Japan is the latest F-35 customer

pp_muscimol December 19th, 2011 at 10:31 pm

I just have one short questions to the folks on the US. Why Japan can have the techs on the F35 but not the ones from the F22? … .… being the F35 coming out so many years after the F22!!

superraptor December 19th, 2011 at 11:29 pm

The F-35 is an engineering concurrency disaster and will be smoked by the PAKFA and J-20. Cancel it ASAP and bring back a larger upgraded F-22. A president Romney can make it happen next year. We spend 5 billion a year on the F-35. That could buy us 25 deployable F-22s. The present USAF leadership has to go.

RCDC December 20th, 2011 at 12:03 am

F-22 can’t takeoff and land vertically.

pfcem December 20th, 2011 at 12:52 am

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Yawn December 20th, 2011 at 1:01 am

That’s not a requirement for the Japanese Air Force. If it were, the F-35A variant wouldn’t have been proposed.

Yawn December 20th, 2011 at 1:21 am

180 F-35s in 5 years? Deliveries aren’t supposed to begin by 2016.

Bronco46 December 20th, 2011 at 4:05 am

Does it make you feel better to split hairs over which F-35 is VSTOL? It’s the mark of a
small man. And as for Bloomberg you think they either know or can write about what they
do or don’t know about the F-35? The facts of matter are; if your only sources are the mass
media, you don’t know most of the facts either. You probably need to be part of the Japanese
government or fairly high up in Lockheed.

aeroxavier December 20th, 2011 at 5:44 am

japan + israel = the reduce number of GB f-35
Now all others partners will buy their original demands? and USA ? the death spiral continue…

William C. December 20th, 2011 at 6:13 am

What does that have to do with Japan’s F-35A purchase?

STOVL comes at a cost in performance, hence they went with the CTOL aircraft to replace their F-4 Phantom IIs. Yet a country like Japan might be interested in a small F-35B buy down the road for their Hyūga class “helicopter destroyers”.

Yawn December 20th, 2011 at 6:34 am

I think you are make much ado over nothing. I was responding to the poster who said that it didn’t matter which variant they purchased.

superraptor December 20th, 2011 at 9:33 am

Could you elaboarate?

@USS_Fallujah December 20th, 2011 at 10:21 am

No one seems to be talking about why Japan picked the A version vs navalized C version.

I would not be surprised to find years from now that LMCO told JASDF that they expect(ed) the Carrier version to be cancelled (and those buys replaced with more Boeing F/A-18 E/F(G/H?) Super Hornets.

It happend before with the F-111 program which was initially a joint USAF/USN aircraft…

jumper December 20th, 2011 at 11:06 am

A larger Raptor? As in a physically larger aircraft? You realize that’s an whole re-design right? You might also want to look into what aircraft are built for what threats; PAK-FA and the J20 will fly against the current F-22A. F-35 is a strike fighter, it isn’t meant for the primary air superiority role.

MM99 December 20th, 2011 at 11:45 am

Not sure I quite agree with you wrt the F-35 being “neither fast nor maneuverable”. As compared to what? You say it has a tiny internal payload — once again, as compared to what? Carring 4 AMRAAMS and 2 JDAMS is a pretty good loadout to me for a stelth aircraft.

Thinking_ExUSAF December 20th, 2011 at 12:30 pm

Afraid that you might be working on the Vietnam-era concept of payload and lethality, particularly in the field of A-G. With today’s reliance on PGMs of one kind or another, two properly selected and delivered missiles/bombs gives you pretty much a 1.0 Pk (double up to insure that a single malfunction does not effect the outcome). “In the day”, a flight of four F-4s, F-105s or F-111s could not give you the same Pk for planning purposes even if they were all loaded to the gills with Mk-80 free falls. (Remember the Paul Doumer bridge?) If you want to launch out a flight of four F-35s, armed with JDAM or Laser guided munitions, how many targets can you legitimately hit (i.e. set up, run in, release, recover) per aircraft before BINGO.

Perhaps the relatively modest loadout, with the signature advantages of keeping it internal, makes a bit more sense?

