Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 431

Quote:

Let's put it this way. There are many reasons the USAF wants more F-22s. Buying 183 F-22s after spending almost $40 billion on its development is wasteful to say the least.

No money..

Quote:

The promotion of multi-role capabilities of the F-22 is a way to sell the idea on increasing the buy or rather to sustain the 20/year production indefinitely which is actually very likely IMHO.

Increasing the a/g capabilities of the F-22 contradicts the idea of the JSF. They know that, so they give the F-22 just enough capabilities that it doesn't comprimise the F-35s. But the F-22 could have almost the same a/g capabilities with minor changes. What cannot be carried internaly can be carried externaly, possibly in stealthy weapon bays. Not to say that the F-22 could do EVERYTHING the F-35 could, but it would be damn close. Think of the F-15.. The F-15C had less a/g capability than the F-16, but the F-15E has better capabilities that the F-16C.

And if you take into account UCAVs, which carry the same ordnance as the F-35 and that caoul be controlled by F-22s, you start to wonder whether F-35s are needed at all.

Quote:

The main ones being its superior sensor suite and its much larger weapon bay. Let's assume that the S-400 battery has an effective radar range of about 450km vs an F-16 at high altitudes. It'll have approximately a 56km range against an F-35 and roughly 40 km vs an F-22. That is the key.

Why do you need 2 different types of aircraft and thousands of them to deal with that? An S-400 system costs a hell of a lot and any enemy would have only a handfull of them.

There's always been sams, and there's always been ways to deal with them. Gulf war.. 57 aircraft were lost in 100000 sorties against a supposedly formidable IADS.

Quote:

In the end, I believe that the USAF will eventually buy F-35s and F-22s at a 3:1 ratio. Which is roughly the manufacturing cost ratio. That is roughly 1,100 F-35s and roughly 400 Raptors.

You're very optimistic..

btw, the F-22 would never cost 3x more than the F-35. The 250th F-22 is expected to cost around 100 million, with the price probably continuing to go down after that, and the F-35A will probably cost 70-80 million (fly away if production rate is reduced).

But in any case cancelling the JSF now is probably too late.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

dwightlooi wrote:

elp wrote:

Granted that is for us with a dual team. A JSF only user has some work to do if they want to take on more modern IADS by themselves.

Here is his bio...
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5213

Let's put it this way. There are many reasons the USAF wants more F-22s. Buying 183 F-22s after spending almost $40 billion on its development is wasteful to say the least. The USAF wants the overwhelmingly dominating A2A capabilities of the F-22 in addition to the merely clearly superior one of the F-35. They have always maintained that they want at least 380 of these jets regardless of what the Rumsfeld pentagon wants to cut it to (be it 277 or 183). The promotion of multi-role capabilities of the F-22 is a way to sell the idea on increasing the buy or rather to sustain the 20/year production indefinitely which is actually very likely IMHO.

This is not to say that the F-22 cannot drop bombs. It can. It can carry about half as heavy a bomb load as the F-35 which is still good enough for most non-hardened targets. It can also fly about 75~80% as far as the F-35 which again is good enough for most missions. It doesn't have EOTS or DAS and it does not have as integrated or as advanced an sensor suite, but that is not strictly speaking essential.

However, the argument that the F-22 is needed to deal with double digit SAMs is a hardsell. It is a hardsell because performance is not the key factor here, stealth is. If you had to rely on performance to evade a Mach 4~5 missile with a 400km range (eg. the S400), Mach 1.7 cruise and a Mach 2 top speed is not going to help too much. What you need is the ability to deny these batteries the ability to find and/or target you well into their missiles physical envelope and pop a weapon at them. For this purpose, the F-35 has considerable advantages. The main ones being its superior sensor suite and its much larger weapon bay. Let's assume that the S-400 battery has an effective radar range of about 450km vs an F-16 at high altitudes. It'll have approximately a 56km range against an F-35 and roughly 40 km vs an F-22. That is the key.

Now, before anyone starts the "F-35 has narrow band stealth" argument again, let me just repeat this. IT IS A COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED HYPOTHESIS. I can just as well say that the F-22 is narrower band whereas the F-35 is wider band. Why? Because I think so. That is no more and no less unsubstantiated.

In the end, I believe that the USAF will eventually buy F-35s and F-22s at a 3:1 ratio. Which is roughly the manufacturing cost ratio. That is roughly 1,100 F-35s and roughly 400 Raptors. That'll cost roughly the same amount of money as 1780 F-35s and 183 Raptors. The Navy and marine corps will take another 750 or so, bringing the F-35 total to about 1850 for the USA. Exports will bring the F-35's number well past 2500. The F-22 will also eventually be exported to select customers who want and can afford it. Maybe 80~120 units in export tops. That is how I see it all playing out.

Yeah... one of the top fraggers doesn't see it quite that way though now do they? Rolling Eyes

The topic the general was pointing to was survivability. The reason of preference of the F-22 for going through a stiff IADS was the fact that there is less of a chance of it getting aquired. That is what is being put across. With the F-22, in that respect, you get what you pay for. There is no substitute for that kind of enhanced survivability. We are also not going to be stupid enough to export top drawer L.O. technologies. Hence JSF, which is not.

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 909 Status: Offline

Viperalltheway wrote:

Increasing the a/g capabilities of the F-22 contradicts the idea of the JSF. They know that, so they give the F-22 just enough capabilities that it doesn't comprimise the F-35s. But the F-22 could have almost the same a/g capabilities with minor changes. What cannot be carried internaly can be carried externaly, possibly in stealthy weapon bays. Not to say that the F-22 could do EVERYTHING the F-35 could, but it would be damn close. Think of the F-15.. The F-15C had less a/g capability than the F-16, but the F-15E has better capabilities that the F-16C.

And if you take into account UCAVs, which carry the same ordnance as the F-35 and that caoul be controlled by F-22s, you start to wonder whether F-35s are needed at all.

Adding EOTS/DAS, adding the same fusion processing and pilot interface, adding external stealth pods, etc. are not minor changes. You are looking as half the F-35's development costs to boot. And you'll still have a aircraft that is more than three times as expensive to build, more expensive to maintain and which require much more service time per flight hour. Plus, you still not be able to lug 2,500 lbs ordance in the internal bays. And you'll still not fly as far as the F-35.

The fact is that 183 Raptors, or 400 Raptors or 600 Raptors alone are insufficient to fill the USAF's order of battle. Thats not enough airframes to go around. We need 3~4 times as many. We are not France or Britain. Besides, the F-35 serves the needs of the marines (LHD/LHA ships) and USN from the 12 supercarriers. The F-22 does neither.

Viperalltheway wrote:

You're very optimistic..

btw, the F-22 would never cost 3x more than the F-35. The 250th F-22 is expected to cost around 100 million, with the price probably continuing to go down after that, and the F-35A will probably cost 70-80 million (fly away if production rate is reduced).

But in any case cancelling the JSF now is probably too late.

No, I am no more optimistic than the current procurement plans for both aircraft. Getting about 1100 F-35s and 400 raptors will cost basically the same amount of money as getting 1780 F-35s and 183 Raptors.

I think you are confusing between total costs and production costs. The F-35 is currently estimated to cost $48.5 million each including R&D and production costs. The R&D costs (at the expected volume of 2500 units) is ~$16 million each. That puts the F-35's production costs at roughly $32.5 million. The F-22 has a total unit cost of ~$311 million each assuming we build only 183. If we build 400 it is estimated that each will cost ~$198 million. Thats total cost. The currrent production cost for the F-22 is estimated at $103 million each.

In otherwords, if we buy 2000+ F-35s (total) and 183 raptors, the total cost ratio between the two is 6.5:1. If we get about 1100 F-35s and 400 Raptors the total cost ratio is approximately 3.5:1. But, if we speak only of production costs (ignoring R&D that is already sunk) the F-35 costs about 1/3 as much to build as the F-22.

elp wrote:

Yeah... one of the top fraggers doesn't see it quite that way though now do they? Rolling Eyes

The topic the general was pointing to was survivability. The reason of preference of the F-22 for going through a stiff IADS was the fact that there is less of a chance of it getting aquired. That is what is being put across. With the F-22, in that respect, you get what you pay for. There is no substitute for that kind of enhanced survivability. We are also not going to be stupid enough to export top drawer L.O. technologies. Hence JSF, which is not.

