Home » Air » The Air Force’s sky-high hopes for the F-35

The Air Force’s sky-high hopes for the F-35

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 4:30 pm
Posted in Air

Newspaper editorial boards, white-paperists and blue-ribbon panels all have called for the F-35 to be cancelled, but as we’ve seen many times, it’s so big and expensive it stands a very good chance of surviving in Austerity America. Here’s another reason to throw on the pile: If you cancelled it, you’d be canceling a lot of the Air Force.

The service’s almost complete dependence on its F-35A Lightning II was driven home again last weekend when Gen. Edward Rice, head of Air Education and Training Command, officially ‘rolled out’ the Air Force’s first jet at Eglin AFB, Fla. (The fighters have been around for years, but you know how these guys are — any excuse for pageantry and ceremony, right?) Rice characterized the A as the absolute zenith of aviation, per an official Air Force story:

The aircraft was developed in a span of only 15 years, one-eighth of the 118 total years powered flight has existed, he said. The F-35 brings advanced technological capabilities for the future and the nation’s defense — something the general explained was clearly unimaginable when Orville and Wilbur Wright performed their maiden flight Dec.17, 1903, at Kitty Hawk, N.C.

“While this celebration is taking place in the Air Force hangar with the Air Force variant of the F-35, this is really a story about the fully integrated team of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, industry and community partners who have been working years to make this day possible,” said Col. Andrew Toth, the 33rd Fighter Wing commander. “In fact, Marine Col. Art Tomassetti, my vice, (today’s master of ceremonies), and test pilot, has been with this program for more than a decade. So, some of us have been waiting a long time to see this day.”

Did you copy that? Even the Wright Brothers could not have conceived of the disruptive, game-changing, fifth-generation warfighting advantages the A will bring. But seriously: All the light blue eggs are in this one basket, as evidenced by the sheer numbers of service members who are going to come through the new facilities at Eglin as the Air Force finally begins fielding As in numbers:

“Eventually about 2,200 maintainers and 100 pilots a year will pass through our schoolhouse doors,” Toth said. “In 2014, the program should mature enough to have the Air Force send students fresh from basic training.”
Delivery and success of the new program required the Air Force overcome a great number of challenges. It will continue to do so until the F-35 capabilities reach their full potential for the interest of national security, Rice said. “But with all the wonders of technology and the amazing physical performance of the F-35, let me say that none of this happens without magnificent people,” he said.

Quite so — and if those people lose this fighter, or are forced to accept many fewer than now planned, the disruptions across the Air Force could be immense. So service officials really, really, really want everything to go well.

Join the Conversation

	@E_L_P August 31st, 2011 at 5:40 pm Platitude and hope is no substitute for proper program management. The F-35 has a long way to go. Huge amounts of orders have been cut simply because of gross over-optimism by the faith-based crowd. http://goo.gl/OOyor Which means even if all the systems worked, it will be unaffordable. Affordability was put in red on PowerPoint briefs for years as the main goal. That will not happen. The aircraft will not be able to stand up to high end threats. For other than high end threats, it is too expensive to operate and sustain vs. any other existing solution today. So, just because general so-and-so gets up there and spins a bunch of fairy tales, it doesn’t mean the USAF and rest of the DOD are getting a useful weapons system. The USAF air power roadmap is in serious trouble. Our puny B-2 fleet has suffered 18 months downtime based on a “minor” fire. It will spend at least another 24 months in PDM. Before that, another one crashed due to more MX management. The F-22 fleet is grounded and the F-35 program is a sick joke. So much for air power. Would USAF have gone ahead with the ATF in 1986 if they knew today they would only have a small number of F-22s and spend $1B per year on upgrades? Would DOD have gone ahead with the F-35 if we knew (based on the 2000 JORD) that it wouldn’t reach realistic service until the 2020s and not meet any of its goals of being lethal, survivable, affordable, sustainable and supportable? And given the turn over of technology phases this quote is also part of the problem …“The aircraft was developed in a span of only 15 years” — Look at this briefing slide from 2003 and given the performance thus far.. they must have all been smoking crack when they made up the plan– http://goo.gl/m106b
	Weaponhead August 31st, 2011 at 5:54 pm What a bunch of malarky, “magnificent people” might have made it happen on time and on cost. What we got was poor performance and lots of sales hype. The problems are all self inflicted here. Over promising and under performing. The program is what is at this point but it still could get a lot worse with much of the flight testing still to come and lots of software yet to be qualified and tested. The Navy is asking the right questions, what force is really needed and what force can we afford. Looking at whether or not they can live without the B or C models and what mix of current combat aircraft and F-35 can maximize the bang for the buck. So far the Air Force steadfast approach of Gen5 or nothing is leaving them with close to nothing.
	BradM August 31st, 2011 at 6:55 pm We need the A models to replace the F-16s, and we need the B model for the Marine Corps to replace the Harriers, and we need the C model to replace the F-18s. All the planes being replaced are great until they go up against the latest and greatest of the MiGs (MiG-35) and the Sukhoi’s (Su-35BM) and the PAK FA. We should also start working on the 6th Gen fighter for the Navy and Air Force.
	jemc50 August 31st, 2011 at 8:03 pm The F-35 program will continue, but it shouldn’t. The F-111 was a multi-service (or supposed to be) aircraft under the TFX program and was a failure. The Boeing F-15 SE version may be a better solution. After all it is all ready a proven airframe and the upgrades would extend the service life and capability/performance. http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/09031…
	jemc50 August 31st, 2011 at 8:06 pm Fortunately, our pilots are better trained than the MiG and Sukhoi pilots at the moment. IMHO, the F-35 program should be cancelled, except for the version to replace the AV-8.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 31st, 2011 at 8:48 pm The original F-111 concept was in fact a failure, but it was a failure because of the CONFLICTING not COMPLEMENTARY requirements that were levied on it. Cat shots and traps mean a heavy airframe; long range means minimizing airframe weight when compared to the fuel load, etc, etc, etc. The very best it got was a carrier fighter with compromised strength, and a tactical bomber with compromised range, and nobody was really pleased. Once the need to maintain “carrier compatibility” disappeared, the AF’s F-111s became very credible warplanes, but it was not immediate or cheap. Why is it that I have a sneaking feeling that the “requirements” for VTOL, and conventional carrier ops, AND conventional land plane ops might just have the same kind of conflict at some point, at least if they continue to bow to the god of “commonality”?
	BradM August 31st, 2011 at 8:52 pm Other posters on this site state that the F-35 is more stealthy than the F-15SE. I think for the Air Force we could reduce the number of F-35As by a few hundred and buy an equal number of F-22s instead. How many? 463 would allow us to have 650 F-22s. How does that sound?
	BradM August 31st, 2011 at 8:55 pm And when F-16s need to be retired what would you replace them with? And when F-18s need to be retired what would you replace them with? I’m assuming you would want to replace them with a plane thats better than the Russian or Chinese version they most likley would go up against?
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 31st, 2011 at 9:19 pm OK, you want a radical thought? A really radical thought? Can you take a radical thought? The F/A-18 E/F is essentially a complete technology refresh of the design. In spite of the USN marketeering, this model shares little more with the A/B/C/D aircraft than its shadow, and that was increased in all dimensions by 1/3! If you think the F-35 is too expensive or too risky or too whatever; what about replacing the older F-16s with the bigger, more modern and generally improved F/A-18 E’s and F’s? (It would not be the first time a USN fighter was picked up by the AF, think F-4 and A-7). You might even consider a mix of USAF F/A-18s and F-35s. An important point to ponder is that the F/A-18 has proven itself as a land based fighter both with the USMC and foreign air forces. Told you it was radical! :-)
	jemc50 August 31st, 2011 at 9:31 pm Oh, I don’t know.…Australia is considering ditching their purchase of the F-35 and going with the F-18E. If other countries begin having similar thoughts and follow through, that would raise the cost of the F-35 significantly. Based upon performance and pilot training the F-18 could be formidable against Russian or Chinese. It would definitely be better than those of Russian and Chinese clients. Only a very few number of aircraft have been able to meet multi-service requirements. Also, the F-15SE, F-18E, and maybe the F-16E/F model could bridge the gap to the F-22 follow up aircraft at a lesser cost. And, I was not indicating stopping R & D for the future.
	jemc50 August 31st, 2011 at 9:33 pm Actually additional F-22s would be a good thing. But, where does that leave the Navy and Marines since the F-22 is not suited to their missions.
	jemc50 August 31st, 2011 at 9:38 pm You’re right. The F-111 and FB-111 served the Air Force well, and maybe it’s Navy failure was good since it resulted in the development of the F-14.
	BigRick August 31st, 2011 at 10:10 pm I agree with Thinking ExUSAF’s comments –the F35 is bleeding us dry, pretty soon we won’t have any money left for anything we NEED. –Anything that takes 15 years to develop is already behind the power curve –Stop the F35 program now –The SuperHornet is proven and we can afford it, make it standard across all branches and the cost per aircraft will be even better –Go with F-15 SE version for make up for low numbers of F-22 –The airforce would be a mix of F-15 SE and SuperHornets –Let’s see if it possible to re-manufacture the Harriers to get more life out of them
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 31st, 2011 at 10:41 pm Very true! Piece of trivia! If I remember correctly, the Phoenix missile and the AWG-9 radar were both originally intended to go on the USN’s F-111s!
	mike j August 31st, 2011 at 10:49 pm Every time I see this –111 comparison come up, I feel like pointing out the following: In spite of all the new technology on the ‘Vark, and the new construction materials and techniques, and the messy program, they still had that thing operational within ten years of the RFP. Not just operational, the F-111As had broken, got repaired, and we were already onto flying the –111D, FB-111, and the –111F was on order. All that within ten years. Gen. Rice thinks we’re doing good fifteen years into the JSF and he still won’t have operational jets for some years more. Huh.
	jemc50 August 31st, 2011 at 11:02 pm That’s correct the Phoenix and AWG-9 were both for the F-111B (Navy version). Also, since General Dynamics didn’t have any carrier experience, they teamed with Grumman for the Navy version. Then, Grumman ended up building the F-14. I think Grumman learned more from General Dynamics about swing wing, than General Dynamics learned about carrier aircraft during that timeframe. Then, the F-14 ended up with the Phoenix system.
	joe August 31st, 2011 at 11:03 pm You’re kidding right? We should only keep the most expensive, least capable version to fill a niche that has marginal military utility?
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 31st, 2011 at 11:05 pm Very insightful on the timeline issue. Want one even more humbling and at least as challenging from a technology standpoint? 18 May 1954 — Lockheed sends a proposal for high altitude recon aircraft to Maj. John Seaberg(Asst. Chief of New Developments Branch) for review 19 Nov 1954 — Kelly Johnson meets w/Govt. advisory Board on feasibility of CL-282 (predecessor of U-2) 9 Dec 1954 — Contract for funding U-2 from CIA signed 21 May 1955 — U-2A static test model delivered 15 Jul 1955 — First U-2 is completed 29 Jul 1955 — Preliminary taxi tests & accidental first flight, Lockheed Test Pilot: Tony LeVier 4 Aug 1955 — First Official Flight of U-2, Lockheed Test Pilot: Tony LeVier I can only rationalize the rapid progress of this project through two possible root causes… nobody had PowerPoint and all the engineers used slide rules! :-(
	jemc50 August 31st, 2011 at 11:06 pm Hmmm.…maybe, a Super Harrier. That would help our Brit friends out by licensing fees and keep the line going here. Sounds good on the surface.
	jessmo24 August 31st, 2011 at 11:12 pm Excuse me gentlemen but allow me to poke holes in your argument. 1. So the slow and plodding non stealthy Hornet is survivable but the F-35 isn’t? 2. Do you know any of the F-35s capablities? It’s lower than the B-2 stealth, The ability to out accelerate a clean F-16, and out low speed turn a Hornet? 3. Have you ever read up on operation Q? Do you know what happens to unstealthy fighters in mass raids over heavily defended cities? 4. Can UAVs self escort? 5. You do realize that the Tyhoon, Rafale, F-15SE and even the fully upgraded super duper Hornet cost just as much or more than the F-35 right?
	joe August 31st, 2011 at 11:14 pm And if 10 years for the F-111 sound good now days do some research on how long all the “teen” fighters took to develop. More like 6–8 to IOC. Sure a lot of F-14 development work was done on the F-111, and a lot of FA-18 work was done as part of the light weight fighter competition, but so what. Every airplane builds on what came before. The teen fighters were no less revolutionary and cutting edge in their day. First digital computers, first fly-by-wire systems, first multi-mode pulse doppler radars, etc.
