Forum: F-35 Lightning II

I have read a lot about the yet to be proven F-35 that we may order in Australia (initial block, grrrrr) but I've noted that the F-35 has some similar functions/systems/features as the mighty Raptor... but I've also seen that the F-22 may inherit some systems from the F-35! Can anyone shed some light on this?

Are they competing aircraft, sales wise, (from what I've heard nobodies game to ask your congress for raptor...yet) or are they 'sister ships'w hom most systems are interchangeable?

Yep, I know they are from Lockheed Martin but are the systems that far apart that if the J10 queens get a F-35 they could learn or guess some of Raptors secrets? Not good!

F-16.net Sponsor

Let's put it this way. The F-35 is a more advanced aircraft overall compared to the F-22. It incorporates all the lessons learned from the F-22 and about 12 years for technological evolution and development. The best way to describe it is a multi-role fighter which embodies the really important features from the F-22 and none of the nice to have but unnecessary ones. In doing so it plans to achieve a production cost 1/3 that of the Raptor. What it loses is Mach 1.7 cruise and thrust vectoring aided agility -- both of which are nice but not particularly crucial to winning an A2A or A2G contest.

Just about every system on the F-35 is more advanced. Its radar uses T/R modules two generations newer than those used on the Raptor which allows a higher density array. The Raptor will get these retrofitted in form a new antenna. The upgraded radar will be called the AN/APG-77(v)1. This hasn't happened yet -- partly because the AN/APG-81 of the F-35 is itself still underdevelopment. The F-35 has a cutting edge 360 degree optronics system which is completely fused with its EW suite and Radar. The Raptor lacks an IRST/optronics unit and/or non-RF/RF sensor fusion at this point. It is unclear if the Raptor will receive these even though provisions were made for them in the airframe. The F-35 also pioneers the single monitor display and the Helmet mounted display in lieu of the tradtional multiple LCD/CRT screens and a HUD. There are currently no plans to fit the F-22 with this next generation pilot interface even though it may be possible in the more distant future. The F-35's stealth coating does not require taping and/or puttying on a regular basis like the Raptor's. It is unclear if the Raptor will get the new coating or if this is achieved at the cost a slightly higher RCS. What is clear however is that F-35 panels can be removed and replaced without needing LO treatment touch ups this is not true of the Raptor.

beepa wrote:

are they competing aircraft[sales wise]{from what ive heard nobodys game to ask your congress for raptor...yet}or are they 'sister ships'whom most systems are interchangeable?[yep i know they r from loc mart]but are the systems that far apart that if the j10 queens get a f35 they could learn or guess some of raptors secrets????not good!!

The F-22 is not in sales competition with the F-35. The US House of Representatives passed a bill that took off the export ban but it was shot down in the Senate. No attempts will be made to lift the ban now that the relevant committees are headed by protectionists. The F-22 contains too many technological secrets to allow them to be transfered to even their closest allies.

The Raptor's RCS is the size of a marble while the Lightning II's is several times larger measuring in at a golf ball. It may not sound like much but in the world of LO technologies it is a drastic reduction. The F-35 contains greater sensor fusion than the F-22 has and will be it's greatest asset. The cost of the platform was recently reported to have an increase of over 12% as reported by the GAO. The hoped for USD 40 million price tag for the CTOL version is turning into a pipe dream. Lockheed Martin is losing it's grip on price controls. They had to suspend construction on LCS-1 and LCS-3 due to price overruns. While all participating countries in JSF development have signed MoUs they have not committed to purchase. This project could still fall apart if Lockheed doesn't get a grip on cost. It might be time for some cheap Mexican labor if they ever want to finish the project at cost. Laughing

Right before 911 Sec USAF reps were going to brief RAAF on F-22 capability.

There was already a positive risk assessement done for F-22 export to RAAF. Matter of fact Lockheed at the time had created an interactive CD that helped address each component of the F-22 on it's export risk assessement status for technology. This would make it easy for a LOEXCOM work group to do all the export risk assessement.

