Forum: F-35 Lightning II

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Quote:

Any numbers are speculative, but cutting 400 F-35As from the Air Force's projected total of 1,700 would leave a fleet of at least 1,300—more than enough to deal with most likely threats. This would free funds to build at least 150 more F-22s, bringing their numbers close to what the Air Force has long argued is needed to ensure a viable Raptor force. It would also provide U.S. military leaders with the "high-low" mix of F-22s' air superiority and F-35s' ground-attack superiority that was envisioned in the 1990s. Lawmakers should then demand an independent, comprehensive study of how much it would cost to keep the plane in production, perhaps at the rate of 10 per year.

F-16.net Sponsor

Hardly the worst article of its type, at least it is honest about the fact that producing more F-22s would result in a large net loss of airframes for the Air Force.

That said, it is still a perfect example of an article that is essentially factual while being extremely misleading.

For example you could say that a Suburban can carry more than an Explorer and that therefor the Suburban is what families need. It is factual to say the Suburban can carry more, but that doesn't necessarily do anything to support the argument that it is worth paying more for one.

Turning to the article:

"Sophisticated air defenses are a growing threat to American fighters. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, among others, are developing and fielding integrated air-defense systems, including interlinked radar sites and advanced surface-to-air missiles such as the S-400. The lower operational ceiling of the F-35 (around 40,000 feet) and its subsonic cruising speed means it will be at much higher risk in attempting to penetrate such heavily defended airspace.

The F-22 was designed precisely to fight and survive in such environments—as attested by its 60,000-foot operational ceiling and supercruise (cruising at plus-mach speeds without afterburners) ability. "

Now it is factually accurate to say that air defenses are becoming more sophisticated. (As has been the case since the first air defenses...) It is also factually accurate to say that the F-35 is optimized to fly lower and slower than the F-22.

What the author has not managed to support is his assertion that the F-35 would therefor be at "much higher" risk. He also states that the F-22 was designed to fight and survive in that environment, which is true, while neglecting to state that the F-35 was ALSO designed to fight and survive in that environment.

The F-35 was ALWAYS the strike optimized fighter of the two. It was only out of desperation that the Air Force began trying to add a strike capability to the F-22 in an attempt to justify the procurement of more airframes. If sophisticated air defense networks are your fear, then the F-35 is the plane for you. People need to get the idea that there is a single "best" fighter out of their head. The best fighter for a mission depends on the mission. If you want to kill enemy fighters then there is no beating an F-22. If you want to do almost anything else in a high threat environment then there is no beating an F-35. If you are in permissive airspace then Predators, A-10s, AC-130s, B-52s and so forth are great at what they do.

Well I can tell you the Raptor can kill things the JSF can't (air AND ground). Underestimating the need for air superiority is a bad idea. I unconditionally support the need for more Raptors. At the expense of F-35's? Ideally not, but I forsee dark times ahead for that aircraft anyway. Might as well call it a "trade" for more Raptors and at least get something out of the INEVITABLE cuts in the total buy.

I am not sure trading is a good idea. I am also not sure staying with under 200 F-22's is a good idea. We need the airframes, and more of them. But our economy sucks right now. It would be self defeating to borrow more money from China to build more planes and then pay them back with interest so they can build even more of their own. We're stuck in mud, and we've yet to come up with a way to get out.

Flyboy22, while I will cede the air domain to the F-22, it can't hold a candle to the F-35 in A2G.

1. The F-22 has no FLIR so positive ID of a target is impossible.

2. The F-22 has no laser designator so pinpoint accuracy is impossible.

3. The F-22 has to use it's radar so going active is needed to attack a target. Also, because the radar cannot track targets under, behind, or to the sides of the F-22, it's choice of targets is limited.

4. The F-22 only has two different A2G bombs, the 1000lb JDAM and the SDB. The F-35 carries a larger variety of A2G munitions, both internally and externally.

I agree with the jist of the article. The F-35 buy will almost certainly be cut, so why not use the current numbers to bargain for more F-22s? At least then we'll be assured of having a working 5th generation component in case the F-35 turns out to be a dog.

Not gonna happen though because it would lose Lockheed money and the USAF would rather fly a POS than lose seats for officers to make their beans in.

Growth in sophisticated air defenses and the rapidly dimishing advantage of stealth are big threats to any fighters. See: http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... 4534.aspx, "Airborne detection of stealth aircraft may have already been accomplished in a series of tests done at Edwards AFB, Calif. in the second half of 2009. Those with insight into the research say Lockheed Martin?s CATbird avionics testbed ?a 737 that carries the F-35 joint strike fighter?s entire avionics system -- engaged a mixed force of F-22s and F-15s and was able to target the F-22s."
Anyone notice how short the service life was for the F-117?! I'm assuming it was retired early because of the growth in air defense sophistication. Similarly, I don't expect we will maintain the stealth advantage for much longer.

Quote:

Growth in sophisticated air defenses and the rapidly dimishing advantage of stealth are big threats to any fighters. See: http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... 4534.aspx, "Airborne detection of stealth aircraft may have already been accomplished in a series of tests done at Edwards AFB, Calif. in the second half of 2009. Those with insight into the research say Lockheed Martin?s CATbird avionics testbed ?a 737 that carries the F-35 joint strike fighter?s entire avionics system -- engaged a mixed force of F-22s and F-15s and was able to target the F-22s."