	Thinking_ExUSAF August 31st, 2011 at 11:20 pm 1. Stealth is a relative term. Hopefully the F-35 is better on observables than an F/A-18, but.…is it really available? No matter how good it might be, if its not available, its no good. 2. No matter how good it might be….… . 3. Does the SEAD force get to launch 100 HARMS against planned and pop-up targets in that heavily defended city first? 4. UAVs cant escort (but thats just one of the aspects thats been grossly oversold!) 5. No matter how good it might be.… … :-) All things equal, I would just as soon have a fleet of F-35s as a fleet of older, but updated fighters, but… are things really equal? No matter how good it might be.… .… . .
	jemc50 August 31st, 2011 at 11:22 pm And, they didn’t have email.
	jemc50 August 31st, 2011 at 11:23 pm Good point. A poster below suggest more Harriers, and I thought maybe a Super Harrier.
	jemc50 August 31st, 2011 at 11:32 pm UAV’s may have an UAV escort in the future. Being smaller than a B-2 may help the F-35 radar profile. We have an F-22 fleet that has yet to be used in combat. I believe it is currently grounded and the F-35 is still a phantom aircraft for the services. The aircraft being used in the wars are neither steathy or brand new. Prior to the Gulf War the Air Force was in the process of dumping the A-10. It was too slow, had a huge radar signature, and had other limitations. Then, came the Gulf War and the A-10 was found to be an aircraft that was needed to provide CAS with long loiter time and survivability in a low, slow environment. So, even old, slow, unsexy aircraft can have a purpose. Oh yeah, it’s still performing it’s mission.
	@E_L_P August 31st, 2011 at 11:43 pm Doubtful about your B-2 claim. It is all aspect and wideband. F-35 is narrow band and export-friendly stealth, And, if your goal is to survive high end IADS, an F-35 won’t help. You need an F-22 as a minimum. Here are some thoughts. When the USAF put up the ATF requirement that is now the F-22, a red-force team determined that you need extreme altitude and extreme super-cruise as stealth for stealth’s sake is not enough. When the F-117 was shot down in Allied Force, the maker of the aircraft stated that even a simple turn can increase your RCS by a factor of 100 or more. And even against lesser IADS, the Super Hornet is more survivable than an F-35 in situations where the F-35 goes naked, it has no credible near all-aspect defensive jamming or towed decoy like the the Super. It only has expendable decoys and the unproven hype that the in-band, front aspect AESA is a credible jammer. Not proven enough. Which brings us back to the F-22. And which is much more valuable in other than high-end IADS threats? A Block II Super Hornet or an unproven and over-hyped–higher operating cost F-35? http://goo.gl/aZGS2
	BigRick August 31st, 2011 at 11:51 pm A rebuttal to your rebuttal ;-D 1. Skill of the pilot and tactics make all of the difference, a “stealth” a/c can be blown out of the sky if the right tactics aren’t used (remember the F-117?). 2.Soviet a/c are often faster and more agile then the American counterpart, but how ofter did they win in combat? 3.Tomahawks, HARM, and SEAD a/c go first silly 4.Not yet, but we are making progress rapidly 5. I don’t know where you get you info
	IKnowMoreThanU September 1st, 2011 at 12:32 am Here is a radical thought for you…how about we don’t buy the F-18E/F for the USAF because the Rhino is compromised in range and performance compared to the F-16s the USAF currently operates? Now if you really want to get crazy, just purchase some newer F-16s with upgraded avionics and conformal fuel tanks.…cheaper, faster, and oddly enough, longer legs than the F-18E/F
	mike j September 1st, 2011 at 1:11 am There was a panel discussion about the A-12/ Oxcart program put on by the Air and Space Museum a while back (on Youtube but it’s 90 minutes). They discussed the Skunk Works engineering process starting back with the P-80 Shooting Star. There were only about 20 engineers on that program, and it saw first flight 143 days from the contract. By the U-2 it was about two dozen engineers. For the A-12 it expanded to 125. They only had 8 managers. They did everything in house, co-located with the shop where they built the thing, and they kept overhead to a minimum. The old Skunk Works manager on the panel points out that the Rockwell B-1 program had 5 THOUSAND engineers by comparison. The RFP for the B-1 went out in Nov. ’69, and long story short we didn’t get an operational aircraft out of that for about 17 years.
	EskimoSoldier September 1st, 2011 at 1:39 am Currently, the Russians are looking at making only 200 T-50s for their Air Force. The T-50 won’t be an all-aspect stealth fighter like the F-22 due to its exhaust design, a compromise they were willing to make for 360-degree vectored thrust nozzles. If I were king, I would cancel the F-35 and order a total of 350 F-22s (including the 187 we have already or are building) to cover future threats. Then I would order Block 60 F-16s to replace aging F-16s for our strike fighter capability. Another order would be placed for F-15 Silent Eagles to fill in the gaps. The F-35 simply isn’t sustainable right now. It is massively expensive and has low thrust-to-weight ratio and probably isn’t nearly as maneuverable as the F-22 or many Generation 4 aircraft. It also suffers from a very limited range. In future wars, we could use F-22s to gain air dominance while the stealthy F-15 Silent Eagles suppress enemy air defenses and destroy C2. Then the F-16 Desert Falcons (Block 60) can come in and clean up the enemy. Oh, and I am sure Boeing, if asked, could wicker up an F-18H Silent Hornet for stealth nearly on par with the F-35 at a much reduced price.
	pfcem September 1st, 2011 at 1:56 am Got to love how ELP continues to live in some alternate universe.
	pfcem September 1st, 2011 at 2:05 am Care to cite ANY of that BS up? Aside from the delays & cost overruns that can DIRECTLY be attributed to the 2004 weight issues… The Navy is doing the same thing EVERY service HAS TO DO almost every budget cycle with prety much every program! Its called ‘justification’. And just like all of the times it has already been done, THE PURPOSE is to ‘justify’ the program & show (as the naysayers are so fond of saying in a NEGATIVE way) “staying the coarse” IS the best option AND how any ‘alternative plan’ is detrimental to the service’s ability to its job.
	BradM September 1st, 2011 at 2:06 am The Marines would still get the F-35B and the Navy the F-35C in the numbers they want. Unless you have a better plane in mind? Like the 6th Generation Navy fighter you can find photos of in Google images if you search fit “6th generation fighter”.
	pfcem September 1st, 2011 at 2:12 am Radical & STUPID. Buying F/A-18E/Fs now is akin to buying a propeller-driven fighter in the 1950’s.
	pfcem September 1st, 2011 at 2:24 am NO Austrailia is NOT considering ditching its purchase of the F-35! It is considering the POSSIBILITY of additional ‘gap filler’ F/A-18Fs should further F-35 delays &/or cost overruns create a gap in the nation’s air combat capability.
	pfcem September 1st, 2011 at 2:33 am F-22’s are significantly more expensive to both procure & operate than F-35As. Unless you can find MORE money you would have to lose 2–3 F-35As for each additional F-22s.
	pfcem September 1st, 2011 at 2:39 am The F-35 is a drop in the bucket & we NEED it as much or more than pretty much anything else (it IS among the top three priorities of the USAF, USN & USMC). Even the F/A-18E/F took 9 years from EMD to IOC, take a look at how long the Eurofighter & Rafale took… The F-35 is STILL WAY ahead of any ‘alternative’.
	STemplar September 1st, 2011 at 3:54 am Anyone remember reading the time frame on the USNs analysis of alternatives? Curious if Boeing might roll out a Block III prototype they were talking about in conjunction with that.
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 1st, 2011 at 5:55 am :-) The F/A-18 would not be the most technically capable, but it might be an affordable, solution. Stupid? In the long run, perhaps not the best, but you have got to get through the short term before the long term matters. Right now, with the economy in shambles, with no enemy actually standing up with a deployed technical superiority, with the realities of “hot spots” potentially popping up all over the world,.… Stalin said once upon a time that there is a quality to quantity, and we are soon to be woefully short on quantity. Right now we have a worn out air force (USAF, USN and USMC). We have been flying combat operations for 10 years and squeezing flight hours out of the airframes. We need new airframes on flightlines NOW. Can the F-35 be produced and supported in affordable, fighter wing quantities RIGHT NOW? Perhaps STUPID is a bit harsh?
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 1st, 2011 at 5:56 am And its not the first time that an interim solution stands a fair chance of becoming a PERMANENT solution. :-) Do you perhaps read AvWeek? Last weeks copy? :-) If not, go to the library.… .… :-)
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 1st, 2011 at 6:03 am I like the way you think, your majesty, but we will have to beat the peasants much harder to extract more taxes! LOL! “Reducing” the signature of an existing aircraft, where that aircraft was not really designed to minimize signature, is possible but not easy. Making it a truly stealthy aircraft, even of a limited forward sector, is much more challenging. Focusing all of the kingdom’s treasure on one single aspect of a fighter design, in this case, selling out for stealth, might not be a good trade when considered against those flogged peasants.
	Guest September 1st, 2011 at 6:03 am pfcem — You know what, I strongly agree with ELPs statement about the (JSF) turkey. The F-35 still has a long way to go, it won’t be able to stand up to high end threats etc etc. For other than high end threats, it is too expensive to operate and sustain vs. any other existing solution today. This (JSF) turkey program is definately a sick joke.
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 1st, 2011 at 6:10 am I suspect that the number of “managers”, accountants, publicists, and other straphangers on those very successful programs was also very limited! :-) Did they also mention the number of managerial layers on the org chart between the assembly line riveters and Kelly Johnson? Sometimes I think that we need to do a “zero based” analysis of the cost of all of the oversight, which the old Skunk Works avoided like the plague. Are we perhaps spending billions in government procurements on bureaucratic reporting and oversight, on the supplier and customer side, in hope of saving some few millions? Not that you can run “open loop”, but.… put some hard nosed accountability into the system and the “lying cheating stealing contractors” can not afford to play that game, even on the outside chance of being caught!
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 1st, 2011 at 6:12 am You understand! You really understand! :-) My apologies to Sally Fields. ROTFL!
	Matt1951 September 1st, 2011 at 6:28 am Lockheed is a great R&D company, but they have not done well getting aircraft into production and meeting cost targets. Maybe it is time to give other companies a shot.
	Cocidius September 1st, 2011 at 9:57 am Ah.… a case of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black (LOL)!
	Bronco46 September 1st, 2011 at 10:02 am To bad we can’t crank out a couple thousand F-16’s and be done with it. Use the old Soviet doctrine of swarming attacks. I love the technology; but if it’s going to hurt over-all readiness. I guess it’s a moot point. The F-16 line is gone. And even if it wasn’t they’d probably add so many upgrades that plane too would be a budget buster as well.