When the USAF crew got off the plane in Australia they checked in back home. USAF said don't do the F-22 brief and come back home. RAAF was a bit puzzled. An investigation later turned out that Canberra called USAF in DC calling off the F-22 export brief to RAAF. Suddenly the AIR 6000 process was thrown out the window and JSF was selected with no further consideration on the issue.

dwightlooi wrote:

What it loses is Mach 1.7 cruise and thrust vectoring aided agility -- both of which are nice but not particularly crucial to winning an A2A or A2G contest.

Oh come now. Supercruise and thrust vectoring are not "that" important? Supercruise is an absolute game changer for fighters. Supercruise when coupled to a lo airframe is the only way to fly if you happen to be a flyboy heading into some sort of conflict.

Your onr sentance negates everything that the USAF rightly did with the ATF program. Your one sentance can logically be carried to out to indicate that if the F-117 could hold 6 slammers (it did have room for a radar) then there would have been no need for the ATF since after all, the F-117 did not supercruise and supercruise is not important and the F-117 did not have TV which is not important... and further yet, the new coatings could be applied to the F-117.

Supercruise in a lo fighter with the fuel to actually do something with SC... if you have a fleet of those types of a/c then you essentially have a fleet of mini-missile-armed-blackbirds. Targeting just one of those a/c was difficult enough, but send 100 of 'em over the horizon and havoc galore would be rained upon our foe.

So in your estimation all we needed was to actually outfit new build F-15's with some supersecret black boxes to hide 'em from enemey radar scopes and that's all that would be needed... since after all they don't supercruise and dont have tv and they could have been outfitted with new avionics.

Supercruise adds energy into a2a missiles and a2g munitions.... adds range and 'punching' power to the weapons being released. TV may not help you out turn a missile, but when you're playing the high altitude dash game, tv becomes more inportant in maintaining the ability to do more than fly in a straight line... ala turn and fight are supersonic airspeeds.

Whats the 35 got over the 22? Lessons in manufacturing, but nothing in capability. The only reason the 35 is a possibility is because of the pioneering work on the ATF. The only reason that the 35 has even a possibility of costing less than the 22 is because of the fact that the 35 is a lesser capable single engined version of the 22.... sort of like an advanced trainer to transition pilots into the 22. Yeah yeah... its got some whiz bang avionics but dont confuse black and grey boxes for true blue capability.

dwightlooi wrote:

Let's put it this way. The F-35 is a more advanced aircraft overall compared to the F-22. It incorporates all the lessons learned from the F-22 and about 12 years for technological evolution and development. The best way to describe it is a multi-role fighter which embodies the really important features from the F-22 and none of the nice to have but unnecessary ones. In doing so it plans to achieve a production cost 1/3 that of the Raptor. What it loses is Mach 1.7 cruise and thrust vectoring aided agility -- both of which are nice but not particularly crucial to winning an A2A or A2G contest.

Just about every system on the F-35 is more advanced. Its radar uses T/R modules two generations newer than those used on the Raptor which allows a higher density array. The Raptor will get these retrofitted in form a new antenna. The upgraded radar will be called the AN/APG-77(v)1. This hasn't happened yet -- partly because the AN/APG-81 of the F-35 is itself still underdevelopment. The F-35 has a cutting edge 360 degree optronics system which is completely fused with its EW suite and Radar. The Raptor lacks an IRST/optronics unit and/or non-RF/RF sensor fusion at this point. It is unclear if the Raptor will receive these even though provisions were made for them in the airframe. The F-35 also pioneers the single monitor display and the Helmet mounted display in lieu of the tradtional multiple LCD/CRT screens and a HUD. There are currently no plans to fit the F-22 with this next generation pilot interface even though it may be possible in the more distant future. The F-35's stealth coating does not require taping and/or puttying on a regular basis like the Raptor's. It is unclear if the Raptor will get the new coating or if this is achieved at the cost a slightly higher RCS. What is clear however is that F-35 panels can be removed and replaced without needing LO treatment touch ups this is not true of the Raptor.

