freefallingbomb just want to say I enjoy your posts, your very broad thinking and your directness.

I would like to point out how concerned I am when BradM, en employee of LM, cites Air Power Australia.

Is that LMs angle –botch the F-35 so that they can re-start the F-22 line, but wait, we’ve come so far with the F-35 it still has a use, lets finish that off and use it to…$$$$$ to LM…uh huh I see how that works. LM has always been pi$$ed that they lost the F-22 income and have been determined to get it out of the govt one way or another.

FYI: I’m not an employee of LM I work as an accountant for a retirement home. Also, I wasnt the first one to cite Air Power Australia. Two other people cited it before me and I read some of the pages and re-cited them too. The other two people introduced me to that site.

See: http://​www​.globalsecurity​.org/​m​i​l​i​t​a​r​y​/​s​y​s​t​e​m​s​/ai

Quote:
“The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be:

■Four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements
■Eight times more effective than legacy fighters in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets
■Three times more effective than legacy fighters in non-traditional Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions
■About the same in procurement cost as legacy fighters, but requires significantly less tanker/transport and less infrastructure with a smaller basing footprint”

Tee and one other who posted Aus Air Power links state that the first line “The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements” is no longer true and give the Aus Air Power analysis as their source. That the Su-35S with the new AESA radar is now superior to the F-35 in air to air engagements. Are they right or wrong?

With a cost difference between the F-35 Lightning II JSF and F-22 Raptor being about $23-24Million per jet, the Secretary of Defense should consider whether it makes sense to stop building the F-22 Raptor at 187 jets; it would make better sense to take money for the F-35A Air Force variant of the Lightning II JSF and use the money towards the purchase of an additional F-22 Raptor ATF as the F-22 Raptor is a much more capable jet than the F-35A Lightning II and would simply be more practical.

It’s called, “Incompetance in Management”. I happen to work for DOD and the Navy. The government seems to think that a manager does not need product knowledge. Everything can be run by such failed programs as “Lean”, ‘Airspeed”, and a dozen other various and sundry “flavor of the month” programs. Managers are made based on such BS as Green Belt, Black Belt, and on and on. They name a program so funding can be appropriated for that program. It’s all smoke and mirrors, checks in the block and a manager is a manager is a manager. B*** S*** ! Promote your subject matter experts and use a little bit of common sense ! Why is that so hard to understand ??

You are using Wikipedia as your source of information?!?!?!

If the F-22 is so great why has the Air Force not sent one into combat. the JSF is supposed to change out most of the aging aircraft. For some reason or another why did it take 20 years of taxpayers money to just cancel the F-22 program. It seems to me that the F-22 was and still is a wast of time for the US Government. Yes i say that the F-22 program is cheaper but at what cost. The billions of Dollars that has already been spent just developing this air craft. the F-35 is ready to be put to operation unlike the F-22 still in development. Still After 20 years.

I agree with you on the cost thing, but there is no way you can convince me that the F-35 can outfly the F-22, no way!

Is that correct that US will give F-35 to Israel as free gift, not selling ?

Is that correct US has already spent free aid to Israel in amount of 2 Trillion dollar since Israel was established as 1948 ??

In an era of limited resources and advanced technology (drones, precision guided munitions and advanced air and missile defense systems), does any piloted strike-fighter aircraft make sense? Or, is it simply an attempt by a military service which no longer has a mission to justify a service? Perhaps it is time to reexamine a decision that was made when the atomic bomb appeared to make boots on the ground obsolete defense strategy; and recognize that “air power” is simply one element of a combined arms strategy and might be best under the control of the militay service that coordinates the other elements of that strategy.

You are calling people morons, yet give validty to releases from the Russian and Chinese Defense ministries. That is so funny! And so ignorant

“Since we have spent all of this money on the F-35…” You need help to cure your delusion. You are in good company on this. You are a victim of Sunk Cost Fallacy. You, and many people like you, are like hopeless gamblers doubling down on losing hands, or like someone dying of thirst in the desert chasing a mirage. Plus you are a hypocrite. Because with your own money, if someone building you a house kept on promising and not delivering, you’d learn quick and you’d fire them. I support cutting entitlements too. But that doesn’t give DoD an excuse to not develop executable acquisition strategies, and then be held accountable to performance. This is what we teach are children, just because the other children are misbehaving, does not give you an excuse to misbehave either.