I wouldn't place too much value in that. Stealth is always advantageous when compared to non-stealth fighters. Even if an F-22 can be detected by an enemy radar, it still would be more difficult to combat than something like an F-15.

Stealth planes like the Raptor have to edge over every other fighter in the world as of today in their ability to sneak through (or around) enemy radars and attack unsuspecting targets before they're aware of its presence. As enemy radar and IR devices become increasingly sophisticated, all that does is allow them to detect stealth aircraft at increasingly greater ranges. And although an F-35 or an F-22 might not get through a future radar network undetected, both still could evade SAM threats much more effectively than if they had a significant RCS. While they may eventually lose the ability to launch a surprise attack because of future radar developments, their low electronic signature would still remain an effective defensive measure.

Quote:

Anyone notice how short the service life was for the F-117?! I'm assuming it was retired early because of the growth in air defense sophistication. Similarly, I don't expect we will maintain the stealth advantage for much longer.

The F-117 wasn't shut down exactly for that reason, as it was expensive to maintain and because the Raptor was coming into service. The AF believed if they shut down the F-117 early, that they could get a good jump on bringing the F-22 online. That's why earlier raptors were F/A-22's, as they were intended to replace the nighthawk in their stealth precision-bombing role.

The only way that the F-22 would be taken out of service is if something better comes along, or if an air superiority fighter no longer makes any sense in maintaining control of the skies. Neither of these possibilities are likely to happen anytime soon.

uranus - as battleship beat me to it, the F-117s claimed reason for early retirement was as a calculated sacrifice so to speak, to prop up the argument and voice for reallocated funding to be directed at F-22 instead, as means to cover that interim steath strike capacity.

1st503rdsgt - well said and perceptive analysis. It would definitely be a clever chess play at this point and arguably overdue by a couple years (while the argument can at least still be exploited), to propose 'Trading' back-end F-35s (the mythical F-35 program budget is already a bank account of sorts to tap into... and will increase as such going forward). So basically yeah, call the bluff of the still officially expected number of F-35s planned, why not. It can't be had both ways, right? Therefore, it definitely could be worth a shot... i.e., to trade back-end F-35s for front-end F-22 continuation (btw, one proposal in fact made by enthusiast F-22 supporters in past). This is of course, based on the full understanding in reality that no such magical F-35 Program budget exists or will be anywhere close to fully funded (kinda like Social security). Unfortunately.

hobo -

Quote:

It was only out of desperation that the Air Force began trying to add a strike capability to the F-22 in an attempt to justify the procurement of more airframes

In fairness, that might be a slight revision of 'what the Air Force began' with, in regards to F-22 procurement. Recall, the F-22 'began' as a multi-mission Air-superiority and airspace penetrator, per initial procurement statement. Then, as it was suddenly realized by DoD that AF procurement budgets would not be sufficient to support both initial F-35 procurement and continued F-22 procurement to the required air-superiority numbers assessed, the F-22 procurement statement was modified as an 'air-dominance' platform. Perhaps the continued 'Air-superiority' designation would have confused Congress as the F-35 would by default need to become an air-superiority to justify it's plan, who knows. Either way, the F-22 was always designed and designated to be MULTI-MISSION, including penetration.

Would AF give it superior mud-moving capes in future via hanging next-gen Litening SE pods in a centerline or wing station? No, there would be better platforms for ground attack. But clearly, there could have been plenty of growth just the same, during the later lots planned for... for upgrades providing expanded multi-mission capabilities as required in future.

Regarding the article's points... a more realistic and likely starting point for a fully funded F-35A acquisition will unfortunately include at best, something more like 40 F-35A units procured per yr by USAF.

While even this annual procurement rate will probably be unsustainable though, given the estimated reduction in DoD buying power and real reduction in budgets near/mid-term... if 10 F-22s were somehow procured annually as part of a revised mix... only around 25x F-35s could be procured with the remaining combat aircraft procurement budget and number which would surely explode the APUC to numbers DoD and industry would probably not want to see publicly discussed. imho.

I'm not a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal (not at present anyway) so I can't read the full article, but I'm not sure the author takes into account the costs of restarting the F-22 production line (and producing ten Raptors a year doesn't impress me either).
It seems like a fair trade on the surface - more F-22's for a slightly reduced buy of F-35's (and I'm a fan of more F-22's) but the devil is in the details. I for one agree with Tinito_16 that continuing to add to the deficit would be tactically unwise. I'm very skeptical of this idea (much as I would love to see more F-22's produced).

You can read the article by searching for its title on news.google.com

Great tip Hobo THANKS! Thumb

Here's a direct link for anyone who's interested (I'm too lazy to cut and paste the whole article at the moment) see
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Spud,

If I am not mistaken Flyboy22 is just that, an F22 pilot. If that is the case, I konw he would be limited to what details he could disclose, but I would certainly believe his impications before most anyother psuedo-experts on this forum.

These arguments in favor of more Raptors at the expense of the F-35 have been made before and have fallen on deaf ears. I don't see why the outcome would be any differrent today, PAK-FA , J-20 factored into consideration.. the F-35 is Gates' baby after all.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

WSJ: Reduce F-35 Buy, Build More F-22's!