I have no doubt that similar arguements were made about keeping F-4's in service. When the F-15's and F-16's were in developement.

"F-35 is almost as good as F-22" is a completely unproven statement. Part two of that F-35 won't be going into any first line stiff IADS. For USAF anyway F-35 isn't needed. It especially isn't needed for the money being spent on it. USAF needs to redirect funds to other more needed items that are suffering now: people, airlift, E-10, B-52 SOJ etc etc.

We have an existing F-16 production line in full swing. F-35 costing 48.5 mil is a wet dream.

... The weight issue of CV will have to be proven. BTW the weight saving event for STOVL screwed everyone else as "common" JSF parts that were part of the original plan raised cost of production for all three types...

(1) Let's put it this way. The main difference between an F-22 and an F-35 is the higher cruise and dash speed of the F-22. Your assertion is that most of the F-22's survivability comes from that. IMHO, that is a MUCH MUCH smaller piece of the puzzle than Stealth which the F-35 has an ample amount of. If that isn't the case, then an F-15 with F-119s and a similar kinematic performance will be nearly as good as an F-22 and there will be no need for 30 years worth of Stealth research. The problem, I suspect, is that Mach 1.7 cruise and Mach 2~2.4 dash alone does not add much to survivability.

(2) I think that most critics are under estimating the kinematic performance of the F-35. There are people who like to brand it as "subsonic" or "low performance", when that is likely to be absolute rubbish. No, it won't be an F-22. But from the physical characteristics that I can see, I believe that the official "specs" claimed at this point is very understated -- just like the Mach 1.5/1.8 claim of the F-22 in SDD phase was. If I have to take make an estimate based on the airframe design, thrust and weight of the F-35, my honest estimate is that it should be an aircraft capable of about Mach 1.2~1.4 in cruise and about Mach 1.7~1.9 with afterburner. It should also be able to operate at altitudes in excess of 60,000~62,500 ft (2,500~5,000 ft higher than an F-16). The low ball estimate is Mach 1.2/1.7, 60,000 ft, which is no slouch. The high ball estimate of Mach 1.4/1.9, 62,500 ft will actually outclass a Typhoon carrying a basic A2A weapons load of wing tip countermeasure pods, 2 SRAAMs, 4 MRAAMs and a drop tank. This should be no surprise given that the 27,950 lbs F-35A with 28,000/43,000 lbs of thrust is very close to the Typhoon is power to weight/size ratios to the 24,250 lbs Typhoon with 27,000/40,500 lbs of thrust. Plus, the F-35 has the ability to fly and fight effectively with no external ordnance or fuel.

(3) The mission of the F-35 includes -- specifically -- the penetration and engagement of double digit SAM environments and other stiff IADS. There have been USAF comments that the F-22 has some additional margin of superiority in this respect, but NOBODY ever said that the F-35 is not capable of dealing with stiff IADS. In fact, General Charles Davis (PEO, F-35 program) specifically said that is designed speficially to be able to do this (quote):-

The one thing we also do not necessarily talk too much about on the F-35 is the fact that it is a day one platform in the most stressing scenarios. There is a difference in how we would attack a day one target set out there as opposed to how the F-22 would do it. Obviously we use a little bit different formation. We may even use more airplanes to go out and attack those very high value, very high threat targets. But we do have an ord requirement to be able to do those missions and right now we have no real, if you will, challenge meeting those missions. That’s where we get into how the stealth employs, how the electronic attack capabilities and different things on the airplane work.

(4) The other thing is that the money being spent on it absolutely has to be spent. If not on the F-35 then on evolved F-16s or F-15s because the teens are reaching the end of their economical airframe lives. At 40~60 million for advanced teens, replacing the legacy types with advanced teen derivatives is no cheaper than the F-35 program. With 2000+ airframes to be bought, a $40 billion R&D price tag is a relatively small chunk of a $200~300 million total expenditure over 25 years. Not spending the money and buying obsolete designs is foolish to say the least.

(5) The Block 60 ($40~50 million in volume production) is not any cheaper to build than the F-35 ($48.5 million) and it is probably more expensive to operate or maintain.



