Forum: Program and politics

We can B&M all we want, congress is going to sqeez pennies any way they can. But its always been funny to me how they always start with the military instead of there own wastfull programs. Off Topic

But seriously, If China does become a threat, then they'll be shut up quick and maybee we can finally get some funding equivalent to our Cold War counter parts. I just hope it doesn't take the lives of our men and weomen in uniform to make them see that.

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Quote:

you wont get more than one of the above for every two or three JSF cancelled

You won't get 2-3 F-35s for 1 F-22. The F-35 is going to cost about 100 million per aircraft, including R&D. The price of the F-22 is expected to come down to 100 milion by the 250th aircraft or so - it costs 120 million now -.

The -35 will be cheaper to operate probably but keep in mind that 2 different types of aircraft are more expensive to operate than 1.

You probably won't get more than 1.5 F-35 per F-22. Since the F-22 is faster and more survivable, it may well be more cost effective.

And the F-22 provides complete superiority over anything in the next 30+ years, it's almost invulnerable. It's a very disuasive weapon.

As for the fact that stealth aircraft are usefull only for the first phase of a war, there's no question about that. Only 60 aircraft were lost during GW1, and only 50 aircraft were stealthy.. and the iraqi air defense was said to be "formadable".

Even if air defense systems are getting better, SEAD systems also continue to get better. UCAVs and F-22s will destroy long range air defense systems within a few days of operation.

Just need to ask what you think the condition of our jets are going to be in 15 years? And why would we not need new jets with greater capability?

Viperalltheway,

the AF already proposed to cancel and order of 500 JSFs for just 200 F-22s. Its in this thread somewhere. Congress said no. Thats 2.5/1. Also, so I can get this straight, I posted in another thread that the number of JSFs being produced I agree is ridiculus. I think we should have 400/600 F22/F35. But thats just me. Also, Im hesitant to take anyones word on what the cost of 1 JSF will be seeing as how the first production one hasnt even been completed yet. Before the F-22 came out people were always slewing numbers to include R&D which as we know is money you cant get back no matter what.

Quote:

And the F-22 provides complete superiority over anything in the next 30+ years, it's almost invulnerable. It's a very disuasive weapon.

Again, Air Superirority isnt important. It just happens to be a neccessity required to drop bombs. The F-22's payload cant compare to the F-35s full payload. Besides, while F-22s are busy on day 1 of the war gaining air superiority, F-35s can already start dropping bombs with B-2s and F-117s.

-Aaron[/code]

There is a rumour that the total number of F-35's for all US armed forces will be cut by 50%.

The F-22s weapon bays hamber its ability to be a mud-mover and still maintain its low RCS. Why use a JDAM on a single tank when you can take a whole mass of them out with a cluster munition? Or take that one with a lower-cost system like a mav?

Okay well back to the main topic, is there prove right now that the F-35 JSF will be cancelled or not.

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

Quote:

the AF already proposed to cancel and order of 500 JSFs for just 200 F-22s. Its in this thread somewhere. Congress said no. Thats 2.5/1. Also, so I can get this straight, I posted in another thread that the number of JSFs being produced I agree is ridiculus. I think we should have 400/600 F22/F35. But thats just me. Also, Im hesitant to take anyones word on what the cost of 1 JSF will be seeing as how the first production one hasnt even been completed yet. Before the F-22 came out people were always slewing numbers to include R&D which as we know is money you cant get back no matter what.

Sure it's impossible to know the production price of the F-35, but it's a fact that the F-35 program is now expected to cost around 245 billion for 2500 aircraft. Add to that that the production will probably be lower, and you end up at 100 million per airframe. Considering this, I hardly see how you could get 2-3 F-35s for 1 F-22, since the F-22 already costs 120 million, and since it's expected to cost around 100 million after 250 produced.

Concerning operating cost, it's hard to tell if the F-35 will be significantly cheaper to operate. As far as I know, about 50% of operating cost come from fuel consumption, and the thing is that the F-35 should not consume much less than the F-22, because both have about the same range and fuel capacity.

Even if the F-35 is cheaper to maintain and operate, the difference is not likely to be huge. Which is not the case now for the F-16 vs F-15, because the F-16 is much smaller - empty weight 8.5 tons vs 14.5 tons for the 15E-, and consums much less fuel.

Everything taken into account, I doubt you will get more than 1.5 F-35 per F-22. The cost difference is compensated by the increased speed and survivability.

