Forum: General F-35 Forum

Hi all,

As I recall, no other aircraft other than the F-4 Phantom served with the 3 branches of the US military, now the F-35 is doing that.

I was wondering, which branch will benefit from their custom-made F-35s? Is it the USAF with its conventional aircraft, or is it the Navy with its catapulted version, or is it the Marines that desperatly needs its STOVL version?

F-16.net Sponsor

First, we must define future adversaries of the United States. Geographic considerations, and how badly these air forces are going to be reduced in numbers with regards to current airframes. I believe the projected numbers for production as identified in another forum are unachieveable because of costs to include F-22 costs. I personally think money should be spent on the production of new F-16's and 15's. Precision Guided Munitions have improved so much that it doesn't really matter what wing you put them on... their going to hit the target. Again I think it will matter on projected adversaries.

Additionally, what other air force is really a threat. I also feel that fighters will play an increasing role in Close Air Support as their main role. Bombers, UAV's, RPV's, etc. will be more involved strategic bombing based again on PGM's. Another subject in another forum was how or what flew the aircraft. Flight Control Computers and not necessarily skill of the airman. If you didn't have it... smokin hole! I almost chuckle at the need of a pilot. I see these officers flying UAV's.. .truly, do you need a college degree to do this? We all know folks that when you put a joystick in their hand all you can do is marvel.

Sorry about rambling on but thought I'd throw in some considerations/thoughts. I think the Navy and Marine Corp will benefit the most. The downsizing of the Air Force of which will probably increase the frequency or duration of Air Expeditionary Forces will make the Air Force rely on single and divorced airman to maintain the aircraft. Quality of life will go down hill... I've loved aircraft all my life but I think other technology will eventually be developed that will make them dinosaurs!

Chickenlegs

The Navy has a great strike fighter: F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (exclude the others as the E/F is expected to serve alongside the F-35 JSF). The only additional thing that the Navy will benefit from is stealth, a relatively new technology for the Navy.

As for the Marines, these guys are the ones who desperately needs the aircraft, the AV-8B is getting old, the payload of the Harrier II is rediculous. In a feedback in AFM, a guy wrote and proved using pics that comparing the British Harrier and the American Harrier, the British one could carry a lot more than its American counterpart. In a strike mission, AV-8Bs took off carriers with 2 drop tanks on each side of the wing, a lightning pod for laser designation and only one paveway LGB. How's that for a payload?

AV-8Bs had a low effectiveness in IF campaign plus the stealth, be sure the Marines will be use the aircraft "right to the bone", they're gonna wear it, tear it and take its guts out!

Last edited by elp on May 04, 2004 - 06:47 PM; edited 3 times in total

IMHO it would be the Navy that would benefit the most. A real ( not concept demonstrator ) of the JSF is yet to fly... it is overbudget and overweight ( Weight of jets from lightest to heaviest are: USAF,... USN.... ( bigger wing more fuel .... and USMC / RN ... jump JSF.

The USN would benefit the most I believe... because the Super Hornet ain't that great. It will be standoff PGM only in a stiff ( real hardcore SAM environment ) and it is at risk in A2A vs. a Chinese or Indian style FLANKER. What JSF brings to the table for USN... is... in its clean Stealth mode ( internal weapons only ) profile.... it will have good fuel economy ( low drag ) at high altitude. I tend NOT to believe the public consumption range figures. The USN version will have a lot of gas and should have a bit better range. That is important as giving up the F-14 Bombcat with JDAMs / LGBs means you are giving up range with the Super Hornet only fleet. Hang all the high drag crap on a SH and it ain't going far. That means it is up to the JSF to give something that might look like long range strike ability back to the fleet. Add to that, the JSF has a better chance than most in a stiff SAM / AD environment. Well anyway, the USN doesn't have a choice, they need a stealth striker. So what ever JSF is, or is not, it is better than nothing. Tomahawk, SLAM-ER, JAASM coming from the fleet and helping JSF with lets say it's internal JDAM or SDB, makes for some good firepower on first night strategic strikes.

It can't do as well as the F-22 on a lot of high risk strikes. Yup I said it, because except for the 2000lb class weapon ability of the JSF... the F-22 has it beat on... RANGE., use of fuel ( high speed dash ... real super cruise with good fuel economy ) and more speed to have an absolute contempt of engagement of ANY A2A threat while the F-22 runs around and hits critical targets with SDB or 1000lb class JDAMs. And not much is going to stop it from doing that strike. That and any other non-strike tasked F-22s helping out, make sure the mail gets through. That is a HARD fact that JSF fans have to swallow when talking about air plans that involve taking down critical targets the first few nights of a real war with a stiff modern AD. JSF if it does became naked from an adverse stealth event, doesn't have the speed F-22 does to escape. Matter of fact I can draw up a plan for USAF that involves spending less money by NOT getting JSF.

Not far in the future... First nights of strat strikes air plan with NO JSF.
The first few nights of a war most strat targets are fixed and known...

-F-22 (JDAM 32-35, 38, SDB yeap... all internal )
-F-117 ( for some small 2000lb class only strikes not covered by other platforms for whatever reason )
-B-2 ( JDAM ( also 80x JDAM-38, GBU-37, SDB ( 1xx plus )
-B-1 ( JDAM, SDB 1xx plus (closer to 200 SDB Wink

) WCMD
-B-52 ( JASSM, JDAM, SDB 1xx plus (closer to 200 SDB), WCMD ) ( also EB-52 support Very Happy

)
-A-45 UCAV ( JDAM 32-35, 38, SDB ) EA-45 UCAV also.
-F-15E ( SDB, JDAM )
-F-16 (SDB, JDAM, JASSM)

Once large SAMs are taken down enough... legacy non-stealth jets can have their way with any target they want because today's PGMs give them contempt of engagement of Small SAMs, MANPAD, AAA and trashfire. And yes if we had to get some block 60 F-16s over time I say, do it. With CFTs that frees up wing space for things like lots of SDB, a fair number of GBU-12, and the upcoming JCM ( Joint Common Missile... replaces Hellfire ( Army, USMC ) and Maverick, tri-sensor, and you can carry more of these than Maverick and have a 10-18 mile range ) of course add CBU-105 WCMD ( SFW "skeets" ) to that and you are dealing out a lot of near all weather hurt when it comes to thining the herd ( making an enemy combat division combat ineffective before it even comes in contact with your troops ) and CAS. All that from a CFT equiped F-16 Blk 60. ( get CFTs on the older jets if possible, to free up wing space for more weps on the wings. ).

Note in the example above is for a stiff air defense where some legacy non-stealth platforms would be limited until the air defense was beaten down enough. After large SAMS are handled, it's playtime. So sorry once the AD is beaten down, I don't see a need for JSF for the USAF, assuming it even flys and survives the budget axe.

Anyway a lot better killing solution for USAF than wasting money on JSF. Especially when USAF needs cash for unsexy things like tankers, airlift improvements, etc. etc. etc.

The F-35 has a primary mission of air-to-ground attacks, but can it carry an Anti-radiation missile?
And elp, nice post!
But a question, why do you suggest a Block 60 purchase, you guys already could put CFTs on your other Blocks?

Last edited by elp on May 03, 2004 - 07:07 PM; edited 1 time in total

Well the Blk 60 fantasy was just thinking airframe life over the next 20 years. Would give USAF/USAFR/Guard some breathing room to retire older blocks. I would make Shaw AFB an all Blk 60 base so Active and Guard had an easy get together on the same airframe so the initial learning curve force wide I feel would be better. My opinion. The F-16 is still dirt cheap to operate on annual budgets. JSF is still a big unknown. It might be a cheap ( Plus ) jet to run. Cheap on the common stuff yet unknown extra cost associated with steath skin issues that cost money.

Got something there, OK can you answer my other question?

The load outs I have seen on public consumption charts show the HARM as external ( it is big ) JSF also has a "non-stealth" mode to carry weps externally on the wings. You would need a smaller ARM to fit internally. Also, with netcentric warfare... ( btw saw this public consumption in a product video at a arms show ) JSTARS is sending out some frag orders for SEAD / DEAD. As the nature of that business is mostly classified, I don't know. But, once modern detection gear fixes an emitters location. There is no rule that says you have to take out a SAM with a HARM. JDAM, ( JDAM Diamondback ) SDB ( SDB Diamondback ), JSOW, JAASM, JAASM-ER ( JASSM used for reall nasty modern SAM sites at range ) , WCMD CBU-105 (SFW "skeets" ).... it all depends. Those weapons can kill a SAM site just as well if not better than HARM in many situations and/or used in combo with HARM.