(6) The existing F-16 production line makes Block 52s for about $35 million and Block 60s for about $50 million. The $48.5 million unit cost for the F-35 is not a wet dream. It is the figure the GAO -- no friend of the program FYI -- arrived at in 2005 dollars. I am sure the F-35s bought in 2032 will cost more than $100 million, maybe more than $150 million. But the same can be said of F-16s bought 25 years into the future. Its called inflation. Go back 25 years and you can pick up an F-16 for under $10 million. You can't do it now.



(7) Actually, the CV version NEVER had a weight problem. It was projected to meet all performance requirements and range targets even without the 2003~2004 redesign. The reason the redesign happened is that the F-35B (STOVL) will miss range and payload targets on the "A" series design. The F-35A and F-35C got a lighter as a by product of the F-35B lightening -- "F" series design -- but that is sort of a bonus.

(1) Let's put it this way. The main difference between an F-22 and an F-35 is the higher cruise and dash speed of the F-22. Your assertion is that most of the F-22's survivability comes from that. IMHO, that is a MUCH MUCH smaller piece of the puzzle than Stealth which the F-35 has an ample amount of. If that isn't the case, then an F-15 with F-119s and a similar kinematic performance will be nearly as good as an F-22 and there will be no need for 30 years worth of Stealth research. The problem, I suspect, is that Mach 1.7 cruise and Mach 2~2.4 dash alone does not add much to survivability.

Again not even close. This would include that the F-22 has much better stealth quality. By a long shot. F-35s "ample" amount of stealth is not "ample" enough to stand up to high end IADS, or sensor growth room on Flankers for the next 20 years. Add to that the stealth quality of an export version of JSF is yet to be written. Your F-15 analogy is a bad one, considering F-15 needs external stores to do it's job. The super-cruise of F-22 is in fact a very big deal as this is fuel economy and battlefield mobility that legacys can't even touch.

(2) I think that most critics are under estimating the kinematic performance of the F-35.

Not Really. It is made to be 1. Affordable and 2. Stealthy... or as best as they can do with a budget window. In WVR it's power speed performance won't match that of an advanced Flanker. Getting inside of 20 miles with an advanced Flanker and the JSFs limited stealth, and performance on par or better than an F-16 won't give it any special advantage.



There are people who like to brand it as "subsonic" or "low performance", when that is likely to be absolute rubbish. No, it won't be an F-22. But from the physical characteristics that I can see, I believe that the official "specs" claimed at this point is very understated -- just like the Mach 1.5/1.8 claim of the F-22 in SDD phase was. If I have to take make an estimate based on the airframe design, thrust and weight of the F-35, my honest estimate is that it should be an aircraft capable of about Mach 1.2~1.4 in cruise and about Mach 1.7~1.9 with afterburner. It should also be able to operate at altitudes in excess of 60,000~62,500 ft (2,500~5,000 ft higher than an F-16). The low ball estimate is Mach 1.2/1.7, 60,000 ft, which is no slouch. The high ball estimate of Mach 1.4/1.9, 62,500 ft will actually outclass a Typhoon carrying a basic A2A weapons load of wing tip countermeasure pods, 2 SRAAMs, 4 MRAAMs and a drop tank. This should be no surprise given that the 27,950 lbs F-35A with 28,000/43,000 lbs of thrust is very close to the Typhoon is power to weight/size ratios to the 24,250 lbs Typhoon with 27,000/40,500 lbs of thrust. Plus, the F-35 has the ability to fly and fight effectively with no external ordnance or fuel.

It was never designed with those requirements you mention in mind. JSF is at such an "affordable" development and production mode that they have to get over aerodynamic things like what nose wheel door to use in the 11th hour ( the single door is causing problems in flight testing ). More so other things like all of the production line changes that affect ALL variants of JSF because of the weight savings event of STOVL. Then look at the weapons doors, they don't fold like F-22. It will be interesting to see what aerodynamic/stealth disadvantage this is in anything other than sub-sonic release. This would include some pretty hefty software fixes to help work against a lash of yaw if the doors are opened asymmetrically. CV and STOVL have to deliver for CTOL to be successful or program costs will rise for any number of reasons including more .... less common production line alterations. But back to your speed altitude figures. JSF is all about cost was, is, will be. There is no reason to add the performance claims you give a future JSF. It was designed in a computer. Flight testing will have to prove what you say is true.