	Cocidius September 1st, 2011 at 10:06 am Here let me distill the picture down to its simplest elements for you in the hope some tiny amount of understanding might sink in: F-35 = hundreds of billions of dollars in development and testing to produce NO functional product for over a decade in spite of the largest fighter budget in history. FA-18E/F = battle ready ready, functional, and affordable RIGHT NOW.
	Cocidius September 1st, 2011 at 10:08 am BTW — this little comment was directed at pfcem in the hope this he might actually get some glimmer of the truth. I’m sure its hopeless but WTF!
	superraptor September 1st, 2011 at 10:12 am Let’s say the F-35 has good Stealth as claimed. It still seems inferior in the Air-to-air role against the T-50 PAK FA and the J-20 which China eventually could produce by the thousands. That’s where Congress really should push the USAF leadership and say we want you and the LMT to show us a version the F-35 optimized for Air to Air combat which means 6 internal AAMs and a more powerful and more fuel efficient engine (F136 anyone?). At the same time upgrades of US AAMS a la Phyton 5 and introduction of the JDRAM have to happen on an accelerated schedule.
	Herky September 1st, 2011 at 10:32 am I’m just crossing my fingers and waiting til 2012. I think perceptions will change in the airforce and there will be talk about a “super” version of the f-22 with more ground attack capabilities. I do like the f-35 but its price needs to come down. I’d rather have 1200 f-22’s instead of 2400 f-35’s. In fact 187 f-22’s complimented with 500–600 f-15SE would be just as good. Or 500–600 super hornet block 3’s.
	DC2 Jennings September 1st, 2011 at 10:46 am F-16s can be replaced with Block 60 F-16s or even a cheaper aircraft such as the JAS-39C Gripen. The F-15s can be replaced with the Silent Eagle. F-18s are currently being replaced with F-18 E/F. Just go with an all E/F/G fleet and incorporate the new technologies being introduced for the Stealth Hornet. The AV-8 s meant to be forward deployed. The 35B is not. Therefore replace the AV-8s with F-18 E/F/G. The F-35 is at best just as capable as the F-16 and F-18 in dogfighting with more restriction on g’s. The 35B will not be equipped with an internal gun which is a necessity in dogfighting. The F-35 is a flying pig that will not be able to perform 2nd day of war duties as efficiently and affordably as the current fighters we have. And if it has to rely on anything other than stealth it is screwed.
	DC2 Jennings September 1st, 2011 at 10:53 am I think your statments of capabilities with regard the the F-16 and F-18 are inaccurate. It may be able to out accelerate a clean F-16 but that only means you are bugging out (also does that take into account the latest F110 engines on the Block 60?). I doublt it could out turn a Super Hornet at any speed. Stealth is a relative term right now. Many countries are getting better at detecting these aircraft. Just because Pakistan can’t does not mean China can’t either. We have functioned quite well with limited stealth capabilites, cruise missiles, and UAVs in mass raids over heavily defended cities. Stealth is only good for the first day of the war. Not for CAS. You are very, very, very incorrect with regards to cost. The F-15SE is cheaper and the F-18 E/F and F-16 block 60 are significantly cheaper. I have no idea where you got your numbers from on that one.
	DC2 Jennings September 1st, 2011 at 10:58 am Stealth only matters when the enemy has their radars rotating and radiating. When our enemy chooses to do this there is usually an F-16CJ instigating it and waiting to run a HARM down their throats. When our enemy chooses to do this from an aircraft our ELINT aircraft direct intercepts at an aspect the enemy cannot detect. Doctrine and training will overcome most technological issues quite easily.
	Cocidius September 1st, 2011 at 10:59 am I’m sure pfcem avoids AvWeek — Bill Sweetman’s regular thrashing of the JSF Program would be too much for him to handle!
	EskimoSoldier September 1st, 2011 at 12:24 pm I appreciate your good humor and agree with much of your argument. Stealth is achieved through several measures: 1. materials which can be retrofitted to existing designs successfully, (like the stealth Black Hawk which was involved with the bin Laden raid). 2. shaping. This is the more difficult part, but is achieved primarily through equal angle leading edges and other shaping parameters…which are apparent in the Silent Eagle. I suspect the T-50 is a stealth conversion of the SU-27/30/34/35, which might explain the relatively small development costs the Russians put forth. The fact is it is only a matter of time before current stealth technology is obviated by the next generation of radar. ECM jamming is probably the future, even for generation 5 and 6 aircraft. Our defense budget is as much as the rest of the world’s combined. This irrational need we have to build thousands of stealth fighters to counter a paper threat is going to bankrupt the west, precisely what Russia desires (we did the same thing to the Soviets). I would argue we don’t need a 100 percent stealth fleet, just like we don’t need a 100 percent special operations ground force. Stealth has its place for early entry, but becomes a liability in terms of range, durability and payload.
	Merlin September 1st, 2011 at 1:02 pm I have a hard time believing that one aircraft can do it all. I think there is strength in a variety of platforms. I understand about the Marines needing STOVL capability to replace the harrier, but do all branches need the same aircraft? I understand the F-4 Phantom worked well among all branches, but it was a proven system. I just can’t imagine a F-35 taking down a PAK-FA. Not to mention the F-35 is ugly. As long as they keep the Super Hornet around I will be happy.
	AmicusCuriae September 1st, 2011 at 1:06 pm Great, more time and more money spent to get the F-35 up to par. I am reminded of a quote that I think is one of Augustine’s Laws, to whit: “When attempting to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, it is best to start with a silk sow”.
	Weaponhead September 1st, 2011 at 1:42 pm http://www.sldforum.com/2011/08/under-secretary-o… Please read, if you can. Maybe you should become informed before calling BS.
	jemc50 September 1st, 2011 at 2:34 pm You’re correct the current idea in Australia is to purchase 24 F-18E/F aircraft. But, these initiatives tend to grow into being the concrete solution. Additional cost overruns of the F-35 program will most likely push them to more F-18s. http://air-attack.com/news/article/2380/03–06-200…
	Lance September 1st, 2011 at 2:37 pm Solution force all services to use the F-35C and scrap the stupid B model which is sucking up all the money with its failures. USAF solution to fighter and tactical fighters. Have F-35C replace F-16 and buy more F-22s Keep F-15Cs for ANG interceptor groups because the F-15 is much faster than a F-22. And keep the F-15E and A-10C for CAS and interdiction.
	jemc50 September 1st, 2011 at 2:38 pm “…but they have not done well getting aircraft into production and meeting cost targets.” It hasn’t always been that way, though.
	Lance September 1st, 2011 at 2:40 pm They shouldn’t the F-18E was a A-6 replacement like the C was a A-7 replacement now they use it in place of F-14s and EA-6B which the F-18 was never designed for we need a dedicated fleet defender NOT some dumb multirole fighter using obsolete AIM-7s and AIM-120s but long range AIM-54 like missile is also needed. With Russian and Chinese carrier killer bombers and missiles showing up all over.
	jemc50 September 1st, 2011 at 2:43 pm I think the F-16 line is still in operation. I believe that there are currently foreign ordered F-16s being built on the line in Texas. But, then again, I could be wrong.
	superraptor September 1st, 2011 at 2:45 pm well. an alternative is to limit production of the F-35 and start production of some other 5th generation fighter . Unfortunately there is no political will to promote building an upgraded F-22 even not from Republicans. On top of that the US is broke, the economy will not rebound and unemployment will remain at 9% for the next 20 years under the best scenario. 6+trillion in consumer wealth have been wiped out, a mortal would for a consumption-based economy. China will overtake us miltarily in a major way in 10 years. Think 30 Chinese Aircraft carriers, 20000 nuclear Chinese warheads and 500 Chinese B-2 like bombers. In order to physically survive we need to field weapons systems which are good enough to deter an attack and the F-35 falls into that category. If we also would opt out of START 2 which was negotiated with the wrong nation and build up our own strategic and tactical nuclear forces, we could reduce our conventional forces and would have more deterrence with an overall reduced military budget. The Obama strategery of no new US nuclear weapons is foolish and reason alone to vote him out of office. Rick Perry may become to the US what Reagan was after Jimmy Carter.
	Weaponhead September 1st, 2011 at 3:02 pm MISTAKE JETS: Bloomberg is now reporting that the A and B models both have flaewed wing spar designs which reduce the fatigue life to 1200 flight hours vice the 8000 flt hour requirement. …Gilmore said “it remains to be seen how disruptive” retrofitting aircraft will be to the ongoing flight test and field operations. “The needed modification is understood to be a difficult and complex process,” Gilmore said. “Little durability testing has actually been completed; therefore, more discovery is possible,” Gilmore said. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011–09-01/lockheed…
	STemplar September 1st, 2011 at 4:32 pm We could, the latest block upgrades to the F16 are pretty fantastic. They cost less than a hundred million per, and I’m pretty sure the price would plummet with an order of 2000. We won’t do that, but we could.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 12:26 am The F-35 is further along than ELP wants you to believe. The F-35 WILL be able to stand up to high end threats — it is in fact high end threats that have set the F-35’s requirements & why you simply can NOT get by with upgrading current platforms. The F-35 will be LESS expensive to operate & sustain vs ‘other existing solution today’. The sick joke is how pathetic all the ignorant/disingenuous naysayers are proving to be.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 12:30 am In fact the ‘reporting’ on this has been SO POOR (inaccurate/misleading) that Under Secretary Work was compelled to comment (via Aviation Week and Space Technology) on his memo to correct the record.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 12:38 am The F/A-18E/F costs about 4/5 what the F-35A will & the quicker/sooner you ramp up F-35 production the quicker/sooner its unit price will go down. Every F/A-18E/F procured instead of a F-35 makes the F-35 MORE expensive AND makes our forces LESS capable. You can get through the short term by accepting Block II F-35s & ramping up F-35 production quicker/sooner. Note that the USAF has already taken deliver of 4 F-35As…NO MATTER WHAT YOU PROCURE NOW IT WILL TAKE AS LONG TO “GET INTO THE AIR” AS A F-35!
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 12:46 am No, F-35 = what is being developed & tested RIGHT NOW to fill the US & partner nations’ future requirements which CAN NOT BE MET by legacy platforms! F/A-18E/F = legacy platform which CAN NOT MEET the US & partner nations’ future requirements that costs 4/5s what the F-35A will cost when production is ramped up. Note that the USAF has already taken delivery of 4 F-35As…NO MATTER WHAT YOU PROCURE NOW IT WILL TAKE AS LONG TO “GET INTO THE AIR” AS A F-35!
