Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Okay... but again, the SR-71 never overflew Moscow. I don't think it ever overflew any major world power, but who really knows. Let's just say it didn't do anything stupid. That's why none were lost.

F-16.net Sponsor

dwightlooi wrote:

Purplehaze wrote:

Quote:

(1) Supercruise is WAY LESS important than stealth. So choosing marginal supercruise (plus perhaps a small dose of extra agility) over stealth is basically building a Rafale -- something that is not survivable in the coming decades. Choosing Mach 2 supercruise over stealth is building the Concorde. Lets put it this way, speed has been a defeated mode of defense. The SR-71 is no longer survivable at Mach 3.2+ cruise which is why it is retired. Basically, if the SAM batteries can find you they can shoot you down regardless of how high you fly or how fast you can go.

Not so sure this is accurate. I don't think there are too many SAM's out there that can exceed 60k ft.

Those that matter can go past 100k ft (SA-10, SA-12, etc). Those that do not are typically point defense systems which are low order threats even to a typical 4th generation non-supercruising aircraft flying at 45,000 ft anyway. But that is not the point.

The point is that everything is rendered relatively ineffective by stealth because they cannot effectively shoot at what they cannot effectively detect or track at significant ranges. If you imagine each fighter, ship and SAM battery as an asset protecting a sphere on the battle field, Stealth allows you to reduce each and every sphere to about 1/8th their typical radius. Supercruise on the other hand only reduces each to perhaps 8/10ths of their typical radius. Remember, non-supercruising aircrafts are typically of the Mach 2 class too. The difference is that they tend not to stay at that speed for fuel economy reasons. They WILL however light their burners and get pretty fast when they detect a missile launch directed at them. Not only that, but in the absence of stealth the enemy will be able to track your aircrafts pretty well with AWACs and surface assets regardless of whether they can shoot and hit you at that particular instance. Because they can do so you have very little or no element of surprise and they can vector all kinds of bogeys your way to tangle with you. With stealth, they don't even know where you are or what hit them. That is a massive difference effective engagement range of missile systems aside.

The idea of focusing on speed and altitude as the primary defensive attributes was pursued in the 60s and 70s. By the time the 80s come around, neither Mach 3 flight nor 80,000 ft altitudes is seen as sufficient defense against new SAMs being fielded or developed. And, the kinematics gap continued to widen as aircrafts performance proved a lot more difficult to raise than missile performance. By the time the 80s is in full swing the advances in FBW technology, combined with the relatively poor performance of SARH missiles like the Sparrow gave rise to design trend where agility was emphasized. But this too got sidelined because with the advent of 50~60G missiles with HOBS seekers or even LOAL 360 degree shooting envelopes. tight turns no longer helps and in fact hurts because they bleed kinetic energy. This is why the stealth alternative was sort and aircrafts like the F-117 and B-2 were developed, while successors to the likes of the SR-71 and XB-70 never happened. Today, we are able to give stealth to aircrafts with fighter performance. Better than F-16 performance in case of the F-35 and better than everything performance in the case of the F-22. But in both cases Stealth is the key to the platforms merit, while performance is simply an auxiliary compliment.

Well, the point is such that yes its foolish to field a fleet of a/c that only zip around the sky at ungodly speeds. Yes, more certainly there are systems in the field that can reach and touch something at ungodly altitudes as well.

But the point is, that:

a) Supercruise is the way to go for a sixshooter BVR airframe. The benefits are obvious and need not be pointed out.

b) Supercruise is the way to go for standoff 'bomb tossing' missions. Again, the reasons are so obvious as need not be pointed out.

c) Supercruise drastically reduces the effectiveness of other a/c who want to kill you. Again, the reasons are so obvious as to not need detailing.

d) Supercruise is ideal for the r/s missions for abvious reasons... Especially at high altitudes when you don't want to fly into someone elses god given airspace.

e) Supercruise increase sortie rates per a/c on mud moving stuff.

f) Supercruise simply reduces your a/c's envelope for which the enemy tries to get within for a shot

g) Supercruise coupled with a low rcs a/c has quite obvious benefits all around.

h) When you've limited and minimized your flight perf envelope to exclude supercruise, so do you as well limit the options of your a/c in a2a and a2g missions. You simply have fewer options/choices at your nomex gloved finger tips.

Now, if you are conjuring up images of an indian head arrow tip a/c darting around all the live-long-missions then, YES, that's a huge mistake to field a bunch single mission profile a/c.