(3) The mission of the F-35 includes -- specifically -- the penetration and engagement of double digit SAM environments and other stiff IADS. There have been USAF comments that the F-22 has some additional margin of superiority in this respect, but NOBODY ever said that the F-35 is not capable of dealing with stiff IADS. In fact, General Charles Davis (PEO, F-35 program) specifically said that is designed speficially to be able to do this (quote):-

The one thing we also do not necessarily talk too much about on the F-35 is the fact that it is a day one platform in the most stressing scenarios. There is a difference in how we would attack a day one target set out there as opposed to how the F-22 would do it. Obviously we use a little bit different formation. We may even use more airplanes to go out and attack those very high value, very high threat targets. But we do have an ord requirement to be able to do those missions and right now we have no real, if you will, challenge meeting those missions. That’s where we get into how the stealth employs, how the electronic attack capabilities and different things on the airplane work.

Yeah I bet there is a difference between how an F-35 will attack a target set as opposed to how F-22 would do it. It is called beating down the lead threat and having to kill off every threat in a path toward a stiff IADS target goal. It may start out "DAY 1" but it won't Day one weave through stiff new gen IADS. As others have said F-35 will depend on F-22 to kill off those threats. The "challenge" isn't there because air planners will use F-22 to go in and kill off low band search radar, aircraft threats and stiff double digit SAM threats. The oversell on F-35 that is mostly front aspect stealth is just that: oversell.

(4) The other thing is that the money being spent on it absolutely has to be spent. If not on the F-35 then on evolved F-16s or F-15s because the teens are reaching the end of their economical airframe lives. At 40~60 million for advanced teens, replacing the legacy types with advanced teen derivatives is no cheaper than the F-35 program. With 2000+ airframes to be bought, a $40 billion R&D price tag is a relatively small chunk of a $200~300 million total expenditure over 25 years. Not spending the money and buying obsolete designs is foolish to say the least.

Money will always be a large problem. The real problem is that congress is only going to hand it out in smaller and smaller portions each year. Worse is that with the new congress and senate, they are taking a strong trend toward proven systems in the field now and less and less funding away from future systems. Here is an instructional read on that:

Proven Winners
In U.S. House Markups, Tried-And-True Beat Future Weapons
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F= ... &C=america

This means Super Hornet is going to have a field day. It has the best damn PowerPoint briefing ever to back it up to a clueless politico that can only say it is a big winner now and into the future.

USAF if it were to say that it wanted to save money and get growth next block F-16s would get the blessing of congress like you wouldn't believe. Easy. Add to that other spending things on "proven" systems that are really pork. USAF did not ask for it but had 2.4billion of it's own money pulled from other things to pay for 10 more C-17s it didn't ask for. Hows that? Where JSF is costing large do mostly because of politicians dumb as they are extending the production schedule of JSF out with lower numbers produced per year. This will only increase with the war going on as it is. Proven existing in the field systems will get the funding. This also means that USAF will have no problem extending out the production number of F-22. It will even go to a lower number of small fighter airframes to do this. JSF is now in an uphill battle with Navy getting sales pitches for easy deals on Super Hornet to fill out the deck and USAF already having a plan to extend out it's legacys even if it really knows that it won't be able to keep up with older block F-16 retirements in the next 10-15 years. The funding problem is now at a critical stage. Today everyone is in the room and ignoring the fact that one of their friends sitting there is terminally ill because they can't afford health care. That is an excellent analogy for JSF if the war funding, war-on-credit doesn't resolve anytime soon. There are no funds for E-10, B-52 SOJ, and if you read that link they pulled money from the tanker program and B-2 radar upgrades. This money won't be seen again. JSF is at this stage certainly a victim of bad timing. I would like to see JSF fill out the small fighter ranks..... if funding for all of the other war winning platforms and programs USAF uses were properly funded and pinky healthy. A variety of USAF programs are starting to look like a hungry ill fed German Soldat in the snows of 1942/43.