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 12:57 am As much as you may dream of it being so, considering the POSSIBILITY of additional ‘gap filler’ F/A-18Fs DOES NOT equate at all to considering ditching the F-35 no matter how ‘permanent’ the gap fillers become.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 1:15 am No, Australia has already bought 24 F/A-18/F (all expected to be delivered by the end of the year) to fill the gap created from the early retirement of its F-111s & when F-35s can be delivered in sufficient numbers. The ‘plan’ is to only keep them in service for ~10 years (or) until they can be replaced by F-35s (hopefully selling them to the USN or other nation) so that from some time in the 2020’s Australia will have an all F-35 fleet. There is an option/possibility that the F/A-18Fs will remain in service longer (one possibility being not being able to find a buyer for them — another being converting them to F/A-18Gs) & reducing the number of F-35s accoringly.
	jemc50 September 2nd, 2011 at 1:22 am I stand corrected on the purchase. Time will tell, though, the ultimate future for the F-35.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 1:26 am More recently, the Australian Defense Minister has stated that additional F/A-18Fs is an “obvious option” should further F-35 delays &/or cost overruns create a gap in the nation’s air combat capability.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 1:31 am We COULD. Buth thankfully the decision makers are smart enough not to.
	Astrolabe September 2nd, 2011 at 1:34 am What in god’s name are you smoking? Your numbers are 100% fictitious and…oh, you back Rick Perry? That explains everything.
	William C. September 2nd, 2011 at 1:42 am Super Hornets for the USAF? Excuse me while I bash my head into a wall. The only thing the F/A-18 does that a mix of upgraded F-16s and F-15Es couldn’t do is operate from a carrier, but the USAF doesn’t need to do that. Regardless, none of these options offer enough an improvement to justify replacing our inventory of current F-15s and F-16s. The USAF has the benefit of being able to theoretically continue F-22 production, but those can’t be bought in the numbers they need. For all three branches it comes down to this. In order to get the capabilities they need it has to be the F-35 or another new fighter that doesn’t currently exist. The latter will involve all of the development costs and that fun stuff.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 1:43 am The F-35 meets or exceeds its stealth requirements. How does the F-35 seem “inferior in the Air-to-air role against the T-50 PAK FA and the J-20″? YOU don’t know enough about EITHER to say they even match the F-15 (not saying they don’t because they most certainly will) much less exceed the F-35. The F-35 WILL have 6 internal AAMs — it IS part of the pre-planned Block 5 upgrade. The F136 ISN’T more powerful OR more fuel efficient than the F135. Try listening to/reading the comment of those who have flow in or with the F-35 — engine power is NOT lacking. How is the Pyhton 5 an upgrade for the US?
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 1:45 am You GREATLY underestimate the ability of the US economy to rebound & GREATLY overestimate the economic strength of China.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 1:50 am The F-35C is the most expensive model (& no matter how many of any model you procure it ALWAYS will be) & does not meet EITHER the USAF’s or the USMC’s requirements. The F-35B is NOT sucking up all the money with its failures. As a matter of fact it is the model that is the MOST AHEAD OF SCHEDULE.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 1:59 am Now is it so hard to believe? Each service developed a set of requirements (which CAN NOT BE MET BY LEGACY PLATFORMS) for what it wants/needs in a future strike fighter & their respective F-35 model meets or exceeds them. It is not that all branches ‘need the same aircraft’ but rather that Congress is unwilling to provide all branches with enough funds to develope completely separate aircraft for each service. You ‘can’t imagine a F-35 taking down a PAK-FA” & yet “as long as they keep the Super Hornet around” you will be happy. It would be funny if it were not so pathetically sad…
	STemplar September 2nd, 2011 at 3:36 am Are they? You sure? A lot of people were sure the F22s wouldn’t be capped at 187. The economy could sour further. I’m sure I’m not sure of anything at the moment in regards to procurement.
	superraptor September 2nd, 2011 at 8:26 am my numbers are speculative, not fictious. Read the recent Washington Times article about the build-up of China’s Nuclear Stockpile including ballisitic missiles with multiple warheads. Fast forward to 2022 and China could easily defeat us militarily if we don’t watch out.
	superraptor September 2nd, 2011 at 8:32 am The US economy cannot rebound because more service jobs will not do it and high-tech industries are still leaving including GE Medical which is setting up shop in Bejing, China instead of staying in Waukesha, Wisconsin. The high-tech jobs we have in Aerospace are being eliminated because NASA and military spending is considered wasteful by present political leaders. We better get used to bread and water for the next 20 years.
	superraptor September 2nd, 2011 at 8:40 am The Israelis consider US AAMs inferior and don’t want them in their F-35s. An upgrade of US missiles with triseeker technology should help close that gap. US missile technology is falling behind. We still don’t have a supersonic antiship missile which even now Indonesia has. The F-35 does not have supercruise which seems essential and is being incorporated into the PAK T-50 and the J-20 which have greater range and longer weapon bays compared to the F-35 allowing them to hold 8 longer range AAMs. Consider the F-35 outclassed. Why do you think the USN is now looking for alternatives?
	Merlin September 2nd, 2011 at 1:53 pm This aircraft has been 15 years in the making when DOD budgets were sky high and not contstrained by the current congress. They should have given another look at the YF-23, instead of the 35. Kind of like the way the airforce chose the F-16 over the then YF17, then the navy took the YF17.
	BradM September 2nd, 2011 at 2:16 pm Doesnt the Marine Corps need the B model for its ships that the Harriers are on now? A C model wouldnt work on this type of ship.
	STemplar September 2nd, 2011 at 2:18 pm How can you say the F-18 costs 4/5 of a number we don’t even know yet? The fixed number for any advanced block F-18 is also surely to plummet if the USN/USMC ordered several hundred, and it would go down vastly further if the USAF joined in. Whereas the costs on the F-35 are only going to stay the same at best, and in all likelihood go up. The biggest thing the DoD budget needs now is predictability and stability and it certainly has neither with the F35.
	STemplar September 2nd, 2011 at 2:50 pm I think the word you are looking for is ‘wants’ not ‘needs’ in regards to the B.
	BradM September 2nd, 2011 at 3:06 pm I think we’re talking about the WASP-class LHDs correct? In the “Harrier carrier” version having 20–24 Harriers which would be replaced with F-35Bs. When the Harriers need to be retired the Marine Corps would need to have F-35Bs otherwise they would only be able to lunach helicopters from these. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibiou…
	BradM September 2nd, 2011 at 3:10 pm Also I just saw a newer version is the America-class amphibious assualt ship. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_class_amphib…
	superraptor September 2nd, 2011 at 9:17 pm 2.5 F-35s lost for one new Super F-22> anybody would take that. Rick Perry will make it reality
	BradM September 2nd, 2011 at 10:23 pm If you painted red stars on six F-35As in a Red Flag scenario and sent two of them up after 1 F-22A Raptor what would the result be in air to air combat? How about 3 F-35As vs 1 F-22A? and 6 F-35As vs 2 F-22As?
	Guest September 2nd, 2011 at 10:29 pm pfcem — The F-35 is not further along, and WILL NOT be able to stand up to high end threats The F-35 will be MORE expensive to operate & sustain vs ‘other existing solution today’. The sick joke is how pathetic all the ignorant/disingenuous naysayers like YOU are proving to be. Again I do believe ELP and other of my predecessors.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 11:41 pm Yes they are. Yes I am. The F-22 being capped at 187 is in NO WAY an indication that anyone in their right mind would cancel the F-35A & procure a couple thousand F-16s instead.
	pfcem September 2nd, 2011 at 11:53 pm SOME would, not anybody/everybody. The USAF could not afford enough F-15s for an ‘all F-15″ fighter force, hence larger numbers of less expensive F-16s were procured in a high/low mix. The USAF could not afford enough F-22s for an ‘all F-22″ fighter force, hence larger numbers of less expensive F-35s are to be procured in a high/low mix. YES the governement screwed up BIG TIME in capping the number of F-22s at a little under HALF the number required. For the record, I WOULD be willing to ‘trade’ ~400 (perhaps even 500 but not likely 600) F-35s for ~200 more F-22s…but I would NOT be willing to ‘trade’ 926‑1389 F-35s for 463 more F-22s.
	pfcem September 3rd, 2011 at 12:09 am The US considers Israeli AAMs inferior and while we are happy to integrate Israeli weapons (not just AAMs) into the F-35 for THEM to use, WE are going to use our own weapons. US missile with triseeker technology is not closing any gap — it is WIDENING IT!. The US currently has arguably the BEST BVRAAM (AIM-120C8 in service & AIM-120D in production) & WVRAAM (AIM-9X). Supercruise in nice to have but NOT essential. Currently only the F-22 has it. The F-35 more than likely is able to cruise supersonically without afterburner along the lines of the Eurofighter Typhoon & Rafale. The USN ISN’T looking for alternatives to the F-35. Try reading the memo &/or what Work has since commented reguarding it instead of regurgitating the misinformation of Sweetman & Ewing.
	pfcem September 3rd, 2011 at 12:18 am DOD budgets have been DOWN for two decades! Sorry, the F-35 is an ‘affordable’ F-16, AV-8B & F/A-18C/D replacement NOT a ‘more expensive than the F-22′ F-14 replacement.
	superraptor September 5th, 2011 at 5:32 pm Unfortunately we are going to use our own missiles and not the European Meteor. The Israelis which seem the most tech-savy clearly consider the AIM 120 C and D inferior. Funding for the AIM120 D line also has been suspended by the Tea party Republicans. The AIM9x cannot be integrated internally by the F-35. There is a reason the Chinese and Russians and the F-22 are incorporating supercruise. In the Air to Air role the F-35 is toast and that’s why you see Donley or other characters calling for a reduction in the overall F-35 buy. Same with the USN. They need a true Air superiority fighter to protect their carriers and it then may be better to have an upgraded cheaper super hornet as a stopgag measure followed by the FXX or similar fighter. Would not be surprised if they are already talking to Boeing. Nobody wants to spend all their funds on the Joint Power Point fighter when they don’t trust its final effectiveness. The other inconvenient truth is that LMT probably will no be able to produce more than 3 to 4 F-35s/month (from now 2). To produce 3000 JSFs would take about 80 years. By then we may be exploring other solar systems.