Herky December 20th, 2011 at 12:42 pm

I was under the impression that the f-35A was as manuverable with fuel and full weapons load as clean f-16. Isn’t a clean f-16(newest versions) extemely agile in a dog fight. Correct me if I’m wrong

superraptor December 20th, 2011 at 2:39 pm

yes, a larger Raptor similar to going from the Hornet to the Super Hornet with more range and bigger internal weapon bays. If LMT and BA pool their resources it should be possible to have it operational by 2018 probably even before the disastrous F-35 is supposed to be in full service. If you shoot for a price of 200 mill per plane, you could build 30/yr x 15 years and still would save money compared to an all F-35 force. The rest of the USAF could be supplied with new F-15SE, F-16s and maybe even block 3 SHs. And the USN would simply go to the block 3 SH and then to the FXX. This will be all doable with new leadership. The F-35 will go from bad to worse. Watch for thermal management issues next year.

Thinking_ExUSAF December 20th, 2011 at 2:56 pm

A few years ago there actually was a serious discussion of an “FB-22″ with several different concepts tossed around. All were a pretty serious modification of the basic F-22 to achieve longer range, greater payload and an optimized A-G misson suite but with the signature control of the F-22.

Might not be a bad thing to trot out as the next gen FB-111, land-based naval strike, F-15E or perhaps, Im thinking, a long range “wild weasel” bird. (Can you think of any nation that might lap up a heavy, long range, stealthy, land-based fighter bomber with a tweaked out anti-shipping capability?)
http://​www​.globalsecurity​.org/​m​i​l​i​t​a​r​y​/​s​y​s​t​e​m​s​/ai…

@USS_Fallujah December 20th, 2011 at 3:47 pm

Think_ExUSAF — USN Aviation is in serious trouble, the air wings are already shrinking (down to 40 stike aircraft per Air Wing vs 58 (24 f-14, 24 f-18, 10 A-6) from 15 years ago.

Skipping on the f-35 would (in theory) allow funding to fully equip all 10 active air wings of Super Hornets for the 11 CVNs in service.

If the CNO legitimatly thinks the UCASS can achieve IOC by 2016 and depolyment by 2018 then the opportunity is available to skip the new strike version of the 5th Gen aircraft and move to a UAV & 6th Generation fighter currently in concept form as the F-18 E/F replacement.

None of this addresses the F-35B problems or the state of USMC aviation, but for all the USMC “no backup plan” for f-35B…they may not get that choice…which of course also undermines the whole LHA/ARG concept, but for the DON to buy the F-35B and not the C sounds equally unrealistic.

Weaponhead December 20th, 2011 at 4:38 pm

No, I am not making that mistake. I am well aware of the revolution in warfare that PGMs brought.

Think near peer. How many DMPIs in that campaign? At 2 bombs at a time how many sorties is that? Even the customer is now saying that the F-35 will have to operate more like a “legacy” aircraft against that threat. AFA has said that ONLY the F-22 could penetrate those defenses. So if F-35 can’t penetrate those defenses, how many trips down-town do you want to make delivering short range bombs. Sure SDB is there but are your targets matched to the SDB. Do you realize how few SDBs there are vs JDAMs and LGBs? That is going to be a lot of high risk sorties.

Of course we will use many Tomahawks and JASSMs before sending aircraft in but those aren’t that successful against relocatable defenses that move ever 30 minutes or so.

Of course a modest loadout would work for a low intensity threat but then an F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 would be able to do the job. You wouldn’t need F-35 and internal carriage.

As for A/A, Rand found that the F-22s load out of 6 AMRAAMs per aircraft left them short in a Taiwan scenario. The F-22s shot all their missiles and then fell prey to remaining SUs. Even with a Pk of 1.0 you need more (or you better fight an easier fight somewhere else). Sure F-35 has notional concepts to get to 6 AMRAAMs but their track record of meeting promises is pretty low and this isn’t even a promise, it is a concept.