Now then, with the F-35 that is exactly what you have on hand: a single missioned profiled a/c that's going to go in low and slow on 90% of her mud moving runs taking advantage of a low frontal RCS airframe. You will have an armada of a/c that cannot "choose" to go the other route, i.e. the "supercruise" route and all of its inherent benefits.

I am hard pressed to understand how in our right hand with hold an a/c that does all of the supercruise nifty stuff AND also can fill in for the 117's. And you can't tell me that the 22 can't playtend it's a Bone and weave figure eight circles around all the hills and mountains it wants to, and i.e. 'intrude' into the coveted F-35 turf. And in our left hand we wield an a/c that can do mission (A) pretty well, but can't do mission (B). All the while we have an a/c that can do (A) and (B) quite well. What's the point in buying the less capable a/c? Oh, yes the great god of commonality and in giving the USMC a few hundy of somewhat low RCS airframes. Yeah, that's worth 350 billion dollars.

What oh what can I think of as a good analogy? Ok, well, this isn't thought out and is quite spur of the moment: think of F desiganted a/c as motorcycles. On one hand you've got your V-rod HD and on the other hand you've got your Ninja (is that still made??). The Kawasaki can do everything the HD can and can run circles around it. The HD can do some things really well but not do everything the Kawasaki does. Yeah I know, bad analogy and I wouldn't know how to even start a motorcycle without flipping it over on my already bruised and aching body.

The 'Wave of the Future' is not slow and low. Its 'Higher, Furter, Faster." You can't convince me that in 30 years we're still going to be turning to Lockmart and asking for another slowpoke fuel consumer. Of course you need to be able to do the low altitude stuff....

God yes you do. But the two are not one or the other choices.

Will there be (or is there? Hmmmm.) technology out there which can defeat the stealth tech on the 35/22? Its a matter of time, and times arrow can point backwards (as Feynman so brilliantly pointed out to us goofballs) if you read my drift. Perhaps there's only a few key strokes away from some other scientist rendering low RCS airframes (today's vintage) useless and WHEN that happens you're going to have a plane in the F-35 that is not much different than a properly outfitted Strike Beagle and we will be 350 billion dollars in a hole that we will need to crawl out of.

(1) Hey, nobody is trying to say that supercruise is not a tangible asset. Actually I should say Mach 1.7 cruise because technically Mach 1.1 is also supercruise and that does practically nothing for you. That is never the the argument. The argument is that it is much less significant than stealth is in the F-22's superiority equation and it is not worth spending three times as much for. Remove supercruise and you lose a tiny bit of advantage, remove stealth and the platform becomes a dead duck with or without supercruise.

(2) You keep characterizing the F-35 as low and slow. This is not the only way it can or will fly its missions. The F-35 can fly low and slow, or high and slow, or high and fast but while burning 2.5 times as much fuel. As far as bomb toss or AAM release speed is concerned, there is plenty of fuel in that thing to accelerate to F-22 cruise speeds and achieve the same kinematic effect. If a SAM or AAM is incoming, chances are the F-35 will go very fast very quickly as well.

(3) The F-35's primary superiority over the F-22 is in terms of the cost/benefit quotient, cruise range, payload and sensors. It costs 1/3 as much and it is almost as good even as a A2A platform. It flies further than the F-22 because it carries nearly as much fuel, but it burns it is half as many engines and pulls along less airframe weight and drag. It carries heavy 2,500 lbs strike payloads which the F-22 cannot carry. The overall sensor package is way more comprehensive and advanced that that which is currently on the Raptor. For all of that you pay about $32 million to build one (excluding R&D) whereas it'll take $90~120 million to build a Raptor depending on production volume (again excluding R&D).

dwightlooi wrote:

(1) Hey, nobody is trying to say that supercruise is not a tangible asset. Actually I should say Mach 1.7 cruise because technically Mach 1.1 is also supercruise and that does practically nothing for you. That is never the the argument. The argument is that it is much less significant than stealth is in the F-22's superiority equation and it is not worth spending three times as much for. Remove supercruise and you lose a tiny bit of advantage, remove stealth and the platform becomes a dead duck with or without supercruise.

(2) You keep characterizing the F-35 as low and slow. This is not the only way it can or will fly its missions. The F-35 can fly low and slow, or high and slow, or high and fast but while burning 2.5 times as much fuel. As far as bomb toss or AAM release speed is concerned, there is plenty of fuel in that thing to accelerate to F-22 cruise speeds and achieve the same kinematic effect. If a SAM or AAM is incoming, chances are the F-35 will go very fast very quickly as well.