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 6th, 2011 at 7:53 am LOL! The good Mr Sweetman does sort of carry a spear…. could it be from simply having seen a few of these “golden” programs tarnish and turn to base metal? The F-35 has a good chance of being a very servicable fighter IF it can be brought into service. Its not the “doomsday” weapon, nor would it be doomsday if it fizzled. The issues are that we must consider all of the possiblities in the “long term strategy”. A gapfiller role for a very capable F/A-18E/F or possibly even a followon F-16 (although its very hard to “coach” antenna aperture! LOL!), might end up being an affordable alternative. IF the F-35 has been fatally flawed by managerial malfeasance or engineering malpractice or just fiscal realities strangle it, we still need to have SOMETHING to plug into the holes!
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 6th, 2011 at 7:56 am I happen to agree. The F-35 will live or die on its own merits or sins. Im betting that it will end up flying in tandem with a bunch of advanced F/A-18s or tweaked up F-16s and of course the F-15s and pittiful few F-22s.
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 6th, 2011 at 11:01 am OK, find a wall, choose carefully, and have at it, if that is your choice! :-) There are a couple of things to consider…. Yes, if I was the AF god, I would GLADLY accept F-15Es (latest variant with the upgraded radar) as a one for one swap for F/A-18E/Fs, I have no brand name attachment, just mission requirements that need fliable airframes. BOTH would be good replacements for worn out older fighters (NOT as good as an F-35, if it can be made to work and can be paid for), and I would heartily support buying the one with the cheapest life cycle cost. The F-15E would of course offer more range unless the same conformal style tanks could be worked up for the Hornets. With conformal tank concept, the Hornets might just offer equal or better range because of the engines, but.… stores drag would be a big part for either aircraft and the F-15 is still bigger than an E/F so. .
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 6th, 2011 at 11:03 am Just remember, Carter brought us Reagan, and it didnt take 20 years!
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 6th, 2011 at 11:24 am We need stealth (or very good, very effective standoff) to “kick in the doors”. Once the doors (aka the air defense system) is on its knees, high priced, tempermental, and as you point out transitory, stealth becomes a luxury. The old F-117 was meant, in part, to “pave the way” for conventional aircraft, but they are parked now. The F-22 and F-35 were supposed to bring back at least a modicum of that steath capability to the party. Whether they do or not, in comparison to the F-117, is certainly a tightly held secret (for good reason, and not just to penalize this forum!), but when the lights went out in Bagdhad way back when, the tactical capability of the F-117 and value of stealth, at least in particular scenarios, was proven. Once the lights were out, well… everyone could play! :-)
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 6th, 2011 at 11:30 am A “Thatch Weave” or similarly proper tactical equivalent, properly trained, properly used, has a long history of working against particular threats (in this case, it was USN Hellcats facing technically superior Japanese Zeros), but.… you have to know your aircraft’s capabilities, understand the threat capabilities and tactics and then work the mix in your favor. That is as old as military thought, but none the less very true.
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 6th, 2011 at 2:05 pm Didnt work. Oh well…. :-) He must own a lot of F-35 stocks.… .or be looking for a retirement job.
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 6th, 2011 at 2:16 pm OK, here is a little challenge for you. Measure the diameter of the largest X-band phased array antenna that can be fitted inside the F-16 radome. Then do the same for an F-15 and an F/A-18E/F. All things equal in terms of radar technology the capability of the ai radar scales roughly along the square of the diameter. In other words, if you could roll all of the latest AI radar technology into a box and were only constrained by the antenna that you could attach, the F-16 is woefully handicapped by that little-bitty pointy nosecone! Still like those bright shiny “Lawn Darts”? LOL!
	Flygy September 6th, 2011 at 8:15 pm Forget 5th generation fighters, concentrate on the development of UCAVs and cruise missles. In the interim , legacy aircraft that require replacement can be succeeded by the latest block F-15s,F-16s and F-18s . While the rest of the world plays catchup with us developing their own GEN 5 fighters we’ll moving into the next phase of unmanned aircraft. Thus we will continue to maintain our supremacy!
	ChuckL September 6th, 2011 at 8:51 pm I seem to recall that the Phoenix missile was developed for the A-12 interceptor because of the need for a missile that was faster than the plane from which it was launched. It came in real handy for the F-14, along with its controlling radar. As far as the operational costs of the F-22 v the F-35, including replacement of loses, the F-35 is a WASTE of money. At a cost of 2/3 that of an F-22, which is probably low, the loss of 3 F-35s would pay for two F-22s. The ration is likely to be more like 10 F-35s lost to each F-22 lost simply because of the lack of stealth of the F-35. From its small “good” angle of detection the F-35 is only 10 times as observable as the F-22. From other angles it goes to as high as 100 times as observable. In an IADS the F-35 is target fodder, and that’s when it is carrying only its internal allotment of 4 a-a weapons. Hang the external weapon rails on the thing and load them and you might as well turn on the transponder. With the lack of F-35 performance and survivability as well as its cost we should buy 700 or more F-22s and scrap the idea of more F-35s. The savings on the 2000 F-35s not purchased would exceed the cost of the buying all of the F-22s and give us a much better equipped Air Force. Regardless of what we choose, it will be absolutely necessary to incorporate an infra red search and track capability if for no other reason than to make it possible for us to fine the enemy without turning on a big search light for them to use to find us.
	ChuckL September 6th, 2011 at 8:57 pm If you really want to compare the development times you forgot the P-51. North American Aviation had a rolling (some reports said flyable) prototype in less than 100 days from their offer to build a new airplane rather than simply construct a much older design. Of course back then an airplane was just an oddly shaped car that wouldn’t stay on the ground.
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 6th, 2011 at 9:43 pm I might quibble with your estimates of the F-35 signature vs the F-22, or even the tactical advantage of a dB here or there, or the cost assessments, but I will not even consider questioning your assessment of the IRST. A good IRST using todays detector technology is a very significant player when every new aircraft seems to have some sort of RCS reduction. If you want to make thrust in any major quantity, there are only so many ways to do it and all of them, strangely enough, seem to require some heat! May not be as glorious or as catchy as AESA arrays or bistatic radar, but.… .
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 6th, 2011 at 9:47 pm Personally, Id say even skip that intermediate stage you suggest and go straight for a mixed fleet of Klingon Birds of Prey and high-end Enterprise class starships! UCAVs and cruise missiles have their roles, for sure, but to suggest that all air combat roles can be covered by UCAVs and cruise missiles is in the same category as a Bird of Prey’s cloaking device. Not quite in our grasp, and perhaps not even possible.
	A. Lajoie September 7th, 2011 at 8:55 am Keep the F-15E’s. The Eagle is a great aircraft and has proven itself. Thought I read somewhere they are trying to make it more stealthy.
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 7th, 2011 at 10:39 am I think its probably more appropriate to say that they are trying to reduce the signature. In spite of anything that they might do, short of a complete redesign of the airframe (LOL!), you are not going to put an Eagle in the same ballpark as an aircraft designed for signature control. On the other hand, if you can reduce the unit of measure from acres to sq meters, or from tens of sq meters to single digits, you do significantly increase the effectiveness of jamming in the ole radar range equation.… . . To be honest, even if the F-35 was not struggling I would not count on seeing the last F-15E parked for a very long time.
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 7th, 2011 at 10:54 am There are a lot of good AAMs out there, and yes the Israelis do have some very strong ideas on what is required. Their Python line has been very significantly upgraded from its AIM-9 parentage (not just in terms of the missile itself but also its fire control system). I think that they, as well as the other users, are willing to use the AIM-120s until they can get something better. The unfortunate thing is that the F-35 may be the closest we can get to a tangible, “non JPP” fighter for a very long time, so the choices are pretty much, continue down that direction, or scrap it and start over (or of course make some more “zero time” updated copies of current fighters.) The more I think about it, I vote for both! :-)
	Charlie Self September 7th, 2011 at 3:46 pm These gestation and planning times are stunning. I wonder how long it took to develop the Mustang, the Spitfire and similar aircraft before and during WWII? Yes, they were simple technologically compared to today’s aircraft, but so were the tools with which they were designed and built. From the timetables, it appears design technology hasn’t kept pace with the technology being designed.
	Guest September 7th, 2011 at 10:49 pm A. Lajoie — Absolutely keep the F-15 production line. Boeing could continue manufacturing variants of its F-15 Eagle — a fighter first flown in 1972 — extending the production line all the way until the 2020s for new and existing customers can get a familiar fighter for predictable costs. Indeed the best multi-role fighter in the world.
	pfcem September 8th, 2011 at 12:03 am The AIM-54 Phoenix was a USN program developed for its F-111B. The USAF YF-12 used the AIM-47 Falcon. Procurement cost of the F-35A will be closer to 1/2 that of the F-22A. Include operational cost & you are talking about 1/3. According to simulations kill:loss ratio vs ‘near term threat’ (Su-35) the F-22 achives 10:1 while the F-35 achives 4:1 to 6:1. The RCS of the F-35 is ~10 times that of the F-22 (-30dBsm vs –40dBsm). That translates to a detection range of roughly double but is still MORE than small enough to deal with IADS — the F-35 was designed to survive/counter IADS. F-35 will carry 6 internal AAM beginning with Block 5. A pair of external AAMs is NOT going to reduce the F-35’s stealthyness anywhere near as much as you want everyone to believe. The USAF needs 381 F-22s AND 1763 F-35s. One F-22 CAN NOT replace/do the job of 2–3 F-35s. Not to mention what cutting the USAF F-35A would do to the cost of the USMC F-35B & USN F-35C… The F-35 has the best IRST anywhere near operational & there IS such a thing a LPI (which BOTH the AN/APG-77 & AN/APG-81 have).