The money spent on F-35 would be better spent on a new bomber, new long range weapons to go on our fighters, and new fighters that can actually do the air dominance mission (F-22 or new), and long range Naval attack aircraft (like what A-12 was supposed to have been). Like I said before, I can’t figure out what fight the F-35 is designed to fight, some generic mid-level threat that is conveniently not too far away and not too large I guess.

Thinking_ExUSAF December 20th, 2011 at 8:11 pm

Ok, you don’t want to go ‘downtown’ more often than necessary, but is it better to go downtown once and then mill-around to multiple IPs, one after the other? If you lay out a grid of perhaps 8 DMPIs with each A/C assigned two, you get four high speed runs and working some TOTs the bad guys get a few seconds of loud noises and a tail chase. And each A/C only needs four items of ordnance!Sent from my iPhone

pfcem December 20th, 2011 at 11:51 pm

Note that beginning procurement in FY2012 means LRIP 8 with delivery in 2016. And it makes no difference what aircraft you procure (unless you are able to aquire lots already in production), it takes 3–4 years from contract signing to delivery.

pfcem December 21st, 2011 at 12:06 am

Yes the poor Japanese, the US would not let then have the best fighter in the worlds so they have to settle for the 2nd best fighter in the world. And Japan staring procurement in FY2012 is a clear sign that it is NOT freaked out about it.

superraptor December 21st, 2011 at 9:57 am

if you are correct, there should be good news forthcoming in 2012 as far as flight testing is concerned (AOA, thermal management etc). However if the news is bad, it is more likely than not that the entire F-35 program will be cancelled by the next administration. Lastly, with enough effort behind it, a new Super F-22 could be operational by 2020 (at a price/plane of 200 mill)which would probably be the IOC of the F-35 anyway.

JCitizen December 21st, 2011 at 9:23 pm

I agree. The way I see it, once this fighter launches one missile it has lost its edge in stealth, and leaving the theater at great hast, after letting its ordinance lose, is the best tactic. Once air superiority is achieved, more ordinance could be attached in later missions, as a multiplier. If none of the variants is capable of external mount points, I apologize for my ignorance.

I would think cut and run could be dangerous if your enemy is faster, but perhaps a good stand off weapon would make this more feasible. Besides, older faster fighters could follow up later — hopefully not to late!*

Bob December 21st, 2011 at 10:11 pm

LOL! I think you might not appreciate the feelings that a fully militarized Japan would foment in east Asia. The S Koreans, philipinos, Vietnamese and Taiwanese trust Japan about as far as you could throw Mt Fuji!

pfcem December 22nd, 2011 at 12:08 am

The F-35 is VERY MUCH what the USAF wants/needs & the F-35C is VERY MUCH what the USN wants/needs. It is as a fast & maneuverable as most 4th/4.5 generation fighters carrying an equivalent combat load.

The F-35 is a STRIKE FIGHTER, not a bomber or missileer. Two ‘2000 lb’ class AtG munitions (or similar or lighter weight of smaller/lighter munitions) is a typical STRIKE FIGHTER AtG mission loadout these days. If you don’t need the big bang of a ‘2000 lb’ class AtG munition, the F-35 will carry 8 ‘250 lb’ SDBs. Oh, & before I forget, Block 5 F-35 will be able to carry 6 internal AAMs. AND THAT IS JUST ITS INTERNAL PAYLOAD! It can, if need be, carry weapons externally — as much or more, as far or farther than ‘comparable 4th/4.5 generation fighters.

YES we would have started the F-35 program if we knew we were getting <200 F-22s! Having fewer than the necessary F-22 only makes the need for the F-35 GREATER. The F-35 will dominate the air vs any & all 4th/4.5 generation fighters & hold its own vs other 5th generation fighter better than any 4th/4.5 generation fighter could every realistically hope to.

William C. December 22nd, 2011 at 5:15 am

Overlooking early problems the teen-series aircraft faced, and the losses from attrition they sustained in that time?

There was one YF-22 crash and three F-22A crashes, one of which occurred prior to IOC. There were three pilot ejections, two of which were successful (ejection is extremely risky regardless of how good the seat is).