As for the difference in a/g ordnance, both have about the same carrying capability. The -35 has a slightly larger internal bay which enables weapons like JSOWs to be carried, but new smaller weapons can be developped. It makes much more sense to develop new weapons that fit the F-22 bay than to spend 40 billion to develop a new aircraft!

And the external loadout of the F-22 is theoritically 4x5000lbs vs 4x2500lbs for the F-35.

Fuel - the prob is how many tankers you need to support your fighter force as well. Consider that into your "fuel" concerns

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

I'm not sure it makes a difference, since both the -22 and -35 burn about the same amount of fuel, since they have about the same range and internal fuel.

F-35 internal fuel:
http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm
Internal Fuel (lb) 18,498
Range: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _100727612
Range: 700 NM +

F-22 internal fuel:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/
Fuel Capacity internal: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg)
Range: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/f22.html
Range: 750 NM

Not much difference. And the F-22 can supercruise, which is more fuel efficient if the aircraft needs to go fast.

To get back to a/g ordnance, LM is working on stealthy weapon bays that can be carried externaly. With those, an F-22 might have a better a/g ordnance than a F-35 since its external stations can carry twice as much. Let's say those "tanks" increase the RCS, and decrease the speed and manoeuvrability of the raptor to that of an F-35, you get 3x more stealthy a/g ordnance versus an F-35 with internal payload, and more than 50% with external payload on both.

Bwadwey wrote:

Okay well back to the main topic, is there prove right now that the F-35 JSF will be cancelled or not.

Yeah... a steady shrinking of the checkbook, mananged by DOD leemings, along with a whole bunch of useful programs going into fallow, being bled white... postponed etc. ( pick one ) Laughing

Quote:

IAN BRUCE, Defence CorrespondentNovember 10 2005
(Herald & Times)

BRITAIN'S plans to build two new aircraft-carriers could be thrown into
further disarray and extra expense by a £20bn cut in US military spending.
The major casualty of the budget cuts on future projects is most likely to
be the vertical-landing version of the US-designed Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) chosen by the UK to fly from the carriers.
The Royal Navy and the RAF want 150 of the aircraft, which were also to be
built for the US Marine Corps, to replace their Harrier jump-jet squadrons.
The Ministry of Defence has already spent £2bn on the JSF to help fund
Lockheed-Martin's development of the stealthy fighter-bomber.
The total bill to the British taxpayer for the full order has been estimated
at £10bn, on top of the £3.6bn cost of building the 60,000-tonne carriers.
Thousands of UK shipbuilding jobs, including between 2000 and 3000 on the
Clyde and at Rosyth, are dependent on the shared construction work on the
huge warships.
But, if the JSF programme is axed, the vessels would have to be fitted with
electro-magnetic catapults and arrestor gear to allow conventional aircraft
to operate at sea - adding tens of millions of pounds in costs. The move
would also considerably delay the carriers project.
The MoD still insists that the carriers will be ordered and built, although
shipbuilding unions have warned that any further delays will result in
lay-offs at yards from Portsmouth to Govan.
The MoD had announced last month that negotiations over the cost of
construction would mean a year's delay in bringing the ships into service.
The first, HMS Queen Elizabeth, was due in 2012 and its sister ship, Prince
of Wales, three years later.Prince of Wales, three years later.
Defence officials say no comment can be made until the Pentagon confirms any
decision it might make on the future of the JSF project.
A US defence source told The Herald: "We understand that Gordon England, the
US deputy defence secretary, is looking to kill one of the three JSF
variants being developed. The one in his crosshairs is the short-take-off,
vertical-landing version ordered by our Marine Corps and your Royal Navy and
RAF."
The American budget cuts announced last week are a direct response to the
continuing drain of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and to the cost of
recovery from hurricane damage.

This has larger ramifications... Italy also wanted the VSTOL version and if this is true, I could see a number of "partners" leaving the project completely leaving the entire program in trouble.

At least the Queen Elizabeth (man, why couldn't it have been Eagle and Hermes Sad

) class was designed with a future upgrade to catapults and arrestor gear in mind (that article makes the switch sound more severe than it will likelly be). Apparently some in the RN would prefer the CTOL (better capability) anyway so maybe it will work out for the best.

Still, far too much uncertainty for my liking.

Forum: Program and politics

Pentagon may scrap jet plans