	pfcem September 8th, 2011 at 12:18 am F-15Es are planned to remain in service until ~2040. There is NO current plan/program for there replacement. F-15SE Silent Eagle is a Boeing proposal to reduce the F-15E RCS (ala Super Hornet) & replace the current CFTs with new new ones that carry significantly less fuel BUT contain two ‘internal’ weapons stations each (in ‘stealth mode’ its range & payload are LESS than the F-35). It is projected to cost MORE than the F-35 (both to procure & operate). It is a GREAT option for any nation which NEEDS new strike fighters sooner than they will be able to aquire F-35s.
	superraptor September 8th, 2011 at 2:06 pm Everybody is broke. If we were able to bring production jobs back, we may have a chance, but our wages are too high. From a security point of view, it could be mandated that aircraft maintenance of US commercial jets be done in the US rather than Mexico, but our pols are too timid to demand it. It would create good jobs although not by the millions.
	Thinking_ExUSAF September 8th, 2011 at 2:47 pm Hey, when its tight, every little bit of REAL stimulus helps! :-)
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 1:16 pm Don’t be stupid. There are two factors that override all others. #1 Keeping an alternative expert military jet fighter in competition. #2 USAF insistence in keeping wartime pilot death to essentially zero. Let’s be plain. These hidden agendas are obsolete and economically impractical. First most of the expense of modern US fighters comes from attempts at making them unkillable in combat. Stealth and the complete range of bleeding edge EW is still expensive. But realistically there is no reason air combat loss rates should not approximate the rate of infantry losses in the long run — percentage-wise. That still leaves the US with clear worldwide dominance. Such a change in attitude does mean that the bulk of fighters would be more like a modernized F-15SE technologically — plain grunts that occasionally die in service. The US could have a much larger fighter force numerically and this would stop growing problems with over tasking a shrinking pool of military combat pilots. Plain jane fighters designed to these specs would be hugely less expensive to manufacture. I also suspect operational cost would go way down for a less than cutting edge model designed from the ground up for maintenance and moderate upgrades to electronic and weapons (WWII experience indicates so). Second aviation and militarization options advance so fast that past expertise is mostly useless. And the history of major lessons in military aviation is most available to the public from the issues of operational maintenance and weapon and instrumentation shortfalls (shortfalls which are really a military contracting responsibility). Those lessons that are still classified could be distributed to qualified bidders after first design stage competition. Yes cutting edge fighters still have a place. In part they need to exist to help advance military aviation and act as a special ops like squadron in the tightest situations — but only as a squadron or flight which is not intended to enter main fighting. And the most expensive fighters should probably exist side by side with relatively cheap if unusually special purpose aircraft that might intentional be thrown away or have low survival rates. As far as military pilot survival goes…perhaps we should concentrating on systems more like infantry expect — medically survivable combat injuries. Perhaps better last 3 second automated ejection or airbag shells or “automated orient wounded aircraft to best attitude for ejection” systems (slow down and aim pilot away from obstructions within 6G parameters) etc . After all such systems could effect training accidents which kill more pilots than combat.
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 1:53 pm OK you show your ignorance here. 15 years is actually a short time for peace time development of any combat vehicle fighters, tanks, ships. This has been true since the industrial age. Even most quick turnaround wartime models actually stole most the development work from something in progress if even only at a single contractor. Those that didn’t tend to have major (i.e. unfixable) flaws despite all their other good qualities. So keep in mind that the first 5 years or so of development is usually haggling over paperwork and maybe a few crude prototypes. The first significant development stage that limits an aircraft is when prototyping finally settles on the basic airframe. At this point none of the other flight systems like engines controls etc are yet settled. The next stage is when the working prototype reaches basic/initial flight characteristics desired and things like engines and controls are more or less solid. This is the majority of public news development. In general combat technologies aren’t loaded on the plane at all until the last 5–7 development years (with the exception of internal guns) and the first trials are often with old stuff just to check for generic airframe issues with having gear onboard and firing a missile. Most of the serious modern combat electronics and weapons work is in the last 3–5 years and a lot of that is to get new gear working for the very first time. So you see 15 years to develop is not so much an issue since basic airframe is the majority of that time and airframe technology doesn’t usually jump forward in ‘short” time frames like 15 years. In fact the next airframe technology jump is often what you are spending most your time developing!!! But perhaps the USAF needs to go back to the idea of the X series planes and stop putting the newest and as yet unproven airframe technology into development for the new USAF and Navy backbone aircraft. A special flight of special ops aircraft might be a better testbed for the newest tech due to the limited numbers and limited mission duty. Of course the rationale for not doing so goes directly to the willingness of US citizens to distribute the newest technology plans and data to foreign powers as soon as the technology goes into service. Maybe F-117 operational security would be needed and practical until tech is proven and cost reduced enough for next gen planes. Yes its is true — a big part of the current USAF practice of cutting edge for the main fighter forces is a belief in superior US ability to implement high military technology or at least public willingness to subsidize buying that capability where absent. . The USAF assumes that, even with US citizens giving away military secrets immediately for chump change, keeping up with US mass military production would over strain the military industry and economy of other superpowers. Unfortunately not only does that strategy have negative effects on US economy (any non-military manufacturing is now generally considered not profitable enough) but it is rapidly becoming untrue in China and in selective cases within Russia (i.e. Russia cannot blindly copy everything but they could pick and choose our best).
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 3:47 pm First most people are saying “hard to kill” is good enough for infantry and such expected attrition rates should determine what aircraft is good enough for pilots. That is a paradigm change from current USAF standards which attempt to make US fighters unkillable by any non-superpower except by blind chance. Thus cheaper and more aircraft. I note more pilots relieves stress during sustained mass operations which is a known problem of the fewer but more expensive combat aircraft strategy. #5 Yes upgrades costs can get out of hand. Eventually aircraft airframes get too old for a particular type of mission. But as the B-52 proves…that is mainly the USAF tendency to pound square pegs into round holes in the fighter arena. In particular the USAF overdesigns fighter survivability and aims all mission ability at dogfighting the best of superpower fighters. Yet truthfully that is the least likely of scenarios to be fought and decided by USAF fighters. The world is too big a place for our numbers in conventional attacks and missiles totally trumped bomber attacks in the early 1970s. Hell even SCUD attacks showed that. #1 Hornet approaches uses terrain masking which blocks many attacks as well as detection. F-35 operational plan is almost pure detection avoidance –since low flying exposes F-35 to small arms fire ($$$ repair and possible $$$ random kills). So really on individual basis the question is terrain driven. #2 So what? Most the threat is ground based and not dogfighting other aircraft. it is unlikely we will be fighting superpower or their first world allies. So its possible that being able to survive random damage from ground defenses might outweigh stealth for the most likely general combat scenarios. LOL — they might not even have had a lock when they fired. The Hornet has history of some survival. I think the F-35 design probably made less allowance for damage based on the idea of never being hit. Plus of course once hit the F-35 almost certainly loses a lot of stealth. Plus the usefulness of maneuver for stealth aircraft versus ground defenses is really not yet proven. Manuever may not help versus missile is it is fired too close (because you were stealth) or direction not determined fast enough or is multi-shot battery that uses your non-stealth mode maneuvers to fire again. #3 Lack of stealth does not equal mass attack formations. No one proposed mass formations but you. mass raids are always stupid. chose the right munitions or stretching your attack time frame over days is better. Stealth or not, massed engine noise and optical detection ensures the target defenses are alerted in plenty of time. Baghdad proved that. Fortunately Baghdad was thin on fighter and missile defenses on the big attack nights. And even the best stealth erodes heavily in mass formations. Sure the missiles might not stay locked on the same plane — but mass formations will give them a general direction from random radar flares and blurred mass return long enough to get close. And once close enough…there is fair odds they see an aspect of some aircraft long enough to to attempt terminal maneuvering. The big advantage of stealth is that terminal maneuvering is likely to be much more abrupt. The disadvantage of stealth is that basically there is not much point in maneuvering to counter missile terminal maneuvers. Maneuvering will increase your signature to all threats in the area. Also the missile is probably much closer than normal before it makes a clear choice of final target. Yes stealth helps versus radar anti-aircraft tracking you as an individual. But even if you are stealth the thing about pre-Phalanx 1980s anti-aircraft guns is that they probably weren’t even shooting at you in particular. And once you get into fleet defense class anti-aircraft guns in any numbers you are likely talking a directing radar modern enough to detect your stealth.…you just hope to take them out while you are out of range. #4 UAVs self escort ROFLMAO. Where have you been? First no fighters want to move slow enough to escort them. Second UAVs economics usually do not justify escorts now that the experimental data days are over. Most are considered completely expendable. Plus UAVs are generally stealthy and particularly less visually observable than F-35 over long missions. However — YES they can self-escort. Some CIA missions have carried self-defense missiles for more than 7 years. But yes there are still some political and practical restrictions when operating in fully autonomous mode — mainly having to do with potentially shooting down civilian or friendly aircraft. Again expendable enough few care.
