Forum: General F-35 Forum

river_otter wrote:

jeffb wrote:

smaller RCS

One of the most important engineering considerations ever is to heed the law of diminishing returns. The F-22 is stealthier than it needs to be for any practical purpose. If the enemy can't see you until they're dead, you're stealthy enough. That seems to be the F-35's design point. Being a little bit more invisible than that costs a lot more money but makes no actual difference.

Another valiant attempt but RCS isn't an absolute it's relative, especially when comparing two combat aircraft that depend on it for survivability. Based on power output of the respective radars and published RCS values the F-22 can see the F-35 at around 20nmi, the F-35 can see the F-22 at around 10nmi, making for a significant illustration of the relative values of the aircraft's RCS.

river_otter wrote:

jeffb wrote:

better IR management

You know this, how exactly? The F-35 has higher bypass, one engine rather than two, that engine buried much deeper inside the airframe, and is transsonic rather than supercruising so will generate much less skin and compression heating. Other than a flat nozzle and a suspicion of some internal countermeasures that have never been revealed for either plane, the F-35 may well have the superior IR management. I don't know either way, and you don't know either way. And it's largely irrelevant anyway. If you can't see either plane on radar, you won't get close enough to see it on IR either.

You got me, I don't know that it has better IR management absolutely. I do know that, as you alluded to above, that the F-22 was 'over-engineered' to be as stealthy as possible given the state of the art at the time and as a result the aircraft was given thrust vectoring which not only gave it impressive post-stall maneuver capability but also reduced the size of the engine outlets and hid them from IR detection from most aspects. It is an assumption that the IR management is more effective than the F-35s but an assumption I'm happy to go with until someone can show me different. Skin friction and it's affects on the aircraft's detectability are valid points but the F-22 driver doesn't have to be supersonic till it suits him so you can't assume that he'll be hotter than your average F-35.

river_otter wrote:

jeffb wrote:

Superior altitude, dash and maneuver performance.

No. Larger numbers for various performance stats. That's all you know. "Superior" is a value judgment which you can't possibly have the data or operational experience to back up.

Really? The F-22 has the performance parameters it has because it was designed to be an air superiority fighter. If you think that those numbers have no relevance in an air to air fight or don't reflect the aircraft's ability gain and maintain a tactical advantage over an opponent I'd say you're deluding yourself.

river_otter wrote:

Besides, much more important stat:

F-35 (A,C) internal 2,000 lb. JDAM capacity: 2 (actual)
F-22 internal 2,000 lb. JDAM capacity: 0 (actual)

One of these days someone is going to explain to me why a 1000lb bomb is "too small". Given that they will both be more likely to be carrying SDBs why is this a more important stat?

river_otter wrote:

jeffb wrote:

Wouldn't a more realistic comparison look at how much has been spent so far for the given number of airframes and compare them on that basis?

Yes, let's compare a program still in LRIP with a program that finished. Very realistic comparison. The A-12 for example has an infinite per-airfame cost. And it had an infinite per-airframe cost from the instant the first RFP was photocopied, remaining infinite until the program was cancelled. ($0.01 / 0 planes = infinity) Had they built just one, just one, the cost per airframe would have dropped by an infinite amount to a large but finite number. So no, your equation is irrevocably broken. The correct equation to compare is ($cost to design and debug / value of intended asset) + (($build cost per plane * #planes built) / #planes actually needed) - ($cost to design and debug / value of intended asset).

Actually any number divided by zero is undefined. The limit as the denominator approaches zero is infinity but as 0.1 airframes isn't much use as a comparison of capability, one airframe would be the smallest logical number of airframes one could consider realistically. As long as we restrict the discussion to aircraft that have made it to prototype stage we won't have a problem. Fortunately both the F-35 and F-22 have reached this stage.

As an aside, selecting a design that has no examples seems a strange place to start for discussion on a comparison of capabilities, but an exellent place to start if you want to find an excuse for not doing the comparison. I'm intrigued by your 'value of intended asset' variable too. How exactly do you assign a value to that? Do you just make up an 'intended value'?

Last I heard the F-35 was going to have eleven LRIPs after which at least two hundred aircraft will have been built. Which means, from my point of view, that as far as comparing directly the money spent for airframes built the F-35s compared will always be LRIP models. If you take LRIP out of it you can't make any comparison at all because the F-35 has not/will not/may never reach FRP or at least won't till 2017(?) and until then any comparison (by your approach) would be impossible.

Which brings me back to the fairest comparison we can make which is for money spent so far versus airframes built so far. If one of the comparison aircraft is still in development after spending the same amount of money as the completed other aircraft then I think that just highlights 'issues' with the development process/goals for that aircraft, don't you? Indeed it's hard for anyone to deny that there have been issues with the development of the F-35. There were issues with development of the F-22 as well but they've all been sorted within the amount of money spent so far.