Saying that the F-35 is more advanced than the F-22 is not a very accurate afirmation to make. The same could be aplied to the F-15/F-16 at the time of their service entry, though the F-15 was so much better overall fighter in AA BVR than the 16. Same for F-35, by "more modern" you are probably stating thet some features of the 35 are more flexible and more recent conception than F-22's but by no means it means they are more capable. Similarly if some of the 35 tech is going to be taken over to the 22, rest assure that it will mean more capable than both current systems on either plane, NOT complete literal transfer of unmodified hardware to the Raptor from the lighning as is.

elp wrote:

Right before 911 Sec USAF reps were going to brief RAAF on F-22 capability.

There was already a positive risk assessement done for F-22 export to RAAF. Matter of fact Lockheed at the time had created an interactive CD that helped address each component of the F-22 on it's export risk assessement status for technology. This would make it easy for a LOEXCOM work group to do all the export risk assessement.

When the USAF crew got off the plane in Australia they checked in back home. USAF said don't do the F-22 brief and come back home. RAAF was a bit puzzled. An investigation later turned out that Canberra called USAF in DC calling off the F-22 export brief to RAAF. Suddenly the AIR 6000 process was thrown out the window and JSF was selected with no further consideration on the issue.

It doesn't particularly matter what USAF reps were doing briefing RAAF on F-22 capabilities. At the time the F-22 was prohibited for sale and it still is. USAF doesn't make the laws of the United States and they don't get to decide who they sell aircraft to. That is decided by the US Congress and they said and still say NO ONE gets the Raptor. MoD decided on buying JSF for one reason and one reason only, it's the best they will ever get.

Last edited by dwightlooi on Mar 23, 2007 - 06:42 PM; edited 1 time in total

Quote:

The cost of the platform was recently reported to have an increase of over 12% as reported by the GAO.

I think you failed to add "due largely to revised inflation and dollar value estimates for the next 30 years" which applies to the Raptor or F-18 or whatever as well.

As of last year, the given unit cost assessed by the GAO was $48.5 milllion.

Quote:

Oh come now. Supercruise and thrust vectoring are not "that" important? Supercruise is an absolute game changer for fighters...

The biggest and most important attribute of the F-22 pertaining to its A2A dominance is LO. Cruise speed or super agility are nice complimentary capabilities and nobody is saying that they are useless. But if you have to drop something, by keeping LO and dropping these you retain the vast majority of your effectiveness.

Quote:

... if the F-117 could hold 6 slammers (it did have room for a radar) then there would have been no need for the ATF since after all, the F-117 did not supercruise and supercruise is not important and the F-117 did not have TV which is not important...

The F-35 is not an F-117 with 6 slammers. The F-35 is a high performance fighter whose dynamic performance meets or exceeds that of the F-16 while also having an RCS that is roughly 1/10th that of an F-117 and a sensor suite that is more advanced than the Raptor's.

Quote:

...Supercruise adds energy into a2a missiles and a2g munitions.... adds range and 'punching' power to the weapons being released. TV may not help you out turn a missile, but when you're playing the high altitude dash game, tv becomes more inportant in maintaining the ability to do more than fly in a straight line... ala turn and fight are supersonic airspeeds.

Speed does that, not necessarily supercruise speed. The F-35 is more than capable of attaining the weapon release speeds of a supercruising Raptor. It simply has to waste more fuel doing it. Is it a disadvantage? Of course. But one has to remember that "supercruise" is a fuel economy feature more than anything else. Specific fuel consumption at full military thrust is for modern fighter turbofans is 0.7~0.85, specific fuel consumption at full afterburner is about 1.6~2.0. In otherwords, it costs 1.8~2.8 times as much fuel to produce the same thrust with afterburners than without. The F-35 has enough internal fuel for full afterburner use for 14~15 mins. The F-22 has enough internal fuel for full dry thrust for about 30~35 minutes. Thats the difference.

The F-22's high altitude performance and handling qualities is currently without equal amongst fighters. The F-35's will be an improvement over 4th generation types (due largely to the control authority afforded by humongous horizontal tails). Again, it is a matter of much better vs better in a secondary attribute.

BIGBIRD wrote:

elp wrote:

Right before 911 Sec USAF reps were going to brief RAAF on F-22 capability.

There was already a positive risk assessement done for F-22 export to RAAF. Matter of fact Lockheed at the time had created an interactive CD that helped address each component of the F-22 on it's export risk assessement status for technology. This would make it easy for a LOEXCOM work group to do all the export risk assessement.

When the USAF crew got off the plane in Australia they checked in back home. USAF said don't do the F-22 brief and come back home. RAAF was a bit puzzled. An investigation later turned out that Canberra called USAF in DC calling off the F-22 export brief to RAAF. Suddenly the AIR 6000 process was thrown out the window and JSF was selected with no further consideration on the issue.

It doesn't particularly matter what USAF reps were doing briefing RAAF on F-22 capabilities. At the time the F-22 was prohibited for sale and it still is. USAF doesn't make the laws of the United States and they don't get to decide who they sell aircraft to. That is decided by the US Congress and they said and still say NO ONE gets the Raptor. MoD decided on buying JSF for one reason and one reason only, it's the best they will ever get.

-A positive risk assessement was complete for F-22 export
-F-22 was already built with export risk assesement in mind.
-Defence basically ignored Air 6000 and selected JSF with no consideration of Air 6000
-The "law" that "prohibits" F-22 sale can easily be struck down with no problem. It is a Red herring on it's best day, considering LM owns congress and makes the rules. What is important is that the gravy train that is JSF doesn't get upset. Which has little to do with a sound decision based on capability.
-At the end of the day it was a Defence minister and known associates ( some gone now Laughing

) that made a decsion with NO consideration of Air6000 planning.
-Not unlike the Super Hornet decision which is justified on reasons that are a house of cards, i.e. that there is risk to F-111 airframe sustainablity ...when it will work just fine until 2020.
No matter, I am sure the next election will bring some long needed change, and at least a possible reversal of the ill advised Super Hornet mistake.

The latest report by GAO is a joke. Cost is rising because congress is slowing down production to pay for the war in Iraq. GAO works for congress. Had the original production schedule been funded JSF would not blow out on cost and wouldn't have any show stoping delays.... well until we see how Block III avionics ( which should be the bare minimum you would want because Block II doesn't have all the functionality.
No. For now the risk to JSF would have been minimal and not a problem had the original production schedule been funded. JSF might endure some delays when all the lash up of Block II and Block III software sensor fusion has to actually work. That is a few years off though before current testing on the custom 737 and other software labs pan out more.

The "real" debate now in F-35 vs. F-22 is production and available funding. If we see another underfunded JSF U.S. budget for year 9, 10, 11 etc to pay for Operation: Useless Dirt which is turning into a fiasco, JSF is going to have serious, serious problems. Not because it is a bad program, but because it is going to run afoul of a congress and administration that think they know better no matter how many facts you try and throw at them. The real advantage of F-22 is it is in production. F-35 is now in an untimely era of poor government spending that may in fact put it at risk of cancelation of year 10, 11, 12 don't pan out. Think A380 when , customers get pissed and decide to cancel. As it is now with the current messed up JSF underfunded production. USAF has to extend use of F-15s and F-16s to year 2025 and maybe even 2030. If we go with what congress thinks is a good idea on JSF funding. USAF won't get it's last JSF delivered until 2040. That all by itself is insane and can drive the whole program right off the end of the known map of reality. Iraq/Congress/Admin are putting JSF at serious risk. This shortfall in the last budget has to be made up. Putting rose colored glasses on and thinking year 10 and 11 production slots can pick up the slack doesn't have any basis in fact with Iraq spinning so fast down the crapper it will need a swan dive to save it.
If the Aussie F-18F deal goes through, .... Kanagroo F-111s are retired in year 2010.... HUG legacy F-18 program affecting total legacy RAAF F-18 availablity... The "Stop-Gap" fighter might end up serving well over 10 years. Hell in some ways that will make Nelson look like a genious Laughing

minus JSF not being delivered on time. Better watch the hours on the Super. They might need a barrel replacement after being used 10 years. Surprised

elp wrote:

The latest report by GAO is a joke. Cost is rising because congress is slowing down production to pay for the war in Iraq. GAO works for congress. Had the original production schedule been funded JSF would not blow out on cost and wouldn't have any show stoping delays.... well until we see how Block III avionics ( which should be the bare minimum you would want because Block II doesn't have all the functionality.
No. For now the risk to JSF would have been minimal and not a problem had the original production schedule been funded. JSF might endure some delays when all the lash up of Block II and Block III software sensor fusion has to actually work. That is a few years off though before current testing on the custom 737 and other software labs pan out more.