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 4:10 pm Agreed on current upgrades discussed. However he is right that some kitchen sink upgrades have been proposed that do exceed new fighter costs. I actually saw (and fortunately have forgotten specifics) F-22 and early F-35 force cost competitions against upgrades of older planes like the A-7 for various missions many many years ago. But again many of those upgrades generally attempt to produce that aircraft that is unkillable by anyone but a superpower and very difficult then. Plus the winner can fly every mission type possible and communicate by all means including smoke signals. Unfortunately while combining some closely related missions or missions suitable for a particular existing airframe can save lots of money…taking the idea to an extreme tends to start producing a more expensive solution than multiple aircraft. Of course Congressional limits on total force numbers regardless of all other considerations tends to highly encourage that thinking…possibly intentionally so considering the short term economic benefits to states hosting manufacture. I suspect he is in fact one of the fighter glory hounds ( or wannabe) whose fighter specification keeps picturing tournament style conflicts with the best of the Soviets as our USAF primary purpose. He certainly isn’t thinking real life national good in anyway except a fighter Olympics competition sense. Problem is that I don’t see such a military Olympic competition.
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 4:27 pm Totally agreed. Also include that at lower operational levels survivability includes taking some RANDOM damage from small arms and stuff not even specifically fired at you or fired without proper lock. #1 We know the Hornets can often take some systems and keep going. Not so sure the same emphasis was applied in F-35 or rather that the assumption of successful stealth didn’t tend to override those considerations. #2 We also know that even is the F-35 survives a minor hit — it will quite often lose much of its stealth it not all. No longer right finished surface and all sort of trashed gear might be exposed. So once hit even accidentally the F-35 is is now at best on the same footing as the Hornet until repaired. And rumor is that battlefield level repairs can restore aerodynamics and many internal systems function…but such repairs are usually NOT very very good at restoring stealth. Even when such patches do halfway succeed that they tend to drop off during subsequent missions without the pilot being aware (i.e. does not know he should abort high threat mission segments) unlike repaired systems that usually still give warning lights if they fail again.
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 4:42 pm Agree with your underlying reasoning if not maybe all your choices. Bottomline the F-35 uses technology that is too immature to be affordable and takes on too many missions resulting in our being too dependent on a very limited number of aircraft and leading to too many compromises in some missions. If the industry needs a military aviation push to advance the engineering of production technology…maybe a very limited number aircraft with low activity, specialized yet conventional roles would be a much cheaper way to work out bugs and learn lessons. Deep semi-covert surgical strikes or hostage rescue might be suitable limited operations. LOL — or the grandfather of all special surveillance.
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 5:01 pm Standoff is much much much cheaper. All you need is an air platform that can get your anti-air defense system in position at attitude before its is shot down and hold it there as long as it needs to locate and fire at various ground stations. Can you say B-52, 707, C-130 , etc? LOL Blimps could be pretty stealth lift device for getting an automated detection and suppression system to altitude. A HALO drop would make good escape and recovery if fired upon from distance and EW didn’t stop it. But you know it could be manned and made an Army ranger mission too. ROFLMAO — I am sure some would love the rush of a HALO drop with say 10–20 tons of suppression battery wrapped around them. Hmmm…might want to mass fire all remaining missile at potential targets before drop. For the short battlefield, last I heard the Army is planning to use their UAVs for suppressing threats to helicopters in the near future…with no reliance on USAF.
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 5:08 pm The really answer is that USAF is trying to preserve might while Congress mandates lower numbers of aircraft and personnel. That is the main cheaper alternative are not even considered. There are Acts of Congress that prevent thousands of F-16s or F-15s. Now a pessimist would say Congress knows the effect of reduced numbers and that some members are milking the system for the result of greater and greater reliance on bleeding edge technology. Fortunately that is not possible in a nation that elects legislators based on popularity and campaign resources (like financial backing of major lobbyists and their individual union members).
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 5:24 pm A-10 has suffered too much attrition. Good aircraft but no place to get replacements. And its the most heavily used aircraft while ground forces advance into enemy resistance — so expect continued attrition in proportion to military events. F-15E is good at some ground things but generally army hates it for how fast it goes by targets. Unable to visually find targets or confirm changing friend from foe positions. Army has actually told USAF that in real ground pinch its expects its ground defense systems to shoot down F-15 and F-35 type generic aircraft if present — more or less on purpose…because they are low value to Army except versus bunkers and then only when artillery has not caught up. Solution: produce replacement ground attack aircraft useful to ground forces. Perhaps just A-10 with design updated to take advantage of cheaper new materials and technologies.
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 5:39 pm UAV are great in the roles they can play. Which is almost anything while remote ground control is available. But AI for autonomous action is not yet very real, especially in a generic and crafty military environment. So realistically UAV will meet a big stumbling block when 2nd and 3rd world forces start heavily deploying advanced EW means to disrupt their remote link operations. This has start to happen in a exploratory stage. Autonomous operations ability has more huge holes than coverage — some of which could even be used to cause friendly fire. Simplest idea — sneak up and set signal and GPS jammer beside US position & watch UAV focus on attacking forces near jammer as it loses exact positioning. Things UAV are good at in autonomous mode at present or near future? Surveillance, potentially counterattack aircraft attacking, and attacking fixed structures near easily identified geographic features. Not much else.
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 5:47 pm How about just one Doomsday bomb? A 200 Gigaton nuclear device is probably well within today’s technological reach if very expensive. The good news is you only need one and a delivery system is optional. Such a bomb ought to breach a sufficiently large area of the earth’s crust to cause nuclear winter, worldwide 9+ magnitude earthquakes, and eventually destablize position of continents…assuming the heat and blast wave didn’t sufficiently kill off most species of life. Hmmm..could such a blackmail weapon be what Iran is working on? (unlikely) Convert to Islam or convert to energy!!!
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 6:22 pm First the positive point…if you MUST buy new aircraft of the USAF design shelf — yes F-35 are required. F-22 air-to-ground abilities are almost non-existent. However while there is nothing wrong with wishing a new design well, relying on those wishes in the absence of lots of extra money is foolish. I have tailored and run such simulations while in the USAF. I have been called to the Pentagon to help with supposedly more advance simulations and been appalled with how they culled data for favorable cases. Generally speaking simulation are BS for making conclusions. The inputs and results of simulations are always adjusted by the USAF to support the conclusions that the generals gave when they commissioned the study or the study discarded. That is why such studies are called support material by those who are knowledgeable — as in here is a study that supports our conclusions. Those outsiders who are knowledgeable then dissect for what assumptions and inputs were provided. I can assure you that original inputs on enemy and friendly capabilities are not infrequently unrecognizable by the time the study is complete — unless nailed down by numerous direct full access observations of real finalized equipment. (The very long range Russian missile becomes a medium missile so the new US missile and its proposed tactics can compete. Enemy tactical decisions ability gets hampered and unwise formations selected from their playbook.) Even with the best compatibility with current known reality, the tactics are often very stylized to favor new friendly vehicles. Any problem in existing development design is adjusted as necessary to succeed on the theory the actual design will follow independently (i.e. there are almost never memos to developers to make such changes in development aircraft or weapons but range gets extended 10% etc).
	well-duh September 10th, 2011 at 6:33 pm Official time line was very short but… But I still bet the P-51design previously existed somewhere in the company in progress. NAA just had not submitted it publicly and perhaps had not yet had senior production designers working on it. I suspect the essentials of the P-51 design were already started as a project to explore the limits of then current technology, but was not expected to see an actual prototype nor anything similar for 10–15 years. Lots of companies (especially back then in the days of cheap labor and retirements) had new engineers and even speculative projects going to help predict the future. Today’s USAF is demanding those speculations be pushed forth into official visibility immediately.
	bbb September 11th, 2011 at 7:45 pm Wrong, wrong, wrong. An F-15 has a top speed of maybe 700 or 800 MPH with a full weapons load. An F-22 will hit top speed (Mach 1.5+) with a full load of missiles and most of it’s fuel. And guess which one is also stealth with full weapons.
	bbb September 11th, 2011 at 7:48 pm Aircraft back then were still very complicated and very expensive, but comparing a P-51 to an F35 to is like comparing a bottle rocket to the Apollo Saturn 5… Or a Miata to an F1 car. It’s on a whole different dimension entirely.
	bbb September 11th, 2011 at 7:51 pm This whole issue started because the F-35 was supposed to cost as much as an F-15, compared to an F-22 which was supposed to cost twice as much. But instead they’re going to end up costing as much as the Raptor. And they’re sticking to their guns because they’d rather have a bunch of really expensive planes that do a good job than a bunch of really, really expensive planes that do a great job. The F-35 has the electronics, and the F-22 has the power… what we need is to just make an F-22 with the F-35’s brains.

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

DoD Buzz

The Air Force’s sky-high hopes for the F-35

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments