Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by 1st503rdsgt on Feb 14, 2011 - 11:11 AM; edited 1 time in total

When I first heard of the F-22's cancellation in favor of faster F-35 development, I was skeptical, but willing to listen to promises of a similarly capable fighter that could be built in the thousands at a fraction of the F-22's cost. Nearly 2 years later, it has become apparent that an F-35 with its rather limited performance envelope will still cost 1/2 to 2/3 (it's still going up) the price of an F-22, which was already in production. While proponents state that the F-35 holds an advantage in processing power and ground attack capability, one is left to wonder if such developments would have been better applied to the F-22 airframe.

I suspect that the Raptor's cancellation may have something to do with the fact that Lockheed was never allowed to export the F-22, while the F-35 can be happily foisted on allied nations dumb enough to believe that they are getting true 5th generation fighter. I admit that the F-35 program is probably "too big to fail" now, but if the Marine's STOVL version gets axed, then what was the point of all those design compromises forced on the USAF and the Navy? Additionally, one might want to ask how competitive this design will be by the time it enters production. Nations that are in a hurry will probably be satisfied with the generation 4+ fighters already on the market, and nations willing to wait will probably be willing to wait a little longer for Russian and Chinese designs that offer similar stealth capability and cost along with superior performance.

None of this would have been of much concern if the F-22 production line wasn't being shut down. We would still be able to look forward to modicum of 5th generation capability to complement our legacy force, but as it stands now, we have apparently traded in a thoroughbred racehorse for a couple of Shetland nags.

Questions for readers who know more than I do:

Which F-35 features could be adapted to the F-22?

Is the F-35 program really in as much trouble as critics are saying?

Should the F-35 'B' model be canceled, or would that render the whole family pointless?

F-16.net Sponsor

Short answer - NO

The F-22 cannot do what the F-35 can (A2G, range of munitions, Carrier, STOVL, etc) and it costs a tremendous amount of money to operate (two engines, older tech RAM , etc).

Quote:

Would it be better to cancel the entire F-35 program at this point and apply its research to continued F-22 development and production (including naval and strike versions)?

Of course not.
F-35 is built to be an affordable fighter and will be significantly cheaper than the F-22.
Another thing is the F-22 was built as a high flying, supercruising a2a, expensive (to buy and maintain), twin engine, hi-tech, high-end fighter.
The US can’t afford to use Raptors as a main all-around fighter.

The F-22 is constrained by the size of its main internal weapons bays which were designed around the AMRAAM. This limits the variety of weapons it can carry internally to maintain its stealthiness and pales in comparison with the f-35.

EXEC: 'F-35 is built to be an affordable fighter and will be significantly cheaper than the F-22.' - I'm not AT ALL convinced!

Right now, we're paying $100 million+ for the JSF with no tested DAS, no tested HMD, and less than half its software developed. Now let's add to that the fact that bonehead Gates JUST NOW put the Marine version on 2-year probation and added the test flights to the program that should have been there all along, pushing the (projected) in-service date of TWO-THIRDS of the program to 2016 (yeah right)... Let's also add to that the fact that the so-called "affordable" F-35's pricetag was made up off of a projected (here's that "wishful" word again) build of thousands starting with a ramp-up that isn't happening until years later, and its projected (there it is again) price now is about $90 million, and that figure is assuming a build of OVER 2,500 aircraft that noone can afford!. Let's also add the fact that the entire F-35 capability "envelope" has been trimmed, cut, and hacked to pieces to satisfy weight, cooling, and airframe limitations, to satisfy EACH of the Service's requirements. Let's also not forget to mention Dumbo Gates' assessment that the Raptor isn't needed because it hasn't fought in any wars - That's funny to a guy like me, because when Kim Yung Il was buried in his bunker a month ago, he wasn't hiding from F-35s, because NONE are in service. He was hiding from the Raptors we had on station waiting to take his a$$ out if he even thought of stirring up any more sh*t. So we're paying as much for an aircraft we can't use at all as we are for an aircraft that is already in-service, deployable, and acting as a deterrent RIGHT NOW - After all, isn't deterrence the name of the game, or are we really planning on building 2500 F-35s because we think we're gunna need 'em or use 'em?