(3) The F-35's primary superiority over the F-22 is in terms of the cost/benefit quotient, cruise range, payload and sensors. It costs 1/3 as much and it is almost as good even as a A2A platform. It flies further than the F-22 because it carries nearly as much fuel, but it burns it is half as many engines and pulls along less airframe weight and drag. It carries heavy 2,500 lbs strike payloads which the F-22 cannot carry. The overall sensor package is way more comprehensive and advanced that that which is currently on the Raptor. For all of that you pay about $32 million to build one (excluding R&D) whereas it'll take $90~120 million to build a Raptor depending on production volume (again excluding R&D).

No no no…. Do NOT quote me not anyone cost figures of the F-35 as compared to the F-22. Uh uh. Not on my watch. The F-22 was cut to the bone, and then kept cutting it further still. I’ve been inbolved in some conception to birth to cradle and grave programs/stuff and in Virginia area for such testing now on something,

The F-22’s price tag would be so very drastically smaller if it were not for the 183 airframe limit. God damn, when Ford Motor builds a couple of proto cars say in the 300-100 range what will cost $25,500 as the end mass produced product, but those coupld of hundred cars cost 8-10x those figures. That…. That…. That is why the F-22 is so pricy.
Geezus, if only we could get 36-42/year run on that plane for 10 years or so, the cost of the Raptor would make the F-35 look like an overpriced under performing airplane by camparison. That cost/benefit/quotient scenario is so very skewed…. (are you tree hugging hippy? No offense, I damned near became one myself a long time ago until my thinking brain took over).

The final per unit cost of the F-35 is not, absolutely, is not going to be 1/3rd of the F-22. No way, now how sir.

Problam with the 35, and yeah I’ll admit it should hit low M1+ w/o lighting the can.is that it simply can’t keep up with the F-22 in either:

a) a turning fight. The 22’s t/w, wing loading, and pointable TWIN nozzles dictate success of the 35. Will the 35 be able to turn as well as the Mig/Sukoi whatever they baking right now? I seriously doubt it. I also seriously doubt it’ll keep up in the speed scenarios as well.
b) The 35 can’t supercruise even is the same league of the F-22. It’s like comparing a minor league pitcher with someone in the majors, Despite what you people think or need to say, the F-22 is an absolute god damned rocket ship with wings. M1.7 my a$$. Sure it can hit that number just like the B-52s top out around 50-60k feet (my a$$ they do!)
c) The equation is so very simple… One plane can do it all and one plane cant. “What plane MrCustomer would you like to drive home tonight and park in your garage?”
d) There’s nothing the 35 can do that the 22 cannot do. There’s boatloads of stuff the 35 can do that the 22 can do as well.
e) There is no logic here.
f) I am sure the 35 will be a nice new place for the kids growing up today in certain battles… But god help us if the USA finds itself in a big shooting was and we’ve only got 183 F-22’s and a few dozen F-35s… I know I’m off target, but the signs are clear from where I am sitting and we f’kd ourselves with this god damned 183 cap on the F-22 at 20 units/year, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph have we ever shot ourselves in the foot.
g) Heavier payloads on the F-35? Oh come on! This country has lost off its guts for even splling the blood of the bad guys. You think every or even most of the bombs we dropped on Iraq/Afgan are of the 2K class??? Seriouls, I’d like an ansewer, but I bet bottom dollar that they were all mostly 1000K and less bombs. This is one such reason for the devlpmy of the SDB – kill as few as possible and send em all running home with white flags in their hands. The F-22 and F-35 can carry more bombs and more effectively
h) 2000 pounders are for the bunker musting stuff and the Buff carpet bombing runs…. You don’t see *too* many fighters running around with thos things because they hinder performance and they are overkill for the targets they go after. The extra 2000K of TOTAL internal bombs can be nake up by sending 2 supercruising raptors and dropping at a longer distance from the target that what the F-35 will have to do…….