Everyone should understand that the systemic procurement foibles in the DOD are serving an intended purpose. That is, to degrade the readiness of the US Military by throttling innovation and production of contemporary weapons systems.
The political and diplomatic imperatives are to make the USA less threatening to our enemies. It is this policy that uses costing analysis to further the agenda of a weaker defense for our Nation.
Don’t miss the forest for the proverbial trees. Common to the JSF are systems that sank the Littoral Combat Vessel, NASA, Joint Command, and every other edge our Armed Forces will need in future conflicts. However, take it from the top — We can absorb the hits, like 9/11, and come out stronger?
There is a lot of bad weed being smoked in and around the Potomac. Just get used to the idea of casualties in the 10,000’s and 100,000’s (millions ?) when our people go to fight with the best equipment left over from the last war.

Amen — thank you

We have to take the long view perspective of what will achieve American air supremacy to the year 2040. And if that means replacing all the F-15s with F-22s and pairing the F-22 with the F-35 then thats what we should do in sufficent numbers so we are capable of defeating the Chinese and Russian air forces at the same time if need be.

77705256
Well here we go again, Congress represents themselves NOT the American people. This project along with the F136 engine have run amuck and no longer serve the defense needs of our country! SOOOooo plese cancel these projects and others. We the American people are tired and resentful of our good money being spent for ill gain!

F-22A’s are in production not in development. Its the F-35 thats still in development.

Skinner is correct this time.

we don’t have to do anything just because you say so. we are free to voice our opinion. there are less costly, uncertain, and risky ways to achieve air supremacy. can we not destroy the enemy’s air force on the ground with cruise missles and stealth bombers? could we not destroy their C2 and runways or find multiple other ways to neutralize them? since the F-22 purportedly achieves a 144 to 0 kill ratio then logically our F-22 fleet of 187 aircraft should be sufficient for 26,928 of whatever the Russians or Chinese can throw at us. For that matter, could not our enemies kill our F-22 and F-35 fleets via these same tactics, negating these air to air supremacy claims? we face a wide range of threats, the resources should be distributed accordingly. a too big to fail program that calls a production aircraft that haven’t even completed developmental testing does not deserve to exist. it is not worth a DOLLAR that could buy a soldier an extra bullet so we can kill another terrorist.

UAVs are controlled by satellites. What are you going to do when the Chinese or Russians or maybe an even more sophisticated enemy destroys your satellite? What if the enemy, whoever they may be, discovers a way to jam Satellite communication(even easier)?

You could put AI into the brain on board the UAV, but I don’t think the world is ready for Terminator yet.

The B-52 and KC-135 were aluminum and rivet construction mostly. Modern aircraft are made of cast and kiln composites. You would have to do major work to rebuild a modern aircraft. Personally I think it is possible to design these weapons in a more modular way that could reduce this maintenance cost reality, without having to simply build a new aircraft.

Boeing is already building mid range passenger fleets, with a fuselage that is one piece molded and cured airframe. This carbon fiber wonder has reduced the cost of building such aircraft dramatically, and points the way to replacing entire fuselage sections as a cheaper alternative to patchwork repair.

Fighter/bombers are different, but not impossible to do the same way. If we ever fix the procurement system, maybe the engineers will have more say in the outcome of such decisions. I really don’t know what to say about the JSF. I really like the VTOL capability as the scenario of loosing your carrier to atomic attack from Iran, would leave you no where to land but a helo-pad on a support ship!

Sorry, this was supposed to be a reply to another post!

The B-52 and KC-135 were aluminum and rivet construction mostly. Modern aircraft are made of cast and kiln composites. You would have to do major work to rebuild a modern aircraft. Personally I think it is possible to design these weapons in a more modular way that could reduce this maintenance cost reality, without having to simply build a new aircraft.

Boeing is already building mid range passenger fleets, with a fuselage that is one piece molded and cured airframe. This carbon fiber wonder has reduced the cost of building such aircraft dramatically, and points the way to replacing entire fuselage sections as a cheaper alternative to patchwork repair.

Fighter/bombers are different, but not impossible to do the same way. If we ever fix the procurement system, maybe the engineers will have more say in the outcome of such decisions.

I really don’t know what to say about the JSF. I really like the VTOL capability as the scenario of loosing your carrier to atomic attack from Iran, would leave you no where to land but a helo-pad on a support ship!

I agree we don’t need to F-22 or the F-35; they have no useful purpose as they have no adversaries. Can them both.

Finish testing on 2 units, square of the TDP and shelf. We can buy them if/when they are needed.

The governmentt knows the cost’s and why. Contracting is in their files all the time and have the right to access any and all aspects of the process to review costs and even the need for change. The fact that these planes are costing what they do is because the miiitary is asking for one thing and rethinking the outcome many times before settling on a scope and walk away and let the contractors do their jobs. You must cover the costs of the contractor; they will be paid if not today tomorrow at twice the price. The Raptors and the F35 are the future; can you put a price on our pilots? We have determined that our boys and women are wanted as citizens, fathers, mothers. sons and daughters, we want them to return home in one piece; this shows int the vehicles that are protecting from the bombs in Iraq. Money is easier to come by than family; you can have every nickle I put away to get my son back; anybody out there not in agreement.

