Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Why there is no alternatives to the F-35.

Recently several well know aviation journalists through themselves under the bus when they asked the question, “Are There Alternatives To The F-35 Program?” As you might imagine this lead to the sound of much head slapping as those even vaguely familiar F-35 program collectively slapped their foreheads in disgust at the stupidity of the question.

Why was this question so ridiculous? Well the answer to this question is manifold.

There is no doubt a lot more reasons why the question, “Are There Alternatives To The F-35 Program?” is a dumb one but I will let the F-16.net members fill in the gaps. Thanks for the help!

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/July/Pages/F-35fact2282.aspx

F-16.net Sponsor

The choice is easy - F-15. Smile

You can keep your composites, thanks. With metal you get holes. With composites, you lose the whole damn structure (an over-simplification, but you get the idea).

Best regards,
TangoShadow.

You the man Cowboy. Your like a Cowboy sniper, hit that nail on the head with one shot and one kill. Good work, I didn't want to say all that.
Cowboy Cheers

TSFG

Pretty provocative thread really. And tangoshadow has the more accurate answer to the question.

Indeed, a late model F-15E+ would enable the most immediate term equivalent capability and provide the most equivalent deterrence value of an F-35A, albeit sooner (and more affordable).

geogen wrote:

Pretty provocative thread really. And tangoshadow has the more accurate answer to the question.

Indeed, a late model F-15E+ would enable the most immediate term equivalent capability and provide the most equivalent deterrence value of an F-35A, albeit sooner (and more affordable).

If the USAF ordered them this coming Monday, they wouldn't be ready any sooner than the F-35; which, incidentally, is already in production (at a higher rate than the F-15 line? Dunno for sure). Who knows though; if there's no money for the F-35, then there's really no money for anything.

@geogen....The F-15 is great fighter jet. Unfortunately, as mentioned above it has a very large radar cross section approximately the size of a barn door. Also it is not really designed for large volume production considering it has been in production for approximately 30 years with only ~1200 aircraft being manufactered. This puts the production rate at ~ 40 aircraft per year which is roughly the same rate as the F-18. As mentioned above the F-35 is already at 30 aircraft per year in low rate production.

Since I know the subject of F-16 production is going to come up I will adress it out right. According to Amy Butler at Aviation Week the F-16 is being produced at a production rate of 18 per year with each aircraft requiring 30-36 months of cycle time including orders of the longest-lead parts. Also note that Isreal just payed 70 million dollars per aircraft for their F-16I's.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/09/19/AW_09_19_2011_p35-369836.xml&headline=null&next=10

alloycowboy - agree with everything except production rates. There where years where well over 100 F-16s where produced and close to 100 F-15s where produced. It's not that they cannot be built faster its just that the lower production numbers of late reflect reduced demand and stretched procurements. I am sure the same is the case for the SH. I have not doubt that all three could be built at much higher rates than currently is the case.

1st503rd: If USAF ordered 8-10 of them in FY13, they'd be delivered in FY15. Not sure what you're getting at.

And I agree with alloycowboy with respect to 8-12 F-15E+ not being a sufficient stand-alone annual procurement rate.

Naturally, a high-end multi-mission platform procured in relatively low rates such as an F-15E could be supplemented with late model F-16s.

A $4bn annual combat aviation Procurement budget (USAF) would procure far more operational 4.5 gen jets over the next 6-8 yrs than pre-mature LRIP F-35 mistake jets.

Even under a split acquisition... say 10x F-35A LRIP jets, plus 8 F-15E+, plus 12 F-16+ units... such $4bn would do much more for interim national defense, maintaining deterrence and recapitalization than merely staying the course.

Thumper3181 wrote:

alloycowboy - agree with everything except production rates. There where years where well over 100 F-16s where produced and close to 100 F-15s where produced. It's not that they cannot be built faster its just that the lower production numbers of late reflect reduced demand and stretched procurements. I am sure the same is the case for the SH. I have not doubt that all three could be built at much higher rates than currently is the case.