The joke of the matter is that the F-35 will be a great plane WHEN ITS DEVELOPED. But here we have Gates hanging his hat on an aircraft he SURMISES will be available when LockMart THINKS it will be completed, and which had better have the capabilities everyone HOPES it will eventually have... Doesn't that concern anyone but me?

Look, I'm all for the F-35... But anyone hyping the F-35 price versus the F-22 price is as simplistic and blind as Gates, because the JSF doesn't have a price to speak of, and WON'T have one for at least another 5 years!. So, while we know an F-22 costs circa $120mil a pop for a WORKING, DEPLOYABLE aircraft, and we know the F-35 costs off-the-line about $100Mil+ with no deployable capabilities to speak of, the simple question is this: How can ANYONE continue to make the argument of price or capability or maintenance costs of F-35 as a PLUS over the Raptor? I don't know the answer to that either, but apparently Gates can just continue to fire managers, order "restructures", make up arguments against the F-22 (I don't care either way what he thinks of its cost - When war breaks out, the F-22 is gunna be holding the F-35's hand, guiding it safely through enemy airspace, AFTER it takes out the SA-whatever sites and the SU-30s, Pak Fas and J-20s that the F-35 can't handle), and throw billions of dollars more into a fighter program that is MUCH more about "sell,sell,sell" than it is about what really matters: taking the time to develop the best STRIKE aircraft the world has ever seen, without having to make up stories about its (I agree, it's expensive, but...>>>) FAR MORE CAPABLE "brother," on the back of which the JSF was built!

A few more notes: Why doesn't the F-22 have a helmet-mounted site? Because it's not finished yet! (supposed to leverage off of F-35) - Why doesn't F-22 carry more air-to-ground weapons? Not because it CAN'T, it wasn't deemed neessary because the F-35 was supposed to be ready! Why doesn't F-22 carry IRST?... Because it doesn't NEED it - You're locked up and being hunted down before you hit IRST range! Why does F-22 have Supercruise and thrust-vectoring?... Because it will have to take out the 4th++ and 5th Gens the JSFs/F-16s/F-18s can't handle... Why does the F-22 even carry SDBs and JDAMS?... Because it can strike dangerous, far-away targets UNDETECTED so aircraft like the F-35, F-16, etc. don't have to, because they won't and/or can't! What is the ONE capability that all F-35s will have that present F-22s do not - an EOTS/DAS; a system that has already been explored to allow the F-22 to attack ground targets; and no doubt the F-22 would do it at least as well as an F-35. I'd bet my life that if they started final development/testing on it now, it would be integrated, tested and fielded on F-22s before the first F-35 ever goes operational with whatever watered-down capabilities they've rushed into service - It's pretty simple, it's not as tough to put this system into a fielded, stable platform as it is to do what they're trying and failing to do with the still UNDEVELOPED F-35.

Just my thoughts, take em at face value, but it's the truth noone seems to want to hear; especially those out there that don't have a clue what the Raptor was designed for and is capable of.

Take away the F-22 and guaranteed air dominance goes the way of the dodo. Take away the JSF and you still have Super Hornets, F-16s, Silent Eagles, A-10s,... upgraded with AESAs, Snipers, HMD, SDB, JASSM,... they'd be a VERY potent force at a fraction of the risk and cost! And when the F-35 is finally READY... Then bring 'em on-line and retire the oldest workhorses.

This is just COMMON SENSE, Gates...Look it up! Mad

raptor2005 wrote:

Right now, we're paying $100 million+ for the JSF with no tested DAS, no tested HMD

What are you talking about? EO DAS has had hundreds and hundreds of hours of airborne testing! I think the HMD has too but can't be bothered to go look it up.