F-16.net Sponsor

The F-22 may see the F-35 at 20nm.. but the F-35 could see the F-22 at 40nm with EOTS. Wink

Interesting theory Spudman. I'll guess we'll have to wait and see.

Quote:

2. Poor planning for future upgrades (IIRC they have to completely rewire the pre-blk35s to get AIM-120Ds and 9x to work, new computers, etc)

True, it was never intended as part of the acquisition plan to kill block 35+ procurement at 84 +/- units. And it's arguably a prudent reason why not to prematurely kill a required acquisition, when unintended costs and engineering will be required to artificially modernize earlier blocks (being potential mistake jets too) to a later block capability in order to help close the gaps.

Quote:

3. Poor planning for basic avionics (no FLIR, HMD, IRST, etc)

Fair point, and no question that USAF and DoD bit off way more than they could realistically chew in terms of planning simultaneous F-22 and JSF development, acquisition and simultaneous incremental/block upgrades. This original plan and envisioned requirement (severely miscalculated) was simply never sustainable from the start. One can only imagine also how F-35 FRP will ultimately be restructured, as well as how follow-on block upgrade schedules will be restructured, in order to fund UCAV, possible NGB and other needs of the day while under increasing austere budget environments.

Quote:

4. Limited internal size issue (nothing larger than a 1k JDAM)

This shouldn't be an 'export' model deficiency per se, as the F-35B will be limited to such weight class as well.

Quote:

5. Added expense of not-to-rugged RAM

Perhaps an export version didn't require the same RAM requirement?

Quote:

6. Wing stress & OBOGS issues

Absolutely an Air Force and LMT issue to urgently identify and rectify.
.

Quote:

9. At least twice as expensive as the F-35 at FRP.

This is clearly a flawed and premature conclusion to draw, as nobody knows what the eventual FRP unit Weapon System cost will be, let alone how drastically the annual rates will be reduced while under FRP. Try taking USAF's estimates in FY04 and FY05 for FY09 and FY10 F-22 Procurement for example (unit weapon system costs estimated to be very cheap, even under $100m) and then compare with today's estimates for eventual F-35 FRP cost estimates. It's completely speculative at this point.

SpudmanWP wrote:

The F-22 may see the F-35 at 20nm.. but the F-35 could see the F-22 at 40nm with EOTS. Wink

And escort the F-22 with a tactical-configured F-15E+, equipped with large aperture IRST and next-gen Sniper SE pod... and see F-35 at 50nm +?? Wink

So now the F-22 needs an escort??

ROFLMAO

Thanks, I needed that Smile

SpudmanWP wrote:

The F-22 may see the F-35 at 20nm.. but the F-35 could see the F-22 at 40nm with EOTS. Wink

Uh ??
How do you know that ?

It's an educated guess based on the known ranges at which the SniperXR (the EOTS older brother) can view images.

Here is a shot of downtown Las Vegas at 36nm. As you can see it is quite clear and easily recognizable. Also keep in mind I said "could" instead of "can" or "will".

geogen wrote:

And escort the F-22 with a tactical-configured F-15E

A clear candidate to the "statement of the year" award Wink

jeffb wrote:

Another valiant attempt but RCS isn't an absolute it's relative, especially when comparing two combat aircraft that depend on it for survivability. Based on power output of the respective radars and published RCS values the F-22 can see the F-35 at around 20nmi, the F-35 can see the F-22 at around 10nmi, making for a significant illustration of the relative values of the aircraft's RCS.

This just shows why your comparison is so meaningless. You don't even recognize it.

Hint: The F-22 will not be fighting the F-35. The F-35 will not be fighting the F-22.

Even the F-35 will already see the MiGs, Sukhois, Chengdus, and SAM sites they will be fighting long before the MiGs, Sukhois, Chengdus, and SAMs will see the F-35. Hence, making the F-35 stealthier than it is doesn't make it any deadlier against its actual opponents. And it's already been stated the F-35 went way past its RCS specs, so even those estimates are probably understating the F-35's range advantage.

jeffb wrote:

river_otter wrote:

jeffb wrote:

Superior altitude, dash and maneuver performance.

"Superior" is a value judgment which you can't possibly have the data or operational experience to back up.

Really? The F-22 has the performance parameters it has because it was designed to be an air superiority fighter. If you think that those numbers have no relevance in an air to air fight or don't reflect the aircraft's ability gain and maintain a tactical advantage over an opponent I'd say you're deluding yourself.

Again, you missed the point. The F-35 was not designed to be an air superiority fighter. Nevertheless, as even you admitted, it has a 6:1 (or possibly more) advantage over everything that it is likely to fight. So, why is it "superior" to have higher numbers than the F-35, when the F-35's numbers are clearly high enough by a wide margin?

jeffb wrote:

One of these days someone is going to explain to me why a 1000lb bomb is "too small". Given that they will both be more likely to be carrying SDBs why is this a more important stat?