The F-14 certainly had worse statistics in its early years, mainly related to the engines. The F-15’s and F-16’s loss rate was very likely similar to the F-22 for its first several years of service.

The biggest issue with the F-22A right now seems to be related to OBOGS, which is a common subsystem and should certainly be fixable.

TJRedneck December 22nd, 2011 at 6:37 am

I agree completely, as a matter of fact I remembered the F-14 Tomcat being on the 6:00 News very often because of crashes and mishaps. Many people do not understand all of the testing involved when developing a new fighter, it takes years and several aircraft to work out the bugs.

Thinking_ExUSAF December 22nd, 2011 at 8:11 am

I would suggest a quick study of Alexander of Macedon. One of his favorite tactics was to demonstrate a frantic retreat until the enemy, fixated on taking the vaunted phallanx from the rear with its more mobile lighter forces, finds itself boxed in on at least three sides and the phallanx turned and advancing!

Perhaps chasing this particular tiger into the nighttime jungle, where he can see you quite nicely but he is not quite so visible, with just a knife in your hand might not be the best thing for advancing your cause! :-) Some things just work… even if they are old and dusty.… :-)

ALSO, once that one missile is in the air, most of those folk looking for the F-35 will get tunnel vision on that missile, and… the F-35 disappears! Then when the missile is done doing whatever its doing (and hopefully there is one less “looker”) all of the bad guys have to try to find the F-35 again.… and if things work properly another unhappy surprise is just about to pop up in front of them… tigers in the night and another bad guy burning bright (grok that one, bad guys! LOL!)

Curtis Hogbristle December 22nd, 2011 at 8:23 am

The best choice for the Japanese F-X Fighter would have been the F-15SE from a purely capability per dollar perspective. The F-15SE has better range, more payload capability, and significantly more high speed intercept capability when configured for that mission. Boeing somehow chose to put all of its eggs in the F-18 Super Hornet” basket which never made much sense, based purely on performance. Now the Japanese can sit back and watch while the F-35’s unit price spirals upward and its schedule slips to the right. I suspect the Koreans will see this and make a smarter choice and select the F-15K for their NF-3 competition next year.

bomb says hi December 22nd, 2011 at 12:55 pm

To the poster “Yawn”

You wrote: “The only uncertainty here would be the risk of any delays which would also have been the case with the Eurofighter”

Why on Earth did

1) neither the U.S.A. develop FB-22s & carrier-borne F-22s & FB-22s from the very beginning

2) nor Europe develop (“develop” meaning: Finish. Or: Get on with. Or maybe even: Finally start working on) the “Eurofighter’s” own fighter-bomber and naval versions???

How could these two major, Western staffs (supposedly so “advanced”, “enlightened” and “superior” bla bla bla) end up humiliating themselves beyond description with these two decade-long, multi-multi-billionaire aircraft programs that were supposed to be their military-technological and strategic crown jewels? Slowly I’m also beginning to lose my faith in a lot of people on this side of the Atlantic… (not kidding).

bomb says hi December 22nd, 2011 at 1:39 pm

Think, “ExUSAF” !

“Contrails”.

Where?!

“Horizon” !!!

bomb says hi December 22nd, 2011 at 1:52 pm

To “Alex”

You wrote: “I don’t think the Japanese are even allowed to have carriers according to Bretton Woods.”

1) The Bretton Woods agreement was about forcing the Arabs to accept only dollars for oil. (And that’s about the only thing that keeps the U.S. currency and Economy still alive today)

2) Now that the Japanese have your F-$$s, they will build lots of giant aircraft carriers for them (“Yamatos”).