I like this post I found in a comment on another article. F-22s paired with UAVs :-)

“Numerous outside analysts figure that pairs of F-22’s will lead groups of trailing automated stealth UAVs and serve as the human that makes the decisions. This would essentially give a single pilot access to 20–30 beyond sight missiles.

This offers numerous advantages including making it difficult for the enemy to pick out which of the tiny radar cross-sections is the F-22.

The Air Force currently perfecting a software module that would allow UAVs to essentially fly like a flock of birds and stealth UAV’s that can keep up with a cruising F-22. So it’s really only a matter of time.

However, it will be quite some time before human pilots are replaced entirely.“
~ By Iaiken

The F-15SE is being made for South Korea. Does anyone know if the USAF will buy any? And how it compares to the F-35A?

I figured some one else would think of that. That would be a good way to recover from an attack on satellite control. The only hitch would be having a dedicated weapons officer on board to act as AWACS coordinator; unless laser commo equipment could relay it to another sat location from there. Short range RF could keep the local flight in control until an attack is underway.

Probably better, although the F-35 may be good, I just don’t believe that it has the capability to replace all of the aircraft that it is supposed to. The fact that it is supposed to do all of these different functions leads me to believe that it will do all of them ok but not great. The F-15 has a history of being great at air superiority, so I believe that the SE version will carry on that legacy. You will have a hard time convincing me that the F-35 will be better than the F-15 or F-22 at air superiority. I think that the “B” version is the only one we should build. Having a vertical takeoff aircraft is a very valuable asset to have on the front lines.

We should convert all of our fighter aircraft to have the capability to take off from short fields or be vertical takeoff. Vertical takeoff is the only thing that saves the F-35 in my book and that is the only version we should build. Being a former Marine, I know how import the Harrier is and the concept behind the F-35B will be a good asset to have for all the armed services. We should also take a good look at the Gripen, those are awesome aircraft and can be deployed just about anywhere. We should put the same landing gear that the F-18 Super Hornet has on the F-22 and F-15SEs. All of these long pretty runways are nothing but big easy targets for the enemy to take out. I believe that Stalin was quoted as saying ” Quantity has a quality of its own”. Maybe our enemy will have inferior aircraft, but they will have a $h!tload of them. That’s why we need a lot more F-22s, etc. We want to not only control the skies, we want to dominate them.

You don’t think the F-35C will be superior than the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet for the Navy?

Do you think the F-35 will be better than the F-15SE at ground attack, reconnaissance, and air defense missions which it (the F-35) was designed for?

No

That was the saving feature to me too! If Iran nuked our carrier in a task force, the VTOL would be able to land on surviving amphibious assault ships, LCUs, etc. You can’t destroy the whole fleet, even with one atomic bomb; but you might nix the main carrier.

I always called it the swiveling butt hole!

What about in penetrating enemy air defense areas with the most advanced SAMs?

Won’t the stealthiness of the F-35 make it a better penetrating ground attack fighter avoiding detection by ground radars compared to the F/A-18E/F?

The F-16 engine:

Powerplant: 1× F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan

Dry thrust: 17,155 lbf (76.3 kN)

Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lbf (127 kN)

The F-35 engine:

Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan

Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[173][nb 4] (125 kN)

Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[173][174] (191 kN)

The F-35 engine is more powerful than the F-16s.

The F-35 is weak! The power plant they put into it their now looking at given GE and ROSS ROYCE a chance at getting back into the game. They keep this up the DAMN plane will be triple the cost the started out to be. Gates likes cancelling projects well lets do this scale back let Boeing build the F/A –18 for the Navy and Marines, Lockheed build more F-16 and Boeing to Build F-15SE for the AIR FORCE. If they can’t get the F-35 under control then use some funds to reinvest in the other Fighters that are a proven winner.

The F-15SE’s reduced RCS is negligible against ground-based radars and sophisticated modern fighter radars. Boeing’s own press statements already said so. The reduced RCS is only effective in air-to-air against current cheap fighter radars and previous generation fighter radars. The F-15SE is marketed as an interim “solution” to countries that couldn’t afford or are excluded from the JSF program (before the costs started ballooning).

Boeing only offered the F-15SE to the USAF as a formality, knowing that the USAF is not interested in a fighter that offers no value to what the current F-15E Strike Eagle can already do. Airframe age is not an issue with the F-15E Strike Eagle as it is a much newer airframe compared to the F-15C/D models. The earliest C/D models were built in 1988, with the earliest E models having been built as recently as 2001.