Personally give the type of capabilities granted to the AGM-88 and the size of the weapon its overkill for what the JSF needs. A better weapon for Self Defence purposes against Ground Intercept Radar would be to modify the AGM-122 Sidearm. Its the same size as a Sidewinder, permitting the use internally and would be easier to carry without great loss of internal weapons. Also I dont see the JSF flying SEAD missions too often considering that radars tend to shut off when they dont see anything at 15 miles.

Also Im not gonna get into to big a fight with Elp about this .... again, but the Hornets range and weapons carrage would only be that big a factor if you loaded it to max capacity which the same weapons you seem to love permit you to not do. JSOW and JDAM allow the aircraft to fly with Empty Pylons, infact most missions in Iraqi Freedom were flown with stations 2 and 10 removed from the aircraft. And in high threat arenas the extra pylons allow for easy carriage of self defence weapons to include AMRAAM and Harm, so its a heck of a lot better off then say a heavily loaded F-16 in the same arena.

A lot of good points here. I agree with ELP that other PGM weapons are equal to or better than the HARM and many more are in development. I still think the Navy and Marine Corps will benefit the most........more so the Marine Corp. Additionally, the Air Force is getting rid of 16,000 maintainers and looking at reducing a number of F-16 units in the Guard (if Rumsfeld has his way). Again cost will be an issue. I also agree with ELP on the Block 60. Get them in the system now. As it is, the Air Force is stretched thin with committments around the globe. Waiting will only delay the inevitable of stressed airframes making their last flights to AMARC. We're spending ten of millions designing new components for old airframes. Avionics upgrades are continuous on older Block models. I wonder at times if jobs and political influences are making many of the current decisions. Granted DOD is going after the JSF full bore hoping not in the end up with egg on their face.

the marine corps will benefit the most hands down..as they are possibly getting the most technological leap...come to think of it the harrier was STOVL but had range,payload and speed limitations....the bug had STOVL limitation as well as both jets aren't stealthy.....the navy would transform into a force which would not only have a STOVL jet + terrefic strike fighter + stealthy LO = survivable fighter whcih can replace both the aircraft in their service while strill bettering each one in its best capability....the navy would get another strike fighter be it significantly more survivable but with many tradeoffs.....the airforce will get a fighter with considerable improvment in sencors and stealth but not neccesaryily imptovment in performance.....so it is clear.....

Also someone raised the question about just buying standard f-15's and f-16's...well it depends at what threats you look at and at how you define a threat in terms of symmetry and/or degree. Definately in a2a role if you are going against a better fighter with similar advantage you die...the person who comes second is parachuting down over enemy territory.

When you look at the overall picture, you have to look at the 200% increase in air-defences related aqusition by the world milatries outside of NATO. Also the growing sophistication of newer SAM's but also the available upgraded integrationi of older SAM's which make them very very capable - get within JDAM range of an s500 in a f-15 and you die. The odds are so much in favour of the air defences specially when the s300+ have so much ground they can cover.

The threat of superior fighters isn't bogus:
- there will be upto 600+ flankers in asia by 2010
- the chinese air force has the su-30 armed with r-77's. They are buying the best anti air missiles and sams as well as the best anti ship missiles out there.

Of cource if you go by WOT threat then even the f-16 aren't required. A UAV/UCAV is perhaps the best weapon for the WOT. Look at pottential WOT missions where access isn't for granted, think N korea think China, think Iran.

These aircraft arent just being procured for the next 5 years, they are gonna serve for the next 3 and a half decade. During the cold war the threat was clear the soviet block and warsaw pact countries but know the situation is so fluid with a WOT threat , a potential N korea gone nuclear, iran going nuclear - you just dont know what will happen in 5 years time let alon 2-3 decades .

UCAV's also have their role but they are still far from being what we want them to be. They need time to develop and tried and further developed ... we can't take them for granted yet.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Which military branch would benefit most from the F-35?