Forum: General F-35 Forum

A post by river otter in the Japanese F-35 procurement thread made a lot of sense to me. Among other things, he said: "But since you still can't really fight a stealth fighter, even with another stealth fighter, it makes very little sense to keep spending a lot of money on fighting the Law of Diminishing Returns to try to kill enemy stealth fighters you'll only wind up failing to kill anyway. You can simply go around an air superiority fighter and kill whatever it was protecting if it can't see you either. If it was protecting its airfield, you might just kill it without ever seeing it, too."

Obviously, that is a bold assumption, but for argument's sake, would the following not have been better path forward for US air power:

Would the multi-hundreds of billions sunk into the F-22 and F-35 programs have been more efficiently spent on hyper-sonic, sub-orbital or low orbit strike craft (manned or un-manned) that could launch and hit targets world-wide with precision weapons in less than an hour (quicker yet if they are already in a low orbit) and then be recovered for additional later use? I envision this as being the next (6th generation) strike aircraft leap. No matter how stealthy or advanced the 5th generation fixed wing fighter/bomber is, if its base can be targeted from CONUS launch points and blanketed by precision weapons very quickly and at times/intervals of our choosing, wouldn't that 5th generation craft be near obsolete? Or at the very least so vulnerable on the ground, that its airborne stealth would be functionally obsolete? Additionally, wouldn't this capability render even the best threat SAMs obsolete for the foreseeable future. Certainly what we know about LO construction attributes could have been incorporated into these 6th generation craft as well.

With this question, please consider:

1) There is no doubt that we could have had this capability by 2020 if it had been robustly pursued from the beginning of the F-22 production timelines. In fact, if the R&D funding that was sunk into those 5th gen programs been allocated to this capability, it's likely that the earliest of these game changing systems could be coming on-line now.

2) There is zero doubt that we could have survived until 2020 with our 4 and 4.5 gen fighter fleets. With only 183 F-22s and the late IOC date of the F-35, we are basically doing that anyway.

3) Won't even the most advanced threat 5th generation planes in the world be rendered totally obsolete when we eventually do develop this strike capability?

Of course in reality, the problem is that so much will have been spent on the F-22 and F-35, that funding, not technology will push this capability decades farther into the future than would have been the case if we had made it the priority from the 90s on. Have we wasted billions on aircraft that will stealthfully do essentially what their predecessors could do, when for the same money, we could have made a leap equal to moving from prop-driven aircraft to jets?

F-16.net Sponsor

I think people vastly underestimate just how hard it would be to put aircraft like that into service. That kind of research has been done for a long time but things are just not to that point technologically yet. If we were NASA or someone else would have an operational space plane by this point.

Are you certain the US does not have comparable effective global strike capability already, minding we might choose not to apply undisclosed silver bullets until the stakes merit? Regardless, if sunk costs from F-22/-35 development transfer to UCAVs efficiently (I believe they do), why not spring forward to unmanned platforms and reduce variable costs (labor and SAR "benefits" e.g.)? The dark US plans are presumed ten-plus years ahead of current announcements. And the big reason isn't always the enemy, sometimes it's due to the power of the affected labor force.

Look at the long term trend in the current RMA (the one that is related toreconnaissance strike complexes).

Add that to cyberwarfare.

In the end, whoever controls space and cyber wins because the only way systems like planes, ships, and AFV's , their support system and their bases etc. can survive is to be have the enemy RSC neutralized.

This is what the US is doing but they don't talk much about the space stuff and the nature of the US RSC.

The Chinese are building their own RSC to try and keep the US out of the Western Pacific.

You can see some of the proposals like Air Sea Battle. Instead of putting the APA boy, Keyon, anti-F-35 crowd favorite super interceptor (which doesn't exist) on the carriers the proposals are for the USAF to hit the Chinese airbases or for SSGNs to hit them or hit the Chinese ISR assets. I believe Air Sea Battle also calls for the carrier planes to his the air and seaborne assets.

When you look at what's being written you can see that the experts seem to believe that an affordable CVBG cannot survive in the face of an intact RSC.

So, if it's all about RSC vs RSC it seems that we need long range bombers, lots of missiles, space bombers etc.

Now, what happens when the enemy figures out that the only way to hit the US RSC is to hit CONUS? I haven't read anything about that but it seems like that kind of thing starts to get into nuclear threshold issues.

How the Chinese feel about having their homeland based RSC pounded by US strike systems is something else I haven't read about.

In terms of the US making it without the 4th gen, upgraded 4th gen or 5th gen, that's not the point. These systems serve a deterrent effect when they are not being "used."

My own opinion is that the US and China both have nukes. So, that means no war unless some ridiculous miscalculations are made. They both have to posture for various reasons but neither side is going to go for decisive superiority because it would cost too much.

The systems that will be used are the ones we have and they will be used in COIN, Libya type stuff, and possibly an Iran+ scenario ie an Iran level foe with better SAMs, a better RSC.

In the latter scenario the 5th gen should be quite good. For the COIN, cheap stuff would be fine. For Libya type stuff a few US silver bullets aiding certain countries who appear to treat their military procurement as jobs programs is fine.

One point that should be made is that as the US share of world GDP decreases, the US' ability to unilaterally handle a variety of scenarios will decrease. That's why I would predict the US will end up with under 1000 F-35's total. We can't be everywhere and do everything. We'll end up with enough to handle one Iran+ or, with other systems deter a move against Taiwan but not both at the same time.

Luckily, the US has allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia. We should also get close to India.