Uh... what do you expect him to say? The F-22 sucks or that it is not better than the F-35 but we want more? The fact is that IT IS BETTER in some ways. It is faster, it is more capable as an A2A platform. The F-22 is also STEALTHIER -- as in it has a smaller RCS (est 0.0005 vs 0.0014). But the F-35 is more than capable enough in A2A and has superior A2G capabilities. The RCS difference equates to a detection range reduction of about 30% vs the F-35 (using the standard logarithmic model). Or, more importantly the F-35 offers an ~88% reduction in detectability vs the F-16, whereas the F-22 offers a ~91% reduction. You can also get three F-35s for every F-22 based on production costs alone (forget R&D which is money already spent).

just to bring this back to the original subject

As i see it, it's about the budget.
You have x amount of money for the AF, x mount for DoD total.
So you want x number of F-22's and X number of F-35's
Fine. you have x $ to play with.
Keep in mind you still have to pay for maintenance and dupport for existing airframes, as well as the pay of you people and their pensions.
Not enough money??
Ok, tell me where you are going to get the money to buy it?
Which program do you want to cut?
Oh and forget about the International aid, a million dollars of international aid will yield greater results than 10 F-22's ever will.

Mal68 wrote:

just to bring this back to the original subject

As i see it, it's about the budget.
You have x amount of money for the AF, x mount for DoD total.
So you want x number of F-22's and X number of F-35's
Fine. you have x $ to play with.
Keep in mind you still have to pay for maintenance and dupport for existing airframes, as well as the pay of you people and their pensions.
Not enough money??
Ok, tell me where you are going to get the money to buy it?
Which program do you want to cut?
Oh and forget about the International aid, a million dollars of international aid will yield greater results than 10 F-22's ever will.

Yeah. Lets keep burning up cash on foreign aid. Maybe we will be more liked. Laughing

dwightlooi wrote:

Uh... what do you expect him to say? The F-22 sucks or that it is not better than the F-35 but we want more? The fact is that IT IS BETTER in some ways. It is faster, it is more capable as an A2A platform. The F-22 is also STEALTHIER -- as in it has a smaller RCS (est 0.0005 vs 0.0014). But the F-35 is more than capable enough in A2A and has superior A2G capabilities. The RCS difference equates to a detection range reduction of about 30% vs the F-35 (using the standard logarithmic model). Or, more importantly the F-35 offers an ~88% reduction in detectability vs the F-16, whereas the F-22 offers a ~91% reduction. You can also get three F-35s for every F-22 based on production costs alone (forget R&D which is money already spent).

Why would one want 3 times as may JSF to F-22? JSF does not have superior A2G capabilities.... when you put an operation forth that has to penetrate first line IADS ( Integrated Air Defense Systems ). The stealth is no usable comparison because not only the big question mark on what threats JSF can really take on, but also the fact that JSF isn't even all aspect stealth, F-22 is. Also to gauge A2G ability by bomb load alone or sensor fit alone doesn't always get it either. Look at a typical Allied Force scenario where bases are closer to the enemy. Here F-22 beats JSF hands down on first nights of the war strategic targets. How? Sorties per day. F-22 super cruising in bursts to and from the target will spend less time going to and from the target. F-22s will be returning at a good clip after hitting their first targets while JSF is still headed toward their first. A quick turn at base a la hot pit refueling/rearming with a fresh pilot means F-22 is back in the air again going to hit more targets..fast. In this case forget the stock A2A model. The enemy has to stop this craft from killing off ground resources. Good luck. Based on a scenario above, F-22 can kill more strategic targets per day. For that kind of scenario, breaking an IADS big threats fast won't even require JSF. Another thing.: The 4 hardpoints on the wing haven't even been explored. Granted we don't know wing life yet. But that didn't stop us from using other aircraft in the past to where wings had to be rebuilt. Those 4 hard points are rated at 5,000lbs each. This means if someone chose to do it and saw a need for a first nights effort. F-22 could carry 8 JAASM-ER with a twin rack on each hardpoint. F-22 brings more to the fight on stiff IADS. That is: winning the war with far less risk and killing off big threats fast. After things are beat down some, I am sure there will be plenty of work for JSF. I would prefer JSF for most CAS and battlefield interdiction. However also don't rule out the following. Again... for emergency CAS... the GFAC or JTAC only cares about one thing: Response time. 2 F-22s orbiting in a JSTARS stack one with 2 JDAM-38 or 32... and another with 8 SDBs will respond quicker to a 911 call from a JTAC faster than anything we have in the inventory. JSF can't even match that. Which brings up another point that generals are missing: The wrong idea that F-22 couldn't contribute much to Afcrapistan or Iraq as it is today. Not only the slick ISR stuff, but for 911 calls out of the JSTARS stack when someone is screaming for help. The fastest first responder is the F-22. Considering it takes 400k or more and a few more hundred thousand to process death benefits for a KIA ground troop. Fast 911 response makes sense. End of story. Do I want F-22 doing all CAS? No. It can contribute though. So saying that another jet is better than F-22 in A2G misses a lot of points. F-22 has some limits, but for the things I mentioned, F-22 contributes well.

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 909 Status: Offline

To put it simply, you want three times as many F-35s compared to a given number of F-22s because you can get more firepower at more places that way. If the USAF didn't embark on the F-35 program and simply buy additional F-22s it'll have another 590 of them. With the F-35 program it gets 1780 F-35s for the same amount of money. 590 F-22s cannot do the job of 1780 F-35s -- they cannot kill as many things as quickly and cannot be in as many different locations. And this is not to mention that the Navy won't get their F-18 replacement and the Marines won't get their AV-8 replacements.

As far as F-35's stealth is concerned, it is (simply put) good enough to enable it to out detect, out shoot and out kill anything in the air or on the ground. And that is good enough. The F-35 is not as stealthy from the rear as it is from the front, the same is true of the F-22 even though the difference may be less pronounced in the later case. Both aircrafts are significantly stealthier than legacy jets even from the rear. You also get a superior internal payload capability, similar total payload and superior range in the F-35. Plus, you get a superior sensor package in the F-35 and the next generation pilot interface.

Well, good for the Navy or Marines or anyone else. As for the USAF, it could get by and save a lot of cash, if it didn't buy any JSF. We don't just secure airspace. We provide airlift, the tanker bridge, space systems and other things. We don't fly off of carriers...and unless the STOVL JSF is funded for USAF, we won't even do a STOVL/VTOL only bare base. So what is the point of USAF buying JSF?

This just in... Because USAF has to penny pinch and draw out programs like the idiotic idea of stretching C-5 engine upgrade purchases out to 2020... Shocked

Now the C-5 engine upgrade is in severe risk of getting killed. As it is now it is headed to the schoolmasters office ( congress ) to announce it is a bad boy and has to report on itself for going over 15%. It was supposed to have a ceiling of $11 billion. Expect $15billion if we are lucky. Instead of getting this done with urgency it where it would cost less... because of the cost of raw materials and labor... making it a long drawn out program is putting it at huge risk and more cost. Gee. Could have used that extra $4billion doing something else. Now because our budget is so stretched because of the money pit known as Operation: Useless Dirt... there is no way we will keep cost down on JSF because it is climbing .....also.... congress trying to draw it out instead of pay for it.
The C-5 re-engine and avionics upgrade program is the canary in the coal mine. If we can't keep cost down on a simple program like that, you can only expect more hurt in the near future.
It is also gross stupidity that the SOJ mission for B-52 went dumb. E-10... unless you want to see NCW stagnate, is desperately needed. We are all about better network nodes and sensors.
We have to get new tankers at a faster rate. One: Because our theater airlift is dieing off.... and two because these tankers will be network nodes for NCW...
( 2006 MC rates for C-5A=49% and for C5B 66%)
Right now USAF doesn't need to be bringing in another gold plated shooter airframe. For it's own good, USAF needs to get out of the JSF program. As F-22 production gets to it's 183 number it will be about $110 million each. Even lower if we get to the 380 some number. And even better if we work out to 500. Again once large IADS threats are down, we can do the rest of the job with legacy aircraft. However we need F-22 in numbers to keep a lid on the Pacific Rim. Keep F-16 in some kind of block 6x, 7x form in production.
I would like to have JSF in USAF..... if we can pay for it. The checkbook now.... considering all the other war winning logistics and support systems we need... is showing USAF can not afford JSF. Yes it is that serious. It is time that USAF started only worrying about itself instead of what some contractor or other service is going to do. We desperately need those other systems I mentioned above at a faster rate. I don't like what I am writing here, but those are the cold hard facts. The checkbook is really low.
Current events being the case and the fact that we are going after JSF and paying for stupid ill advised expeditionary warfare at $319 million a day, expect to see a whole lot of other important programs go into fallow. USAF is under the fantasy that they can pay for aircraft recapitalization by downsizing the force. We are reaching the limit of that downsizing so they won't be able to go to that well much longer. The PowerPoint warriors tell us there will be about $15 billion in "savings" for every 10,000 in personnel dropped. Problem is that we are doing so many real world taskings right now that they are all out of people to cut. There will be little adjustments here and there of certain specialties in the tens or hundreds... but unless the USAF starts refusing taskings or eliminating some taskings wholesale, I don't see it. Another dumb thing. Out of the 32,000 or so USAF personnel in the ME, 7,000 of them are doing Army like taskings. Gen TMM would have to tell me why we even need those people. If I was to cut manpower, I'd shave 7,000 right off of that. That just shows me USAF knows how to waste manpower having it do something else that isn't even in our mission set. And I am supposed to believe these guys that they have a sensible long range plan? We are too busy deciding that the service dress uniform needs a circle around the U.S. insignia like it did pre 1991. I could save some money in HQ right now by pulling anyone that had anything to do with thinking up new uniforms. The message from the top is 2/3rds good. The first of the 3 things top leadership wants done though... Number 1 is: "Win the war on terrorism". Laughing

That all by itself is 4th generation warfare. USAF will do it's job, but it has little control of the war on terrorism. USAF is a set of tools in the toolbag, not a creator of national policy.So stressing that to a young enlisted troop seems short sighted at best. And yes... all this has to do with the JSF because everyone is going to pay for this thing, for better or for worse. It isn't a bad jet. It isn't even a bad program. Well run even. However unless we find a new revenue stream, USAF is going to be sucking air and killing other war winning systems/platforms either by neglect or out right cuts.

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 909 Status: Offline

Well, ~700 F-22 was not deemed enough airframes. That was why the plans for about 2000 F-22 + F-35s was even drafted to begin with.

As far as the pacific rim is concerned, the USAF's position is that the F-35 is good enough to ensure superiority over ANY Russian or Chinese threat. The F-35 was designed to accomplish EVERY mission the F-22 is able to accomplish. The difference is merely in the degree of superiority it offers. The judgement was that the F-35 is superior enough to ensure highly favorable loss ratios vs any aerial or surface adversaries. Probably not as overwhelmingly favorable as the F-22 when it comes to A2A missions, but nonetheless superior enough to ensure that the enemy will lose 3 to 6 of their most advanced fighters for every F-35 loss in A2A combat. That is good enough. On the other hand, having three times as many airframes allow for a much better war fighting ability.

The Rumsfled pentagon wanted the F-22 to be no more than a tiny fraction of the USAF. More like a 10 F-35 to 1 F-22 buy ratio. However, I believe that the USAF will eventually purchase the two at roughly 3:1 buy ratio (~1,100 F-35s to ~400 f-22s). This will be achieved with an annual production rate of ~20 F-22s and ~60 F-35s on average over the next 15 to 18 years starting from ~2010. This is my opinion and I may be wrong. But I think it is a very reasonable prediction based on what the USAF is trying to do.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1021 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

[The currrent production cost for the F-22 is estimated at $103 million each.

My God that changed fast...where did you get that number. Lot 5 F-22's are being delivered now at a fly away cost of $136.6 Million.

Check

If it is as pilot friendlly, and survivability in a combat scenario is what I've heard, then its is worth every penny.

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 909 Status: Offline

checksixx wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

[The currrent production cost for the F-22 is estimated at $103 million each.

My God that changed fast...where did you get that number. Lot 5 F-22's are being delivered now at a fly away cost of $136.6 Million.

Check

Lockmart projected last year (before the budget decision) that F-22 unit costs for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 as $127, $111, $108 and $103 million respectively. Since we are comparing it to F-35 production, I believe that the last and lowest figure is most appropriate. They also projected a cost target of $83 million per plane for long term sustained production if at 24 aircraft per year.

Well, let's just hope that all the success the Raptor has achieved in Alaska and Nevada will convince congress to do just that.

dwightlooi wrote:

Lockmart projected last year (before the budget decision) that F-22 unit costs for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 as $127, $111, $108 and $103 million respectively. Since we are comparing it to F-35 production, I believe that the last and lowest figure is most appropriate. They also projected a cost target of $83 million per plane for long term sustained production if at 24 aircraft per year.

Thanks for those figures DW.

>Yeah. Lets keep burning up cash on foreign aid. Maybe we will be more liked.
- ELP -

Nothing to to with being liked.

How much are we spending in Afghanistan now?
How much would it have cost to fund a rebuilding program after the soviets pulled out in the 90"s?
Thus preventing the conditions that led to the taliban to gaining popularity.
An event that would have denied Al-Queda a place to train after they were forced to leave Sudan.

Think of Foreign aid as seed money.
Properly directed you can guide events that will happen 10,15,20 even 50 years in the future by creating the infrastructure.

Think Marshall plan after WW2.

Anyways, it OT

My point was that the AF was given a budget and it has to live with it.
Within that budget which program are you willing to zero out in order to pay for the F-35.

My vote is to kill the ABM program.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Bad news for the F-35 - US DoD budget hits JSF