The HMD has 'night display issues' that are fixable apparently.

raptor2005 wrote:

Right now, we're paying $100 million+ for the JSF

The latest quote for the LRIP4 F-35A jets was in the $125 million (with engine) range. This is still less than the FY2009 F-22 (last year purchased). Given that the F-35 is still in the LRIP stage, the price will go down considerably. The new FY2012 docs are due out later today will give us a more accurate picture based on the new SDD schedule and fixed cost pricing structure.

raptor2005 wrote:

with no tested DAS,

The EODAS is flying in the latest jets and has been delivered with it's final Blk3 production software. Not only that, but it has hundred of test hours in airborne labs, CATB, and in the F-35 itself.

raptor2005 wrote:

no tested HMD,

Really? You might want to let the pilots know that as they seem to be using it just fine.

raptor2005 wrote:

and less than half its software developed.

Most of the combat software is done. The majority of what is left is maintenance tracking and combat mode enhancements. Besides, we are not going to combat with the jets being built today. We are still in SDD.

raptor2005 wrote:

Let's also add to that the fact that the so-called "affordable" F-35's pricetag was made up off of a projected (here's that "wishful" word again) build of thousands starting with a ramp-up that isn't happening until years later, and its projected (there it is again) price now is about $90 million, and that figure is assuming a build of OVER 2,500 aircraft that noone can afford!.

How else would you estimate a price but on what you need and think that you will buy? If it were not for the worldwide economic crisis that we are all in there would not be as much pressure on the F-35 and it's costs.

raptor2005 wrote:

Let's also add the fact that the entire F-35 capability "envelope" has been trimmed, cut, and hacked to pieces to satisfy weight, cooling, and airframe limitations, to satisfy EACH of the Service's requirements.

How else do you make a Joint aircraft. If each service got it's own distinct aircraft the price would be a heck of a lot more than what the F-35 is and the three SDD programs would also have cost more.

raptor2005 wrote:

But anyone hyping the F-35 price versus the F-22 price is as simplistic and blind as Gates, because the JSF doesn't have a price to speak of, and WON'T have one for at least another 5 years!.

Not true. The LRIP4 jets have been contracted and they cost less than the F-22 while it's still in LRIP. Btw, when that LRIP4 jet comes off the line it will have a better A2G (the F-35's primary mission) than the F-22 has today.

raptor2005 wrote:

So, while we know an F-22 costs circa $120mil a pop for a WORKING, DEPLOYABLE aircraft, and we know the F-35 costs off-the-line about $100Mil+ with no deployable capabilities to speak of,

The latest price for an F-22 is $150 million (not $120) in 2009 dollars.

raptor2005 wrote:

the simple question is this: How can ANYONE continue to make the argument of price or capability or maintenance costs of F-35 as a PLUS over the Raptor?

Because they are not myopic and are looking at what the F-35 will be when it is service, not what is is today while still in SDD.

raptor2005 wrote:

I don't know the answer to that either, but apparently Gates can just continue to fire managers, order "restructures", make up arguments against the F-22 (I don't care either way what he thinks of its cost - When war breaks out, the F-22 is gunna be holding the F-35's hand, guiding it safely through enemy airspace, AFTER it takes out the SA-whatever sites and the SU-30s, Pak Fas and J-20s that the F-35 can't handle), and throw billions of dollars more into a fighter program that is MUCH more about "sell,sell,sell" than it is about what really matters: taking the time to develop the best STRIKE aircraft the world has ever seen, without having to make up stories about its (I agree, it's expensive, but...>>>) FAR MORE CAPABLE "brother," on the back of which the JSF was built!

Hardly. The F-35 was designed for any theater of operations. The only time that the F-22 will be "needed" is against the most heavily defended areas in China or Russia. Do you really think that will ever happen? So, for the other 99.999% of the foreseeable operations the F-35 will be just fine.

raptor2005 wrote:

A few more notes: Why doesn't the F-22 have a helmet-mounted site? Because it's not finished yet! (supposed to leverage off of F-35) -

Wrong. It does not have it because it was removed as a cost savings measure. This is why the I and others say that a traditional "Spiral Development" program for the JSF could end up with a less capable fighter.

raptor2005 wrote:

Why doesn't F-22 carry more air-to-ground weapons? Not because it CAN'T, it wasn't deemed necessary because the F-35 was supposed to be ready!

Wrong again. When the F-22 was developed the F-35 was nowhere in sight. Remember the half-hearted F/A-22 naming scheme? They tried to tout the F-22's A2G in order to get it past congress but removed the name once it got started. The F-22 (as produced) was never meant for A2G.

raptor2005 wrote:

Why doesn't F-22 carry IRST?... Because it doesn't NEED it - You're locked up and being hunted down before you hit IRST range!

Wrong again (aren't you getting tired of this?). It was removed as a cost savings measure (seeing a pattern here)? They did have it developed (called the AIRST) and there is still space in the wing roots for it. IRST is not only used for search functions but also to verify identity of targeted aircraft in order to use you missiles at BVR ranges. As the enemy capabilities grow the need to cut back on radar and the need for IRST will grow.

raptor2005 wrote:

Why does F-22 have Supercruise and thrust-vectoring?... Because it will have to take out the 4th++ and 5th Gens the JSFs/F-16s/F-18s can't handle...

It supercruises in order to cover larger areas of sky better and to provide a smaller IR target for enemy missiles & IRST to track.

raptor2005 wrote:

Why does the F-22 even carry SDBs and JDAMS?... Because it can strike dangerous, far-away targets UNDETECTED so aircraft like the F-35, F-16, etc. don't have to, because they won't and/or can't!

It has those because they realized that congress wanted to cancel the F-22 earlier and they needed to give it a new mission in order to justify it's cost.

raptor2005 wrote:

What is the ONE capability that all F-35s will have that present F-22s do not - an EOTS/DAS; a system that has already been explored to allow the F-22 to attack ground targets; and no doubt the F-22 would do it at least as well as an F-35.

The F-22 can never carry as much internal weapons as the F-35 (can only carry a 1000lb bomb vs the F-35's 2000lb capability) and the F-22's MLD will never match the EODAS in functionality (it's too small).

raptor2005 wrote:

And when the F-35 is finally READY... Then bring 'em on-line and retire the oldest workhorses. This is just COMMON SENSE, Gates...Look it up! Mad

That is what they are doing. Nobody is trying to put LRIP F-35s with Blk 1 software into combat.

I also noticed that you forgot the one thing that the F-22 does not have that in no way can be linked to the F-35...cheek arrays for the radar. Yet again, another victim of cost cutting measures.

raptor2005 wrote:

When war breaks out, the F-22 is gunna be holding the F-35's hand, guiding it safely through enemy airspace, AFTER it takes out the SA-whatever sites and the SU-30s, Pak Fas and J-20s that the F-35 can't handle)

What exactly will those planes do to stop the F-35? The Flanker would be as good as dead. The PAK, from what we know/speculate has some hurtles to over come despite the possibilty of better raw performance - avionics and RCS, the F-35 has those. And we don't even know anything about the J-20 really.

This page and my eyes are not friends right now...

exorcet wrote:

raptor2005 wrote:

When war breaks out, the F-22 is gunna be holding the F-35's hand, guiding it safely through enemy airspace, AFTER it takes out the SA-whatever sites and the SU-30s, Pak Fas and J-20s that the F-35 can't handle)

What exactly will those planes do to stop the F-35? The Flanker would be as good as dead. The PAK, from what we know/speculate has some hurtles to over come despite the possibilty of better raw performance - avionics and RCS, the F-35 has those. And we don't even know anything about the J-20 really.

please give me your source of the PAK FAs RCS

Last edited by aaam on Feb 16, 2011 - 02:35 AM; edited 3 times in total

Good Riposte Spudman, I might add a few other details.

