Forum: Program and politics

Well, from my point of view, i think the F-35 will be a very promising plane and even though it has a weight issue's(lmao: sounds funny), im sure Lockheed martin will figure out something. But i was just curiouse to hear everyones perspective of the F-35, either pro's or con's or even both will be nice.

F-16.net Sponsor

In my humble opinion, I think the F-35's capabilities and people's perceptions will change once it's in service. Right now, there appears to be a lot of pressure to de-emphasize the air-to-air capabilities of the plane. This may be because the USAF doesn't want the F-35 to be seen as a possible replacement for the F-22. Limiting the air-to-air abilities of the F-35 is not a big deal for the US if the F-22 is built in large numbers (far from certain), but it is a bigger deal for other possible adoptors which may have to rely exclusively on the F-35, like Canada or Australia. I wouldn't be surprised at all if these countries are being given more information on the F-35's air-to-air potential capabilities than the US general population which might otherwise pressure congress to cut the F-22.

LM and the USAF both have a vested interest in understating (or at least not focusing) on the A-A potential of the F-35 at this time.

Michael

I agree completely. I think the USAF is trying to make it look like the F-35 is not as good as the F-22. I really think the are more equal to each other A-A wise than the AF is letting on.

The JSF should rival the Raptor in A-A but it won't get quite the same long AMRAAM shot due to lower normal altitude & airspeed. Despite that, it should be better BVR than virtually anything else forseeable. WVR it will probably perform similar to a Viper - excellent but there will equals.

I would have to agree that it's A-A capability is not being advertised because it could threaten the Raptor in some areas.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

The F-35 will be significantly less capable than the F-22 in a/a. No supercruise, higher RCS, increase IR signature, lower t/w ratio, less manoeuvrable, fewer missiles, smaller radar, etc..

It will be much less dominant in a/a, although probably better than anything else because of its stealth.

Not as less capable as you are implying. I worked with the one of the test pilots on a deployment - he was the one who said it's systems will be better than the Raptor. They're ten years newer - designed in late 90's+ vs. late 80's. They're just beginning to talk about "spiral" upgrading the Raptor to get the newer things in it eventually.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

That might well be true. I believe if I remember well, that the F-35 radar will have new MMIC components.

However the radar dish of the F-35 is smaller. I believe the AF is looking for a range of 150-200 km for the radar of the F-35, which is well under the specs of the APG-77.
The range of the newest radar of the F-16 - APG-80 -, is probably not higher than that of the 30 years old F-14A. So the size of the dish makes a big difference.

As for supercruise, IR signature, RCS, t/w ratio, manoeuvrability, number of missiles, I don't see how the F-35 can match the F-22. Put together, all these characterisics are synergic.

Last edited by agilefalcon16 on Apr 24, 2005 - 07:48 PM; edited 1 time in total

psychmike wrote:

This may be because the USAF doesn't want the F-35 to be seen as a possible replacement for the F-22.
Michael

This sounds very similar to what the F-16 had to go through while it was under development. The USAF didn't want the F-16 to be seen as an low-cost alternative to the F-15, even though the 16 was still more maneuverable.

Exactly. Not to bash the Raptor, I love it, but lets say they upped to flyaway cost of a new JSF to 70-75mil from the supposed 50 they say it will cost. Another 20-25mil in upgrades in manuverablity, weapons, and RCS could put it on par with the -22. Plus you can buy more of em because it's not 130 million a jet. Just my Two Cents

.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

You have to compare what's comparable. The 130 million is not the flyaway cost, it's the cost of the aircraft with spares and everything. So you can't compare that to the flyaway cost of the F-35.

And the price of the F-22 should go down :
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2005/0205raptor.asp

and the cost of the F-35 should be close to 100 million everything included ( R&D + production will cost around 245 billion for 2500 aircraft ).

Compare the unit price of a production of 1000 raptors with a production of 1000 F-35s and the difference is much less that some might believe.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Ok, my bad, the 100-130 million is the flyaway cost.

If the production costs about 40 billion for 277 aircraft, that puts the unit price, all equiped to 150 million.

And that doesn't take into account that the most expansive ones to produce are the first ones. After the first 180 which are going to be produced anyways, the price may be even lower. Add to that an increased production which would reduce the price even more.

So everything taken into account, from what I understand, it would make sense to compare a unit cost of 100 million for the F-35 to about 150 million for the F-22 - everything included.

That's a difference of 1.5. Take into account that the F-22 can make more sorties because it's faster, that it's a better fighter, more survivable etc.. the 2 are close in terms of cost-efficiency.

I tend to agree with psychmike. I too would not be surprised if foreign investors knew more than the general population. But I dont think either plane the F-22 or the F-35 negates the need for the other.

-Aaron

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

I doubt the F-35 will be able to make interception over enemy airspace. The F-22 with its supercruise in excess of M1.5, superior stealth and lower IR signature, can do that.

It can shoot down anything that takes off, which makes it almost impossible for the enemy to mount effective strikes or air defense sorties.

However, over friendly territory or once air dominance has been achieved, the F-35 would be able to do pretty much the kind of mission I guess..

I have a single concern about the F-35 and that is weapons carrying ability. My sources may be old or outdated, but I heard the plane will only be about to carry 4 JDAMs inboard. This seems like an awfully small number of bombs to be carrying. The smaller number of bombs means more sorties required per day to equal what current aircraft can do now. More sorties means more maintenance and more time on the ground and fewer possible sorties. I don't have much experience in this so I wouldn't know very well, but this just came to mind.

I agree with you LordOfBunnies, the weapon carrying ability is too small but to increase the weapons capability will maintaining stealth and performance will make the price go through the roof. That is why i would prefer them to reduce RCS work on the F-16 Block 60 and some how decrease the price.

Forum: Program and politics

Overall perspective of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter