Forum: General F-35 Forum

checksixx wrote:

The F-22 was NEVER banned from foreign military sales. In its production configuration, it did not meet FMS requirements. A law was passed early on that simply said that the funds being allocated for F-22 procurement, could not be used to develop a FMS version. That's all. A bill could have been introduced to allocate funds to develop a FMS version, however, it simply wasn't.

You know I can't help noticing how stupidly the F-22 and F-35 programs are/were being handled. In the case of the F-22, it was deprived of every financial and production benefit that would have made it successful. In the case of the F-35, its development and production have to be bloated to extreme levels just to be financially viable. Now you've got a 'low-end' fighter with a price rivaling that of the F-22 and a 'high-end' fighter that's been deprived of many electronic capabilities.

Had they given the F-22 the proper financial backing and planned an export version, it could have very well been a successful program. And had they put limits on the F-35 program, Lockheed Martin wouldn't have been able to milk the F-35 for everything they could.

F-16.net Sponsor

Conan wrote:

jeffb wrote:

medicdwpa wrote:

Why is the F-35 stealth open to sales over sea's but F-22 stealth is not?

Marketing.

How are you going to sell thousands of F-35s to foreign suckers...I mean customers if the F-22 is available? Answer: you're not!

So, the F-22 was banned from foreign sale. Make no mistake, if the US wanted to sell the F-22 to their allies they could.

It's a pity really because that fact is pretty much what restricted the production run to less than 200 aircraft and put enormous pressure on a lot of the planned block upgrades. Selling a couple of hundred to close allies like Australia, the UK and Japan would have doubled the production run, brought the purchase price down significantly and ensured that the block upgrades remained viable.

Keeping drinking that kool aid brother...

Ha! I'm the kool-aid drinker now am I? Laughing

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who drives the kool-aide truck.

But as you like, replace the UK with another ally or leave them out altogether, the point remains the same.

Nobody was going to buy F-35s if the F-22 was available and the plan for cheap F-35s relied on lots of people buying the F-35. So to make sure there are no F-22s available, they banned F-22 FMS (sorry checksixx, "effectively" banned F-22 FMS).

The problems with FMS sales of the F-22 are many and varied:

1. Poor planning in regards to export & anti-tamper
2. Poor planning for future upgrades (IIRC they have to completely rewire the pre-blk35s to get AIM-120Ds and 9x to work, new computers, etc)
3. Poor planning for basic avionics (no FLIR, HMD, IRST, etc)
4. Limited internal size issue (nothing larger than a 1k JDAM)
5. Added expense of not-to-rugged RAM
6. Wing stress & OBOGS issues
7. Added expense of twin engines and coating maintenance
8. Limited user base (most FMS customers want a single engined multi-role fighter of which the F-22 is clearly not).
9. At least twice as expensive as the F-35 at FRP.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

. Now you've got a 'low-end' fighter with a price rivaling that of the F-22 and a 'high-end' fighter that's been deprived of many electronic capabilities.
.

This line of argumentation looks increasingly laughable as the years go on.

jeffb wrote:

So to make sure there are no F-22s available, they banned F-22 FMS (sorry checksixx, "effectively" banned F-22 FMS).

Obey didn't effectively do anything but protect the funding already allocated to the overall F-22 program. They could have easily voted to input funding to develop an export version.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

In the case of the F-35, its development and production have to be bloated to extreme levels just to be financially viable

Buying big is a perfectly legitimate method to use to cover the costs needed to develop the technology of the F-35, or any other technology for that matter. Why else would the go for the partnership model they choose? Of course the financial crisis hasn't helped the program, but there you go. I believe the program will still be a winner.

BTW, the "low end" talk is getting old. Just wait, and we will see what is low end - in the end Wink

checksixx wrote:

jeffb wrote:

So to make sure there are no F-22s available, they banned F-22 FMS (sorry checksixx, "effectively" banned F-22 FMS).

Obey didn't effectively do anything but protect the funding already allocated to the overall F-22 program. They could have easily voted to input funding to develop an export version.

Yeah but they didn't. They voted to ensure there would only be one 'stealth' fighter available on the market, the F-35.

Thing is checksixx, why would they need to 'protect' the F-22s funding? Were they running low? And the amounts required to approve or licence it's foreign sale are insignificant in comparison to what FMS would generate and the benefits that would flow from building more of them for both the US and their allies. More planes built would have meant cheaper planes for the USAF. But they didn't want cheaper F-22s for the USAF or an extremely capable air-superiority stealth fighter out on the market...I wonder why?

FYI here's the actual amendment:

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 wrote:

(Sec. 8117) Prohibits funds from this Act from being used to: (1) enter into or renew a contract with a contractor who has not submitted to the Labor Department its most recently required annual report concerning the employment of veterans; (2) approve or license the sale of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government; or (3) fund the United States Man and the Biosphere Program or related projects.

Considering that in all practical measures the only benefit of the "high" end is two additional internal IR missiles and better kinematics? The "low" has the more sophisticated (albeit less powerful) radar, the same capacity of passive RF sensors, spherical IIR with BVR capability, HMCS, more adaptable internal storage, CVN compatibility, STOVL capability, and more advanced datalinking. I would be really interested to see how a training mission would go in which ~$1billion in each aircraft is pitted against each other. F-22 program cost of $66B for 180 airframes gives $370M each. F-35 program cost for US $323B for 2,440 US airframes gives $132M each. So it looks to me that 3 F-22 would have to rely on radar to detect and track 8 F-35 which can be just listening and using IIR to detect/track the F-22.

jeffb wrote:

Yeah but they didn't. They voted to ensure there would only be one 'stealth' fighter available on the market, the F-35.

Thing is checksixx, why would they need to 'protect' the F-22s funding? Were they running low? And the amounts required to approve or licence it's foreign sale are insignificant in comparison to what FMS would generate and the benefits that would flow from building more of them for both the US and their allies. More planes built would have meant cheaper planes for the USAF. But they didn't want cheaper F-22s for the USAF or an extremely capable air-superiority stealth fighter out on the market...I wonder why?

FYI here's the actual amendment:

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 wrote:

(Sec. 8117) Prohibits funds from this Act from being used to: (1) enter into or renew a contract with a contractor who has not submitted to the Labor Department its most recently required annual report concerning the employment of veterans; (2) approve or license the sale of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government; or (3) fund the United States Man and the Biosphere Program or related projects.

Well Jeff...I kinda know everything you just posted...Didn't I already get to that point a bit? I've posted the ammendment here before and you can be sure I know what it says before I talk about it. They didn't need to protect it, just to ensure that none of it that was being appropriated for airframes didn't get spent on research toward a FMS sale. Its more than obvious there was massive support and push toward the JSF. The JSF would be a total success right now if the Govt held the contractor to certain standards...however....you cannot want massive new technology and not expect to pay for it.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Considering that in all practical measures the only benefit of the "high" end is two additional internal IR missiles and better kinematics? The "low" has the more sophisticated (albeit less powerful) radar, the same capacity of passive RF sensors, spherical IIR with BVR capability, HMCS, more adaptable internal storage, CVN compatibility, STOVL capability, and more advanced datalinking. I would be really interested to see how a training mission would go in which ~$1billion in each aircraft is pitted against each other. F-22 program cost of $66B for 180 airframes gives $370M each. F-35 program cost for US $323B for 2,440 US airframes gives $132M each. So it looks to me that 3 F-22 would have to rely on radar to detect and track 8 F-35 which can be just listening and using IIR to detect/track the F-22.

Shouldn't we wait until they've built at least a thousand airframes before you start claiming that 2400 will be built? Wouldn't a more realistic comparison look at how much has been spent so far for the given number of airframes and compare them on that basis?

Bigger radar, smaller RCS, better IR management, superior altitude, dash and maneuver performance.

F-35 LER 6:1 (projected)
F-22 LER 33:1 (historical)

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

jeffb wrote:

Shouldn't we wait until they've built at least a thousand airframes before you start claiming that 2400 will be built?

That's a fair point. It remains possible the US could simply get out of the air power business and go with a force of 185 F-22s and some aging Super Hornets for the next 30 years, until they develop a 6th generation fighter instead.

Probably not though. We may be trapped with the F-35, but at this point then, we're trapped with the F-35. We can't wait decades or spend billions to develop something else. We need 2,400 F-35s, regardless of what they cost.

Quote:

Wouldn't a more realistic comparison look at how much has been spent so far for the given number of airframes and compare them on that basis?

Yes, let's compare a program still in LRIP with a program that finished. Very realistic comparison. The A-12 for example has an infinite per-airfame cost. And it had an infinite per-airframe cost from the instant the first RFP was photocopied, remaining infinite until the program was cancelled. ($0.01 / 0 planes = infinity) Had they built just one, just one, the cost per airframe would have dropped by an infinite amount to a large but finite number. So no, your equation is irrevocably broken. The correct equation to compare is ($cost to design and debug / value of intended asset) + (($build cost per plane * #planes built) / #planes actually needed) - ($cost to design and debug / value of intended asset).