Because there are some targets where the 1000lb JDAM or SDB is too small. You only need a few such targets (or even one very important such target) to make it genuinely important that the F-35 can carry a 2000lb JDAM. It doesn't matter how many times it carries SDBs, if it can't carry a 2000lb JDAM the few times it needs to (as the F-22 can't), then it can't do what it needs to.

jeffb wrote:

Actually any number divided by zero is undefined. The limit as the denominator approaches zero is infinity but as 0.1 airframes isn't much use as a comparison of capability, one airframe would be the smallest logical number of airframes one could consider realistically. As long as we restrict the discussion to aircraft that have made it to prototype stage we won't have a problem. Fortunately both the F-35 and F-22 have reached this stage.

So in your opinion comparing a single prototype of a cancelled program to a finished program with an actual production run is a fair comparison? That is frankly ridiculous. My point is, you have to compare programs at the same point in development, or you're comparing apples and oranges. You can either compare the LRIP F-22s (historical) to the LRIP F-35s (historical/present), or you can make a reasonable estimate of the mature F-35 and compare it to the mature F-22.

jeffb wrote:

As an aside, selecting a design that has no examples seems a strange place to start for discussion on a comparison of capabilities, but an exellent place to start if you want to find an excuse for not doing the comparison. I'm intrigued by your 'value of intended asset' variable too. How exactly do you assign a value to that? Do you just make up an 'intended value'?

What missions can you not do with existing assets? What is the cost of not doing them? How much cheaper will it be to do missions you can do with existing assets if you do them with a better asset? What is the value of assets your new design will protect and what is the improvement in odds of protecting them with a new design? Basic planning and accounting when you decide whether to pursue a program or not. A program that lets us hit new targets, hit existing targets with better probability of success, be cheaper to operate than legacy, or better defend high-value assets like carrier strike groups, may be worth quite a lot to develop. A program that duplicates existing capabilities with only a small to negligible improvement may not be worth developing even if the development would be relatively cheap.

But again, once you've spent the money to develop a new asset, that money is spent. Regardless of what you thought it was worth spending when you made the decision to spend it. So if you cancel and build 0, build 10, build 187, or build 2,400, it doesn't change that sunk cost. All that matters at that point is what it costs to build them, and whether buying more of them improves actual capabilities or just meaninglessly raises numbers.

jeffb wrote:

Last I heard the F-35 was going to have eleven LRIPs after which at least two hundred aircraft will have been built. Which means, from my point of view, that as far as comparing directly the money spent for airframes built the F-35s compared will always be LRIP models. If you take LRIP out of it you can't make any comparison at all because the F-35 has not/will not/may never reach FRP or at least won't till 2017(?) and until then any comparison (by your approach) would be impossible.

Bingo. Your point of view is wrong. 200 is not 2,400. You're off by a factor of 12. And 2017 is only 4.5 years away. Plus, you don't have to have completed the program to have a pretty decent estimate of it. It's your silly approach by which a comparison would be impossible, not mine. I'm saying take the estimated $85-105M for a mature F-35 and compare it to $140M estimated for the F-22 if they'd kept the line open. Or, idiotically compare it to "anything other than the F-35 or F-22" which means spending new development money for no increase (or even a severe decrease) in actual mission capabilities relative to the F-35.

jeffb wrote:

Which brings me back to the fairest comparison we can make which is for money spent so far versus airframes built so far. If one of the comparison aircraft is still in development after spending the same amount of money as the completed other aircraft then I think that just highlights 'issues' with the development process/goals for that aircraft, don't you? Indeed it's hard for anyone to deny that there have been issues with the development of the F-35. There were issues with development of the F-22 as well but they've all been sorted within the amount of money spent so far.

The F-35 is three planes, not one, and has vastly improved mission capabilities for the most important missions compared to the F-22. Among the design factors also making the F-35 design phase more expensive are anti-reverse-engineering strategies to allow us to improve our allies' capabilities, vastly superior capabilities against ground targets, ability to operate from other than well-prepared land bases, and design features intended to make it much cheaper to operate than the F-22. So it was worth spending more money to get those capabilities across three types of aircraft. Your ridiculousness is like saying if Ford spent $10,000,000 on developing a one-off race car for the 2012 season, that's a more sensible business decision than spending $15,000,000 on an economy car they'll sell 300,000 of a year starting in 2013.

jeffb wrote:

Nobody was going to buy F-35s if the F-22 was available

This claim seems to be where the "which is better" argument started. But it's not the claim that you actually ended up defending later down the road in that argument. For example:

jeffb wrote:

The F-22 has the performance parameters it has because it was designed to be an air superiority fighter. If you think that those numbers have no relevance in an air to air fight or don't reflect the aircraft's ability gain and maintain a tactical advantage over an opponent I'd say you're deluding yourself.