“To meet their global responsibilities”…

Thinking_ExUSAF December 22nd, 2011 at 3:22 pm

And you hope that YOU are not the one that sees only a “dot” with a white halo! :-)

fewgdMen December 23rd, 2011 at 11:34 pm

load ‘em up with f-4s, strike eagles, f-16-18s, saber drones and blow the shiate out of them arses.()
It’s this simple, war is a racket and the .o1%‘s have about smacked down the monopoly.() somebody needs to walk that line and drop their floor.

pzzd December 23rd, 2011 at 11:41 pm

thinking i’ll roll over and play dead for the jesuits so the rot signs can send me to a FEMA camp for a piece of cheese. Meanwhile, back on the ranch, we’ll all sit back in our lazyboys and watch NATO hand it over to the Central Banks who will hand it all over to the dark side. Thanks, appreciate your wisdom — NOT~!

pfcem December 24th, 2011 at 12:31 am

The relative ‘agility’ of the F-35A vs the F-35C is much like the F-16 vs the F/A-18.

The F-35C is significantly heavier & more expensive to both procure & operate.

No the REAL reason is because Japan asked for the A rather than the C. The choice of the A over the C had everything to do with the A being a better aircraft for its needs & nothing to do with any naysayers wet deams of potential C cancellation.

William C. December 24th, 2011 at 2:09 am

So are you the guy who wrote Ron Paul’s newsletter?

Robert Fritts December 25th, 2011 at 11:36 pm

Was trolling around the the East end of the Kolb Road and Irvington Rd/Rita Ranch corriedor this afternoon on my KTM250( a great way to spend a 66 degree Christmas day in Tucson) and noticed 42 A-37 Dragonflies sitting on crates with their landing gear retracted. Maybe we can un-fund a set of F-35 landing gear and maybe a canopy or two and with the that money get these machines airborne as my son and his buddies need CAS now and the current crop of teen fighters already are not doing the job. You guys keep debating the merits of PGWs and actual load of the F-35. Let Infantry, Armor and CAV soldiers design our “strike” Aircraft and this program would be completed, paid for, effective and have $10-15Billion left over for Beer and chips.

Joe Schmoe December 26th, 2011 at 12:47 am

1)- The F-35 only carries up to four AMRAAM’s internally itself.

2)- The F-35 is already costing over $130-$150 million and it’s increasing.

3)- It’s much faster than the F-35 and let’s leave it at that.

4)- Neither is the F-35, only the F-22 is supposed to be enter IADS zones with other aircraft playing SEADS missions.

William C. December 26th, 2011 at 2:55 pm

1. Later blocks will add the capability to carry up to six missiles (AIM-9X, AIM-120D, JDRADM) internally.

2. It doesn’t work that way. The current price may be somewhere in that range depending on how you calculate it, but price goes down as the design is stabilized and production rates and numbers increase.

3. Operational speed isn’t all that different. The F-15 is only able to reach Mach 2 speeds with a relatively clean air-to-air loadout. Yet even then it can’t maintain those speeds for long due to fuel concerns.

4. Even with stealth aircraft, you have to crack a 1st rate integrated air-defense system with the help of SEAD flights, decoys, ECM, and stand-off weapons. But the F-35’s stealth makes it significantly more survivable than the F-15 and it will certainly be able to operate in the face of such SAM coverage if given the proper support.

Thinking_ExUSAF December 27th, 2011 at 12:48 pm

Please, PLEEEEZ dont try to sell me any land in Florida, hair regrowth tonic or a tasty slice of I-405 reptile/rodent pizza! :-) I

William C. December 28th, 2011 at 2:15 am

The C variant does over an increase in range and low speed maneuverability. However the price is the loss of the internal cannon, slower acceleration than the A variant, and increased costs. Japan has no use for all of the features related to carrier operations anyway.

All of the export customers of the “basic” F/A-18 family chose the carrier-capable McDonnell Douglas models over Northrop’s lightened F-18L. Yet the reason for this choice was due to the fact that the F/A-18 was the more proven product, being bought in large numbers by the US Navy and USMC.

The USAF purchase of F-35As will be much larger than USN and USMC purchases of F-35Cs. Plus most export customers are going with the A variant.

amaou ramsey January 2nd, 2012 at 11:05 pm

Concur 100% on OBOGS, I hope to see this be fixed and for the F-22 to enter the combat arena and show what capabilities.

Samuel Jackson January 2nd, 2012 at 11:22 pm

That’s some beer and chips!!! :D

itfunk January 3rd, 2012 at 1:03 am

simply wrong