(5) The Block 60 ($40~50 million in volume production) is not any cheaper to build than the F-35 ($48.5 million) and it is probably more expensive to operate or maintain.

F-35 isn't being funded properly so this is a dead issue. Considering a new build F-16 with a SNIPER-XR pod will do most of what we need, keeping F-16 production open is an easy decision.



(6) The existing F-16 production line makes Block 52s for about $35 million and Block 60s for about $50 million. The $48.5 million unit cost for the F-35 is not a wet dream. It is the figure the GAO -- no friend of the program FYI -- arrived at in 2005 dollars. I am sure the F-35s bought in 2032 will cost more than $100 million, maybe more than $150 million. But the same can be said of F-16s bought 25 years into the future. Its called inflation. Go back 25 years and you can pick up an F-16 for under $10 million. You can't do it now.

2005 dollars mean nothing with current events and a congress that is going more to funding existing systems due to lack of cash...per year. If you want to throw around 2005 dollar figures, consider that by 2005 dollar figures, an F-22 will be $60 mil each if we produce 750 of them. I'd take a USAF that only had 750 F-22, some A-10s and a few wings of F-16s ( including new build) as it's total small fighter force. We need more long range aircraft not more small shooter airframes.



(7) Actually, the CV version NEVER had a weight problem. It was projected to meet all performance requirements and range targets even without the 2003~2004 redesign. The reason the redesign happened is that the F-35B (STOVL) will miss range and payload targets on the "A" series design. The F-35A and F-35C got a lighter as a by product of the F-35B lightening -- "F" series design -- but that is sort of a bonus.

The CV is going to have to really prove itself. When they publicly show base approach speeds for carrier trap at 140+ KIAS, that is a problem. No big wing JSF has flown yet. No big wing JSF with its bring back weight has trapped yet. It is yet another story that has to prove itself.

Funny, the people that know (i.e. JSF Partners) seem to support the F-35 Lightning and more countries are lining by the day! What do you know that they don't???

That buy itself isn't really an argument.

Even if NO technical problems happen,...The U.S. slow down of funding JSF production AND the needed funding for the war run on credit, are reason enough for worry. That is a solid worry. JSF may in fact get through all these woes.... if the war stops real quick and our credit doesn't go south. However the bare facts of the funding path, means that congress needs to put up or shut up. Otherwise JSF costs are going to be a real problem. What 2009 and 2010 approved budgets look like, will be real interesting.

It should also be able to operate at altitudes in excess of 60,000~62,500 ft

Not to bring down your argument, but this is totally irrelevent. USAF regulations prohibit aircraft operation above 50,000 without a full-body pressure suit, such as that worn by U-2 and former SR-71 drivers. Just throwing that out there

Again not even close. This would include that the F-22 has much better stealth quality. By a long shot. F-35s "ample" amount of stealth is not "ample" enough to stand up to high end IADS, or sensor growth room on Flankers for the next 20 years. Add to that the stealth quality of an export version of JSF is yet to be written. Your F-15 analogy is a bad one, considering F-15 needs external stores to do it's job. The super-cruise of F-22 is in fact a very big deal as this is fuel economy and battlefield mobility that legacys can't even touch.

2005 dollars mean nothing with current events and a congress that is going more to funding existing systems due to lack of cash...per year. If you want to throw around 2005 dollar figures, consider that by 2005 dollar figures, an F-22 will be $60 mil each if we produce 750 of them. I'd take a USAF that only had 750 F-22, some A-10s and a few wings of F-16s ( including new build) as it's total small fighter force. We need more long range aircraft not more small shooter airframes.

Not to bring down your argument, but this is totally irrelevent. USAF regulations prohibit aircraft operation above 50,000 without a full-body pressure suit, such as that worn by U-2 and former SR-71 drivers. Just throwing that out there