Bringing up F-22's traits that serve its purpose as a dedicated air-to-air fighter defends only a claim that it is the best air-to-air fighter, which is not the claim you started with. You've backtracked, also known as "moving the goalposts". The argument that F-22 is a better air-to-air fighter than F-35 is could very well be true while it still remained false that "nobody was going to buy F-35s if the F-22 was available".

jeffb wrote:

and the plan for cheap F-35s relied on lots of people buying the F-35.

Even without any foreign buyers considered at all, USAF alone was always going to buy enough F-35s for that. They'd still be buying enough even if their order were cut in half.

jeffb wrote:

One of these days someone is going to explain to me why a 1000lb bomb is "too small".

According to F-117 pilots flying in Iraq, when they started running low on 2000-pounders and switched to 1000-pounders, it worked in some cases, but in others, they harmlessly bounced 1000-pounders off of the targets and had to go back with 2000-pounders to destroy them.

Also, 2000 pound JDAMs aren't the only weapons that an F-35 can carry internally and an F-22 can't. That description also fits JSOW and JSM. And F-35's bigger internal spaces also allow more freedom for development of future weapons (or adapters to carry more than one weapon per hardpoint).

There actually are ways in which F-22 can carry more stuff than F-35 can. But that requires either focusing on air-to-air weapons or using external hardpoints.

Also, aside from how much air-to-ground stuff or which kinds each one could physically carry, there's the issue of knowing where to put them and getting them there accurately and confirming the results. F-22 has no laser guidance and no infra-red or electro-optical sensors for mapping & identification.

jeffb wrote:

Given that they will both be more likely to be carrying SDBs why is this a more important stat?

They're not "more likely" to carry SDBs. They're not "more likely" to carry JDAMs, regardless of size. They're not "more likely" to carry JSOW or JSM or JASSM or Storm Shadow. This isn't something they roll dice to decide.

jeffb wrote:

Which brings me back to the fairest comparison we can make which is for money spent so far versus airframes built so far.

That's not the fairest comparison, or even anything vaguely resembling it. It's pretty obviously a comparison deliberately chosen to favor the one you want to favor.

And again, this has nothing to do with your original claim, which was that nobody would buy F-35 if F-22 were available, which is actually related to the original subject of the thread here. You made one claim and have presented arguments which only really defend another.

jeffb wrote:

If one of the comparison aircraft is still in development after spending the same amount of money as the completed other aircraft then I think that just highlights 'issues' with the development process/goals for that aircraft, don't you?

No. Advancing technology makes the process slower and more expensive the later in history a program begins, and F-35 has more elaborate goals to meet.

SpudmanWP wrote:

It's an educated guess based on the known ranges at which the SniperXR (the EOTS older brother) can view images.

Here is a shot of downtown Las Vegas at 36nm. As you can see it is quite clear and easily recognizable. Also keep in mind I said "could" instead of "can" or "will".

Nice pic... and now just imagine the BVR situational awareness from your F-15E+ with long-range APG-82, next-gen Sniper SE pod + large aperture IRST as your F-35 escort too! Smile

Not a bad force-multiplier (or stand alone cape) to have... Thumb

geogen wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

It's an educated guess based on the known ranges at which the SniperXR (the EOTS older brother) can view images.

Here is a shot of downtown Las Vegas at 36nm. As you can see it is quite clear and easily recognizable. Also keep in mind I said "could" instead of "can" or "will".

Nice pic... and now just imagine the BVR situational awareness from your F-15E+ with long-range APG-82, next-gen Sniper SE pod + large aperture IRST as your F- 8 escort too! Smile

Not a bad force-multiplier (or stand alone cape) to have... Thumb

The F-35s will probably be happy to rely on their own,exceptional SA capabilities if means a stealthy ingress w ithout15SE to call attention to their presence,,specially from ground - based radar.

SpudmanWP wrote:

It's an educated guess based on the known ranges at which the SniperXR (the EOTS older brother) can view images.

Here is a shot of downtown Las Vegas at 36nm. As you can see it is quite clear and easily recognizable. Also keep in mind I said "could" instead of "can" or "will".

Well, watching a known point in the space is different than finding an unknown one.
If you know where to look at, maybe also any focalized aesa can get a return from f-22 body.
Just my guess..

geogen wrote:

And escort the F-22 with a tactical-configured F-15E+, equipped with large aperture IRST and next-gen Sniper SE pod... and see F-35 at 50nm +?? Wink

The important thing is that we don't start fantasizing about aircraft that don't exist and/or are not in production. There is no F-15E+ and no F-15 Silent Eagle in production. Either way, I'm sure the Raptor pilot would want them FAR away from him/her.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 stealth?