So better, simplify that equation and you'll see it devolves to ($build cost per plane) only, provided you're not buying too many. What the development will cost is relevant, but only to budgeting how much having that asset is worth. Once you decided to develop it, the development cost is sunk money and comes back out of the equation. And while the price of the program then grows with more planes bought, the cost of each needed plane only applies to itself, not the program.

So let's just see what they cost, per-airframe build cost only, at the same stage of development. And it makes sense to spend a lot on a plane you plan to buy over 2,000 of. The highest number of F-22s ever planned was 1,500, and that rapidly dropped to 750 long before LRIP. Then to 350, 250, 187. What it costs to build and operate each one from now on is the only thing that matters. F-35 at this stage of the game, where the F-22 had dropped to 350, is still at 2,400. And it makes sense to spend more to develop 3 planes in all but name, than to develop 1 plane. So again, the only realistic comparison is what each of those planes costs when divorced from the sunk costs. Optimistically (and I believe the numbers) the F-22 would have only cost $140M per plane by the end of the production run. The F-35 by the end of the run, about $105M per plane.

Quote:

Bigger radar

True.

Quote:

smaller RCS

One of the most important engineering considerations ever is to heed the law of diminishing returns. The F-22 is stealthier than it needs to be for any practical purpose. If the enemy can't see you until they're dead, you're stealthy enough. That seems to be the F-35's design point. Being a little bit more invisible than that costs a lot more money but makes no actual difference.

Quote:

better IR management

You know this, how exactly? The F-35 has higher bypass, one engine rather than two, that engine buried much deeper inside the airframe, and is transsonic rather than supercruising so will generate much less skin and compression heating. Other than a flat nozzle and a suspicion of some internal countermeasures that have never been revealed for either plane, the F-35 may well have the superior IR management. I don't know either way, and you don't know either way. And it's largely irrelevant anyway. If you can't see either plane on radar, you won't get close enough to see it on IR either.

Quote:

superior altitude, dash and maneuver performance.

No. Larger numbers for various performance stats. That's all you know. "Superior" is a value judgment which you can't possibly have the data or operational experience to back up.

And cherry-picking only the F-22's relative strength stats is again no comparison. How about F-35:

Higher fuel efficiency (one engine, higher bypass, slower speed); larger fuel capacity; greater range; larger weapons bay; larger weapons load capacity; spherical IRST (WVR spherical off-boresite LOAL IR and radar missile launches, instead of maneuvering); synthetic aperture radar, spherical IRST, and EOTS (ability to track ground targets); and harder-hitting gun against armored ground targets. F-22 loses to the F-35 on all those very significant stats.

Quote:

F-35 LER 6:1 (projected)
F-22 LER 33:1 (historical)

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

F-22 was projected at 10:1 at this stage too. Less than twice as good as the F-35 at the same stage of development. So trying to extrapolate fairly to make the same actual comparison says the F-35 will probably really be at about 20:1.

Besides, much more important stat:

F-35 (A,C) internal 2,000 lb. JDAM capacity: 2 (actual)
F-22 internal 2,000 lb. JDAM capacity: 0 (actual)

As long as the F-35s survive the opening days of a conflict, when they and the F-22s wipe out enemy A2A (and at 6:1 or better, the F-35s will survive), for the entire rest of the war the bombing capabilities will matter and the A2A capabilities will not. No need to wait and see.

The F-22 is an impressive plane and an important plane, and I'm disgusted we didn't build 250-350 of them. But Gates wasn't wrong to make the argument that the F-35 is the more important aircraft and that we shouldn't sacrifice a single F-35 purchase to increase the F-22 purchases. He was only wrong to say we couldn't afford both in reasonable numbers.

Why would you want F-22's when you can get two networked F-35's for the price of one F-22. Simply put the quality vs quanity ratio of the F-22 isn't high enough to over come what the F-35 brings to the table in the way of capability.

Two questions.

Are the F-22's kinematics to beat enemy air or to beat SAMs?

If it's to beat SAMs then how well will it work against the new double digit stuff which seems to have tremendous kinematics of their own?

It seems you'd need SR-71 or better kinematics to beat some of the new SAMs.

And what about some oppo developing a low RCS high performance platform, you know, the kind of platform that keeps Kopp and Goon awake at night worrying over the fate of Western Civilization? If the T-50 is the best anyone can do than the F-35 is enough.

I'd think the F-22's performance was intended to counter both air and SAM threats. Even if the latest SAM's are hard to outmaneuver, the F-22's low RCS could allow it to make better use of counter measures, like chaff, even after it's been locked up and fired on. Ultra long range SAM shots might also need a different flight trajectory than close up shots, so the missiles might not be able to perform proportionately well at short range when compared to long range. I don't have any specific information on that though.

The SAM might just go chasing after a MALD for all we know. Very Happy

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 stealth?