F-16.net

Veteran Joined: Oct 29, 2006 Posts: 271 Status: Offline

Maffa wrote:

Quote:

All very relevant comparisons, but this is not the page for strategy.

Off the top of my head I can think of two future scenarios where the two AC would be pitted against one another. Israel/Saudi Arabia, and Greece /Turkey. Aside from that there are commercial considerations.

The problem is, strategy is what should guide building specs, and affordability is a fundamental part of strategy (other than the very topic of this thread). If we still take US "1-4-2-1" doctrine for good, both F-22 and F-35 are utter failure because they cant provide the numbers necessary to protect homeland, be present in 4 continents in threatening numbers, lead two conflicts with medium powers and winning decisively one: i.e. they fail to meet the requirements. This is why i was telling you

Quote:

consider who will partecipate, who will get there on time on day 1 and how, who will be it against, what kind of missions will they have to do, etc.

. because numbers will differe greatly, and since for some european nations EFA and JSF project are stepping on each other feet on defence budgets (like Italy and UK), the probable result is that US will not have sufficient aircrafts to project, and europe wont have sufficient aircrafts to back US up.

A requirement for 1750 F-35's is nothing to laugh at. So why is it a failiure?
100 F-22's can destroy most airforces likely without losses, and they could do the job of several more F-35's. I dont think US lacks any support by other types either.

Lets not carry away shall we?

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Quote:

A requirement for 1750 F-35's is nothing to laugh at. So why is it a failiure?

because this number has been fixed well before we will ever know the final cost for this toy. Everything is going just like F-22, expected to be produced in 750 pieces and sunk to 183 across the years since its inflating costs. At this time nobody still know how much will this toy cost, the only thing we know is that from the initial figures it kept raising its cost from the $60mil per plane to $160mil Dutch will pay for their own first, buggy Block 1, with 2008 investment figures reaching $262 billion. The a/c's numbers will shrink, no doubt on that. Moreover, at present there are +1300 F-16 and +700 A-10 divided among ANG, reserve and active duty (no numbers about F/A-18/SH): how could less than the half numbers bear the same weight on its shoulders? 100 F-22 in the air at the same time can smash every enemy out of the skyes, but having 100 F-22 means having 33 operative, 33 on reserve and 33 on repair, and even those 33 taken off cannot do nothing against sheer numbers: F-22 has no infinite fuel nor ammo, and sometimes you can blitzkrieg, sometimes you cannot. And 5 continents to watch are way too much.

And again, USAF dispositive relies on allies, also: and those allies inside JSF all have the same budget problem. European GAO's equivalent meet every 6 months to monitor over JSF purely economical factor, nothing the like has ever be seen in the world. Australians moan about the project, GAO stressed the issue over and over. And still nobody has told me how's going to go on CAS missions, since COIN is the LWOT issue of the moment and likely to be even in the near future. Last but not least, in 2010 TacAir will be 27 year old and will have to be retired. With what budget?

Numbers are too tight.

Veteran Joined: Jun 23, 2006 Posts: 419 Status: Offline

Whats your point/solution Maffa?

Last edited by Maffa on Oct 30, 2007 - 03:41 PM; edited 1 time in total

my point is expressed in my posts above. I made a post in Air Power category, where i asked what in your opinion how a SEAD-DEAD pkg mission would be built and lead with legacy and stealth aircraft. From several sources i have been told that more or less the same number of aircrafts is required, but the overall avaiability of aircraft is less than a half. Just to say one, the Italian Airforce alone will have at the end of EFA program 121 a\c's for air defence only, and many say they are just too few because there will be no projectability: how could US keep a foothold on 4 continents with just 200 F-22?!?

I have no solution, really, if not prolonging existant aircraft's lifetime indefinitely, until UCAVs are good enough to be used along F-22 and F-35 in combat roles. With such low numbers the only deterrent will be pre-emptive strikes, which is rather a dangerous doctrine.

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

The AF and the Navy were out of their mind to develop 3 aircraft. Now they're in deep $$$$ - especially the AF.

Veteran Joined: Oct 29, 2006 Posts: 271 Status: Offline

they share much of the same parts. Besides they needed replacements anyway. You would have to develeop 3 dufferent aircraft and then wihtou commonality it would be even more expensive.

((error))

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 433

Not only were the 3 a/c not affordable, they were also not needed. The JSF and the SH have about the same role, except that the JSF is better in every aspect, and the F-22 a/a capabilities could have been filled with a JSF with better a/a specs.

As for the need for new airframes, the navy could have upgraded its F-18s with MIDS/9X etc.. and could have bought a few more F-18s in the meantime. It would have been much more cost-effective than the first F-18Es. The first F-18Es have no EASA, don't have the new cockpit, etc.. and cost about twice as much as an F-18C - about 60 million per aircraft plus 10 million of R&D per aircraft, which is 70 million compared to 35 million for a new F-18C- .

IMO the F-18E and the F-22 should have been cancelled in the mid-90s and the F-35 should have been accelerated as much as possible and should have been designed with better a/a specs.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Affordable? - Durch unvealed price for first F-35