However, only the F-35 has a high capacity manufacturing facility ready to go at this time/near future. As I understand, the F-15/F-16 lines would require extensive expansion to make 200 or more aircraft per year; but like I already said, it might not matter anyways if the money just isn't there to buy anything at all. Even if they are forced to cut way back on numbers, the development money has already been spent; so if the USAF has a choice between a paltry number of F-35s and a paltry number of F-15s/F-16s, they'll probably still go with the F-35 in hopes that the financial situation eventually improves (it has to sooner or later).

Quote:

The choice is easy - F-15. Smile

You can keep your composites, thanks. With metal you get holes. With composites, you lose the whole damn structure (an over-simplification, but you get the idea).

Best regards,
TangoShadow.

Holes as far as what? When I was in Iraq we had an Apache (sn 205) that was shot in just the right place by a higher caliber round (12.7mm) and the holes were patched, but cracks in the SHEET METAL started walking up the bulkhead. The bird had to be sent back to Boeing. Our rotor blades are composite honeycomb on the inside and when rounds went through them, we were able to patch the holes and fly the aircraft until brand new blades arrived. The armor is ALL composite and saved many pilot's lives and withstood multiple heavy caliber hits. Now the Army is about to switch to ALL composite blades which are lighter, stronger, generate more lift, increase speed, have a WAY longer service life and require less maintenance. Why is that?

Actually F-16 production is a really interesting subject because they were built on so many different production lines. See chart:

http://www.f-16.net/fleet-reports_article18.html
(Kudos to ever made that chart, it's great!)

Stephen Tremble over at flight Global says F-16 production peaked at 15 aircraft a month.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-epic-f-35-production-ramp-up-to-draw-upon-toyota-airbus-for-327178/

Just thinking about it, I think approximately 30 aircraft for LRIP V is just the right amount as it will place just enough stress on the production line for Lockheed Martin to shake down all the process and procedures while still allowing the manufacturing engineers to tweak the systems.

we need stealth, and the avionics of the 35/22. NOTHING ELSE will suffice. No matter how pretty you make a mudhen it is still non survivable in modern iads.

30 combined variants for LRIP V is not sufficient to fulfill USAF's specific recapitalization requirements, btw. And this is not solely about FY11 (LRIP V), or FY12, or even FY13 anyways. What VADM Venlet is implying here, is to plan for significant reduction over the rest of delayed LRIP production, or at least until FY16 when SDD should be completed.

And as he suggests, there is a real probability that even when 'fixed', the jets might not be affordable. Definitely prudent to keep all avenues and plans in fast-track mode.

deadseal wrote:

we need stealth, and the avionics of the 35/22. NOTHING ELSE will suffice. No matter how pretty you make a mudhen it is still non survivable in modern iads.

I agree with that eventuality sir, but until USAF has the first couple block III operational F-35A squadrons achieving delayed IOC, AF recapitalization requirements would include making normal, regular stopgap procurement in the interim. USAF is requiring X number of new build modern jets to be delivered to recapitalize a greater number of older jets being retired.

If said interim replacement jets aren't F-35A as originally expected though, I as a tax payer support giving USAF pilots the most capable 4.5 jets they can be equipped with for the remainder of this decade, until such a time when mature F-35 platforms can finally achieve operational unit status.

And if it's ultimately decided that F-35 is simply not affordable for partners and even US procurement requirements, then that doesn't exclude USAF requiring an all-5th-gen AF, it simply adjusts the schedule to include a more viable follow-on design.

geogen wrote:

1st503rd: If USAF ordered 8-10 of them in FY13, they'd be delivered in FY15. Not sure what you're getting at.

8-10? You gotta be kidding me. Is that really all they could do? The F-15 is apparently an even worse option than I thought. We have more F-35s than that right now. Does anyone know how many F-35s will be flying in 2015? By that time, they'll probably be doing everything the F-15E can, and could probably be pressed in service early if needed (as the F-15E once was). Of course, I'd be more interested in how many F-15Es would be available in 2018. You know... as DIRECT comparison with the F-35, which you always seem to avoid when extolling the virtues of the F-15.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Ask a stupid question, get thrown the under "bus".