The F-35 would be better at reconnaissance compared to the F-15SE and F-15E Strike Eagle, given the more sophisticated avionics suite. The Strike Eagle is planned for an AESA radar upgrade that will SAR capability.… a far less capable version of the U-2’s ASARS (while the U-2 is old, the systems it carries are modern). The Silent Eagle will be built to include the AESA radar package, however it will be less capable than the upgrades planned for the USAF’s Strike Eagle. I don’t know whether or not the Silent Eagle’s AESA radar package will include SAR capability (which is generally a matter of software capability than it is hardware). The F-35 is more integrated into the battle network, making it the more effective reconnaissance platform. It would make a great complement ISR platforms (U-2, RQ-4, etc) and airborne command and control platforms.

In the ground attack role the F-35 has a smaller payload in terms of bombs, but has a greater payload for stand-off weaponry. Because the F-35 is better integrated into the battle network, it’s more flexible and can provide quicker, more accurate CAS response in the fluid flow of combat. The men on the ground would appreciate more timely CAS responses, and especially more accurate strikes.

The F-35 has a smaller payload for air-to-air configurations compared to the F-15C and E. The Silent Eagle will also have a smaller payload, similar to the F-35’s. It should be noted the Strike Eagle carries a small penalty in overall air-to-air capabilities compared to the dedicated air-superiority F-15C. It’s not as fast or as maneuverable as the C model due to the increased airframe weight, as well as having heavier combat configurations. The LO design of the F-35 affords it greater survivability for BVR engagements, but does nothing for dogfighting (since missiles at this range are IR-guided). The F-15E has recently begun fielding the JHMCS upgrade, which paired with the AIM-9X makes it deadly in a dogfight. The F-35 already comes with JHMCS, and most front-line F-15C units have the majority of their jets equipped. JHMCS allows the AIM-9X to utilize it’s HOBS capability and renders aircraft maneuverability nearly negligible. For example, despite the F-16’s greater low-speed, low-altitude maneuverability compared to the F-15C, the F-15C can still kill the F-16 easily with the JHMCS/AIM-9X combo (F-16 lacking the same). But if both aircraft were equipped with the JHMCS/AIM-9X combo, the result is usually mutually assisted suicide. The same can be expected versus the more dogfight-oriented Russian aircraft, the latest of which offers HOBS capability.

I forgot to mention that most of the Silent Eagle’s reduced RCS design features are effective in the frontal aspect. For the strike role, this is useless since ground-based radars are set up in overlapping arrays.

With the current F-18s, no, I am advocating making an F-18 like the F-15SE which Boeing could do. Also remember that I am also advocating that we keep the F-35B which should have most of the capability of the A & C models.

Just bring the F-14 and A-6E out of mothballs and sh–can JSF!!!

I think that the JSF is a bunch of c–p and should continue with Super Hornets and put the latest radiar system in the JSF to Super Hornets, CAUSE SINGLE ENGINE JUST WONT CUT IT. Now if you want to build new aircraft you should look into retooling F18s A through I and use a titanium center barrel and be well ahead of the game and be able to fly more hours on airframe. JSF just isn’t worth the Money and trouble of flying a single engine aircraft. Onec you loose enging that’s it, millions of dollars down the drain.

please explain…the forum…(gotta run)…rob

New F18E with AESA kills Sukoi every time. Kill JSF. Buy more super hornets

Kill JSF. Produce more Super Hornets. Keep the 283 Raptors as braggging rights

Why would an f18 be at wright pat? u make no sense

I’m not against having a single engine fighter, especially looking at the F-16 record; but the comments are so overwhelmingly anti-JSF, I really wonder now. I’m also a big fan of the jump jet concept, but now wonder if it is ever going to be practical — cost wise. I used to think have massive carriers in a nuclear threat environment was folly. But then the bomb never fell, and the big carriers saved us a butt load on over all costs!

I still can’t help thinking their is a better way to design a machine like this! We already have hover capability with the jets we got, why not simply make a rocket booster using the new high impulse chemicals invented for SDI, and simply let a more standard design leap off the ground that way, and land as well! Computer controlled multi-nozzle technology has grown in leaps and bounds in this science. I can’t see why not?

You know what i would like to see, the stealth version of the f-14, i once saw a design of.
But i dont see that happening. Perhaps we redesign the f-18 super hornet.
In the sense of, stealth. Say changing the plane to have an internal weapons bay. Which the add on as well will allow for a a larger fuel tank internally. Over all giving the stealth design but using alot of the same parts. Such as cockpit, engines if possible. Its hard to explain for me exactly what i have in my head. I would have to draw it out.
Or redesign the JSF to carry 2 engines for the navy version atleast.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.