Time for smoke………

dwightlooi wrote:

(3) The F-35's primary superiority over the F-22 is in terms of the cost/benefit quotient,

not proven...when compared to survivability and capability of the F-22 re: strategic strike (land based fighters)

cruise range, not proven...

payload and sensors. not proven... including the APG-77 has more range and the growth room for 2 cheek sensor arrays and growth room for IRST. Payload... consider the stealth pods in development for the F-22. JSF only has one advantage in internal 2000lb ability and F-22 has the ability to carry 8 SDB and 2 AIM120 and 2 AIM-9. And considering SDB and JDAM will toss longer. There isn't enough difference here to claim "superiority" of payload.

It costs 1/3 as much not proven... when full F-22 production finishes and when F-35 production is well on it's way.... story still to be told on this one.

and it is almost as good even as a A2A platform. doubtful considering F-22 has better battlespace mobility to engage and disengage at will, and other factors...

It flies further than the F-22 because it carries nearly as much fuel, but it burns it is half as many engines and pulls along less airframe weight and drag. F-22 effective ground speed at 60k super-cruise means they are about even. JSF CV has weight issues to get over so I will wait and see on that.

It carries heavy 2,500 lbs strike payloads which the F-22 cannot carry.
External stealth pod = 5000k on F-22. The payload argument depends on what you are trying to do, strategic strike or CAS... in the end not a big deal. ..

The overall sensor package is way more comprehensive and advanced that that which is currently on the Raptor. AGP-77 has a larger array and has more "growth potential" because of that alone. There is no way the JSF AESA has the range.....Most of F-22 current sensors are just that and F-22 was delivered with less sensors than the original design to meet cost. Block III software for JSF is yet to be fielded. I would take a wait and see.

For all of that you pay about $32 million to build one (excluding R&D) whereas it'll take $90~120 million to build a Raptor depending on production volume (again excluding R&D).

again...not proven...not because JSF is a bad program ( it is well run) but because of the war sucking down so much money on the credit card, the JSF production schedule is driven into the ditch. Current JSF program cost just went from $276B to $299B

...

dwightlooi wrote:

For all of that you pay about $32 million to build one (excluding R&D)

Wrong...where did you get that figure? IF you go look at the budgets you'd see that the F-35 is also very expensive. I think right now the estimate is around 70-85 Million a copy.

checksixx wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

For all of that you pay about $32 million to build one (excluding R&D)

Wrong...where did you get that figure? IF you go look at the budgets you'd see that the F-35 is also very expensive. I think right now the estimate is around 70-85 Million a copy.

The GAO gave it as $48.5 million unit cost in 2005 dollars R&D inclusive.

The R&D price tag of the F-35 program is known to be about $40 billion, of which less than $30 billions has actually been spent at this point.

$40 billion divided by 2500 air frames is ~16 million per unit amortized. 48.5 - 16 is ~32 million. That is the construction cost.

The F-22 on the other hand is a little over $300 million right now. Mostly it is because R&D is amortized over only 183 airframes. BUT, even if you disregard R&D and just look at production costs, the F-22 is about $120 million right now. Lockheed's best estimate if a 750 unit run at full line capacity is undertaken is $83 million. It is prudent to surmise that the construction cost of the F-22 is between $83 and 120 million or roughly $100 million. Three times that of the F-35.

Quote:

(3) The F-35's primary superiority over the F-22 is in terms of the cost/benefit quotient,

not proven...when compared to survivability and capability of the F-22 re: strategic strike (land based fighters)

It is very much fact given today's unit cost estimated the F-22 is 3x as expensive.

Quote:

cruise range, not proven...

Look at it his way. 8300+ kg of fuel vs 9000+ kg of fuel. ~12.7 tons vs ~18 tons. One engine vs two. Smaller airframe and physically cross section. There is ZERO reason to believe that weighing more, having twice as many many (similar) engines and pushing more bulk through the air is going to cost less fuel.

Quote:

payload and sensors. not proven... including the APG-77 has more range and the growth room for 2 cheek sensor arrays and growth room for IRST. Payload... consider the stealth pods in development for the F-22. JSF only has one advantage in internal 2000lb ability and F-22 has the ability to carry 8 SDB and 2 AIM120 and 2 AIM-9. And considering SDB and JDAM will toss longer. There isn't enough difference here to claim "superiority" of payload.

360 degree DAS, long range EOTS, HMD, newer generation UI, newer generation AESA radar. None of which is currently present or currently funded for the F-22. The aperture size (antenna area) difference between the APG-77 and the APG-81 is 1.65x. Given the same T/R module performance it takes roughly 8~10x the aperture difference to double the range. So, yes, a 1.65x antenna will give you more range. But how much more? <20% by the most liberal estimates. Does it really matter when the enemy's radar range is reduce to around 1/8th in both cases? I am not saying a little more is not good, but is it critical?