So, to answer your question, maybe we would have been better served with ditching the 5th gen and going for CONUS based systems to serve the national RSC. But, that would be like saying scrap all battleships and cruisers in 1920 and only build carriers and AA/ASW escorts because in the future that's how we'll fight. Militaries don't work that way.

bigjku wrote:

I think people vastly underestimate just how hard it would be to put aircraft like that into service. That kind of research has been done for a long time but things are just not to that point technologically yet. If we were NASA or someone else would have an operational space plane by this point.

I'd concur with that. And good point about NASA too. It sounds like a valid 'do-over' option, but probably would have been more of a well-intended wild dream -- a highly risky one though, to have gambled on such a scheme which would have required 100s of such hypersonic sub-orbital platforms to have been mature, reliable, cost-effective and entering IOC by 2020 to begin replacing F-15s, F-18C/D and F-16s. Although, alternatively, I'd think having the one single X-37 in operation today is a good indication of what serious high-end multi-mission capabilities could be provided given sufficient investment in next-gen science and tech.

But where I think redbird has an intriguing idea, is that such a hyper-sonic, suborbital platform (manned optional) might arguably be an alternative for a consolidated NGB-NGAF requirement? Such a concept would probably come in at less combined R&D budget and could be procured in higher numbers than would otherwise be with a stand-alone NGB acquisition?

I think that it is the bomber after the next bomber that will be hyper-sonic/sub-orbital. There are immediate needs that need to be filled for the next 20 years while hypersonic's mature. I don't think it is realistic to see a hypersonic bomber/fighter until you see hypersonic weapons make widespread service.

velocityvector wrote:

Are you certain the US does not have comparable effective global strike capability already, minding we might choose not to apply undisclosed silver bullets until the stakes merit? Regardless, if sunk costs from F-22/-35 development transfer to UCAVs efficiently (I believe they do), why not spring forward to unmanned platforms and reduce variable costs (labor and SAR "benefits" e.g.)? The dark US plans are presumed ten-plus years ahead of current announcements. And the big reason isn't always the enemy, sometimes it's due to the power of the affected labor force.

Some good points so far. As for the above, I wonder myself. I'd like to think that rather than sinking money into continuous cost-overruns for the F-22 and F-35, that maybe some of that money is actually going to such a program. That would be really smart. Of course, I'd also like to think our government is smart enough not to divulge the method used to track Bin Laden within hours of his death (the couriers). That it was just a story to cover the real method used. But I don't. That's a totally unrelated example, but it emphasizes how poorly we keep secrets now, which is why I believe there is no such "black" capability at present.

If you think the cost to jump from Generation 4 to 5 is costly and unpredictable how do you think a direct jump to 6 would be? Times 10 is my guess, but perhaps achieved on half the time it now may happen.

geogen wrote:

IBut where I think redbird has an intriguing idea, is that such a hyper-sonic, suborbital platform (manned optional) might arguably be an alternative for a consolidated NGB-NGAF requirement? Such a concept would probably come in at less combined R&D budget and could be procured in higher numbers than would otherwise be with a stand-alone NGB acquisition?

Not a chance at all. You're talking about inventing something all-new with technology that doesn't exist yet for a flight regime that we have little experience in. There's no way it could possibly be either as cheap or ready as soon as a plane that's made from known established technology (from F-22, F-35, and drones) for a very familiar flight regime.

The spaceplane type stuff is expensive but what about a subsonic or bi or tri sonic LRSB vs the F-22 and F-35?

I'm not sure 'more bang for the buck' via orbital or suborbital delivery is possible at today's technology level, if you mean an efficient and low cost way of delivering weapons. Here's Elon Musk talking about the problem:

Why Make Rockets Reusable:
http://youtu.be/3B5av0BOajU

Why Is Making A Reusable Rocket So Difficult?
http://youtu.be/IIVCCaYWGpk

Also, consider the costs associated with the space shuttle. It worked, but was extremely expensive and small problems can lead to catastrophic failures due the pressures and temperatures involved.

Redbird.... You got to to stop listening to river otter as he isn't thinking through the problem clearly. He forgot why the F-35 has a spherical infared remote sensor system for a reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

As for a hypersonic bomber forget it, the technology isn't there yet which is why the X-30 was cancelled.

alloycowboy wrote:

Redbird.... You got to to stop listening to river otter as he isn't thinking through the problem clearly. He forgot why the F-35 has a spherical infared remote sensor system for a reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

As for a hypersonic bomber forget it, the technology isn't there yet which is why the X-30 was cancelled.

I didn't say it was there now. I was asking if we had started in the 90s and spent the money on it that we spent on both ATF programs, could we be there by 2020?

redbird87 wrote:

alloycowboy wrote:

Redbird.... You got to to stop listening to river otter as he isn't thinking through the problem clearly. He forgot why the F-35 has a spherical infared remote sensor system for a reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

As for a hypersonic bomber forget it, the technology isn't there yet which is why the X-30 was cancelled.

I didn't say it was there now. I was asking if we had started in the 90s and spent the money on it that we spent on both ATF programs, could we be there by 2020?

Possibly, but at very high risk and likely not being able to adequately recapitalize the F-15, F-16 and F-18 fleets with numerically sufficient replacements.

I'd support a joint-developed X-craft R&D Program however... similar to the apparently successful X-37 Program... as a potential future, next-gen (not yet fully appreciated) capability which could be effectively exploited and adapted into the force structure.

The answer is still no because there are still too many pieces of the puzzle missing espically on the materials size. Perhaps with some of the break throughs in nano-technology we might gain some more pieces. Check out the X-51 and you will see what I mean.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

More Bang For the Buck?