The IRST originaly planned for the F-22 was a variant of the AN/AAS-42 developed for the F-14D-- that same unit is on the AL-1, and is to be used on the F/A-18E/F and F-15Cs. It was removed for cost reasons, and because in the past, USAF has not been much of a believer in electro-optical for air-to-air, including IRST. In fact, early on in EMD, USAF seriously considered dropping AIM-9, claiming that no one would ever get close enough where it would be needed. Fortunately, they sobered up. The AN/AAS-42 can see and track targets a loooong way away. An F-22 supercruising at 60,000 feet or so is going to be a warm object against a really cold background. At lower levels, the background won't have as much contrast, but the Raptor will be even warmer. IRST is definitely going to pick it up. The Raptor is incredible, but it's not invisible.

There are no plans to use the F-35's HMD and cueing system on the F-22. The unit in the F-35 is custom and is intimately integrated with the F-35's systems. It is so a part of the aircraft that the F-35 doesn't have a HUD. In fact, the flyaway price of the F-35 includes the HMD and system, whereas with other aircraft a Helmet Mounted Cueing System is an add-on at extra cost. My understanding of the reason that F-22 doesn't have a helmet mounted cueing system is that there are some issues mapping the F-22's cockpit. Although it will work in just about anything else, JHMCS won't work on the Raptor. When ATF was designed, the importance of this technology wasn't realized, and later USAF was once again saying it wasn't needed because no one can get close (and they weren't that concerned with a/g systems). Now, with so few F-22s being built, it's questionable whether anyone would be willing to spend the money to develop a custom HMCS for Raptor.

Regarding a/g, F-35 has greater flexibility in stores mounting, its avionics are superior in this role and boasts a larger bay. In fact, with a new launching system (which may never get funded), in the air-to-air role it has been estimated that an F-35 could carry 1/3-1/2 more AIM-120s and twice as many JDRADMs, if the expected size of the latter holds. Of course, this is not to say that an F-35 is a better fighter than an F-22 just because it has a bigger bay. BTW, although it turned out that the development helped everybody, one of the main motivations for the development of the SDBs was to enable more weapons to be carried in the F-22's relatively small bay.

Thrust vectoring is there because Lockheed want to have more pitch controllability at higher AoAs. Note that the F-23, which also exceeded the specification for maneuverability did not use thrust vectoring. Another benefit of thrust vectoring is that you an trim the a/c in supercruise without having to deflect control surfaces, which helps stealth.

A final note: The F-35 is unfairly blamed for the cancellation of the F-22. It is true that it was repeatedly stated that the F-35 offered capabilities that would be more needed in the future than pure fighters, but there's a deeper reason that the F-35 got brought up in that context.

The F-22 had lost its political support and was deemed vulnerable by the power players in Washington where power and status is all. If you can kill the AF's #1 priority, clearly you are the baddest SOB in the valley, and that's what it's all about. A oft used tactic manifested itself again. You claim Big Savings by killing the near term project, and proclaim you're a Hero. However, you also say you're fully cognizant of our national security needs and "prove" it by saying how much you support this other, even better, system that is coming in the future. The cost of developing that is somewhere down the line and is someone else's problem. If by chance you're still there when the future time arrives you just change your position when the bills are due, which is what's happening to the F-35.

kristianisme wrote:

please give me your source of the PAK FAs RCS

An Indian MOD chap let the figure slip to a journalist, it's said to be around 0.5 sq meters.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/01/ ... -next.html

I don't think anyone, and that includes the (often delusional) Russian fanatics thinks it's going to be on par with the F-22 with regard to RCS levels. I've certainly never seen anyone claim it.

:: Message removed by moderator, user blocked - This type of tone is not what we want on this forum ::

It really is difficult to be civil in a fact-based argument isn't it... *sigh*.

No need to get grouchy... if someone says something wrong, just disprove them rather than ranting.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 Pie in the Sky