There I'll agree with this: the GAO reports are jokes (at times). This is what happens when you have legal guys and bean counters analyze weapons systems/technology stuff. The GAO is the officialized version of Woodward and Berntstein... At times on the spot accurate, and at times, just wacked out nut jobs with an agenda to shove around.

That said, the F-35 will in all probablity sail through flight testing with less time (per rev lev: A/B/C) than did the F-22 since all the lessons leaarned with the F-22 and due to the fact that those 2 aircraft are so damned similar to one another with the F-22 paving the way forward, and the 35 getting the luxury of stting back and taking a smoke since all the pinoeering work was done on the Raptor. In summary there's a lot less risk with flight testing the F-35 than reported by the GAO. That should be the case since the F-35 is essential.... they took the blue prints for the F-22 ran 'em through the washing machine, and dried 'em on high and its basically a shrunk down (size/capability) F-22.

I just see no value in this aircraft. There are guys on this board who are so damned patriotically cocky and probably damned good pilots too... But these same guys make it out that supercruise is beyond the ability of a single engined fighter/attack bomber... that its too much to ask of the F-35 to have performance levels of the F-22. But trust me, its not hard to supercruise at very high speeds even for a fighter sized airplane.

What I see is an USAF with a handfull of silver bullet fighters and plethora of bomb trucks with some ability to serve as fighters.

The Aussies know what the F-35 is as compared to what they had with F-111. They even did studies that showed an F-111 outfitted with new Pratt and Witts would be a long ranged superscruiser with multiple target BVR capability... That's from a 40+ year old airframe design. The brand spankin' new F-35 can't even touch that subject of supercruise and BVR multiple target shooting. Ok, it can launch two 120's... But so can a Texan II with some minor wiring additions. We took 2 steps forward with the F-117 and with the F-22... We're taking 2 steps back with the F-35 and getting a single engined legacy fighter with some LO considerations and fancy helmet.

Ok another useless ranting..............

fox100 wrote:

The Aussies know what the F-35 is as compared to what they had with F-111. They even did studies that showed an F-111 outfitted with new Pratt and Witts would be a long ranged superscruiser with multiple target BVR capability... That's from a 40+ year old airframe design. The brand spankin' new F-35 can't even touch that subject of supercruise and BVR multiple target shooting. Ok, it can launch two 120's... But so can a Texan II with some minor wiring additions. We took 2 steps forward with the F-117 and with the F-22... We're taking 2 steps back with the F-35 and getting a single engined legacy fighter with some LO considerations and fancy helmet.

Ok another useless ranting..............

I don't think that is accurate for a number of reasons:-

(1) Supercruising has nothing to do with the number of engines. It is a function of engine thrust to in flight drag. If Supercruise is important enough, the F-35 could have been designed to be a solid supercruiser. But it is not a priority. The F-104 was a supercruiser too with one engine that has just over 1/3 as much thrust.

(2) Who says the F-35 cannot engage multiple targets BVR?

(3) Who say the F-35 can only carry 2 AAMs? The internal capacity is 4~6 for AMRAAMs whereas total internal and external AAM load can reach 16 if you want to use the aircraft as a missile barge.

(4) The LO and performance considerations of the F-35 is not minor. The F-35 will be stealthier than the F-117 while being able to fly 2.5x as far as an F-16 at speeds greater than Mach 1.6 (probably around Mach 1. Cool

and carry out air superiority as will as surface strike missions.

I'd do a wait and see on the useable transonic performance.

dwightlooi wrote:

The F-35 is a high performance fighter whose dynamic performance meets or exceeds that of the F-16 while also having an RCS that is roughly 1/10th that of an F-117

Where did this information come from?

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 debate in Australia