Quote:

It costs 1/3 as much not proven... when full F-22 production finishes and when F-35 production is well on it's way.... story still to be told on this one.

No it is not. But we have current estimates as we do for the F-22. There is no concrete proof that the F-22 won't cost $250 million to build if more were ordered either until it has happened either.

Quote:

and it is almost as good even as a A2A platform. doubtful considering F-22 has better battlespace mobility to engage and disengage at will, and other factors...

Sure it is better. Nobody has doubted that. The point is that the F-35 is good enough to handle ANY threat and turn it favorable loss ratios. Perhaps not as good as the F-22, but better than any other fighter and good enough for the USAF to be comfortable with its A2A capabilities and good enough for Lockmart to assert that it will be 4x better than the teens.

Quote:

It flies further than the F-22 because it carries nearly as much fuel, but it burns it is half as many engines and pulls along less airframe weight and drag. F-22 effective ground speed at 60k super-cruise means they are about even. JSF CV has weight issues to get over so I will wait and see on that.

Covered earlier. The F-35 will have to gain 5+ tons of weight (a full 40%) to equal an F-22. It will still have a smaller drag section and it'll still have half as many engines. It may be a really underpowered dog if that happens, but it'll still be more economical fuel wise compared to an F-22.

Quote:

It carries heavy 2,500 lbs strike payloads which the F-22 cannot carry.
External stealth pod = 5000k on F-22. The payload argument depends on what you are trying to do, strategic strike or CAS... in the end not a big deal.

Stealth pods do not exist currently. And you can put them on an F-35 too theoretically. You may feel that the ability to carry 2250 lbs bunker busters or 1 ton cruise missiles internally is not important. But it is nonetheless something which the F-35 does and the F-22 does not. It is like saying the two additional AIM-9 bays is not important, but important or not the F-22 has them the F-35 doesn't.

Quote:

The overall sensor package is way more comprehensive and advanced that that which is currently on the Raptor. AGP-77 has a larger array and has more "growth potential" because of that alone. There is no way the JSF AESA has the range.....Most of F-22 current sensors are just that and F-22 was delivered with less sensors than the original design to meet cost. Block III software for JSF is yet to be fielded. I would take a wait and see.

If you want to doubt whether the F-35 will deliver on its developmental requirements, that is fine. But that is a separate discussion. The discussion here is about how the platforms compare assuming the both work as they should.

Quote:

again...not proven...not because JSF is a bad program ( it is well run) but because of the war sucking down so much money on the credit card, the JSF production schedule is driven into the ditch. Current JSF program cost just went from $276B to $299B

First of all most of this is rubbish in the sense that I am sure the program has tremendous potential to cost less or more than that. It is a 25 year projection with inflation and production volume figured in. We may end up spending much more or much less depending on what happens in the next 25 years (which is a lot). The important thing is that the program is on track to deliver the first series production aircraft at a price point of $48~61 million in 2005 dollars starting 2012~2015 depending on variant.

Quote:

It is very much fact given today's unit cost estimated the F-22 is 3x as expensive.

And 3x as good. There really is nothing better the the F-22 right now and may not be for some time to come. The way I look at it is, if the DOD needs it, we need to pay for it. Nothing is too good for my USAF.

Couple of points...

1. Name one defense program that hasn't gone over budget and had delays.
2. The F-35 in its LO mode has absolutely no advantage over a Raptor. Now once you don't need to worry about LO anymore, then it will shine along with the stores hanging off of the wings.
3. If you look at last years budget, two F-35 airframes cost $1Billion. I can assure you that I would expect the F-35 to be between $65-95 Million. Kind of depends how the program progresses. Australia is already worried because the airframe price is rising.

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

Quote:

3. If you look at last years budget, two F-35 airframes cost $1Billion. I can assure you that I would expect the F-35 to be between $65-95 Million. Kind of depends how the program progresses. Australia is already worried because the airframe price is rising.

Also the unit cost of the F-35 will take time to decrease. The first batches will be quite expansive, while the F-22 price would continue to go down to probably under 100 million. The F-35 may not be cost effective against MORE raptors before 2020 or something like that. By then the usefullness of manned aircraft may well have decreased to the point where it is useless to invest in them.

Want something that is REALLY more cost-effective than an F-16? What about a UCAV?

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 cost overruns