Forum: General F-35 Forum

Cost. I know nobody likes to hear that, but it is just the truth.

Building an aircraft that can out perform the current top of the line by a decisive margin is exceedingly difficult. Combine that requirement with the sensors, stealth, range and payload requirements... and you are looking at an aircraft that would be significantly larger, more complex and consequently more expensive than an F-22. (Compared to an F-22 it would require larger weapons bays, a larger fuel capacity, and space and power for all the F-35 gadgets that the F-22 lacks.) Such an aircraft could never have been purchased or operated in sufficient numbers, there is doubt about whether even the F-35 will ultimately meet its production goals.

This imaginary strike Raptor would also not meet the Navy or Marine Corps's requirements meaning additional airframes would have to be developed at great cost.

Hobo, no comments directed at you specifically, but you prove my point. I feel that a new, $100 Mil Fighter, designed 30+ years after the Eagle and Viper should be MUCH better at EVERYTHING. The fact that it isn't is a direct result of the HUGE compromises that LM had to make in designing a do-everthying jet for all three services.

We might not have spent the same to chop the spec up into 2 or 3 different jets, but I bet it wouldn't have been much more and the resulting 2 or 3 jets would have been MUCH better. That takes us back to Sprey and his cronies. Their knowledge is antiquated, but the theme of their criticism is righ on. The F-35 isn't nearly what it could have been if it hadn't had to be so diverse. It is worse, not better, for that Joint requirement.

You're right that it's all about cost, but you must also weigh in performance to determine a best-value basis. And I can say that compared to the ~$89 million F-35(projected roll off price), the $20 million F-16 is a bargain. It may not bring stealth or an advanced tactical radar into the battle, but it is every bit as capable a bomb truck as the F-35. This is a top of the line fighter that easily outperforms the Lightning II.

Some even project that the F-35's cost overruns will place its roll off costs on par with the $125 million Raptor. So in the end, they do get a significantly more complex and expensive fighter than the F-22... which unfortunately is not nearly as capable in critical areas. All said and considered, redesigning the Raptor to include attack capabilities would have yielded a better bomb truck than what the F-35 turned out to be. Instead of a mere two internal JDAM's, an F-22 currently could carry four... offsetting the additional unit cost.

An F-16 isn't anywhere near $20million, not if you want a new-build aircraft at current export specs.

No F-16 will ever offer the level of capability that an F-35 will. (And no, it will not "easily outperform" the F-35.)

The current production order for F-35s is right around that 125 million price tag. (This is a fixed price contract for this year, not a projection about prices years from now.) The F-35 price will drop significantly from its current level as production volume increases. The people that are still saying F-35s will cost anywhere near 125 million a pop are either clueless or lying to promote an agenda.

On the second issue, a Raptor that could carry four JDAMs? Take a look at the length and width of the current weapons bay. There is simply no chance, not if we are talking about the 2,000 variety. (Or even the 1,000)

Significantly enlarging the bays would quickly turn into a major major redesign.

Well that is super, no really it is but just because he once said some smart things it doesn't mean he's now just as smart does it. And considering he seems to fail to grasp modern air warfare i'd say his opinions are completely useless in this day and age.

The US doesn't use export variants of the F-16. It IS $20 million an aircraft. Any figures you're going for the block 50/52+ is taking R&D into account divided by a mere 48 such fighters. As you yourself have stated, scales of production lower individual unit costs.

In what ways? The only real advantage the JSF has over the F-16 is range. Oh, you must mean stealth.

You don't need a f****** stealth plane to bomb third world countries,

so buying fewer of those will diminish your ability to deliver payloads to given targets. Even if the JSF were only twice the price of the F-16 block 52+, it's not twice as capable.

If targets are heavily defended by anti aircraft defenses, they might as well use long-ranged standoff missiles...

The current production order for F-35s is right around that 125 million price tag.

Yes, it can carry four JDAM's of the 1,000 Ib class. Not the 2,000 range in any capacity, but it most certainly can support four 1,000 Ib smart bombs internally.

15 years and 50 billion dollars later... now we've got one dedicated air-superiority fighter with little mission flexibility and one highly versatile and expensive alternative which can't perform any of its missions very well. The F-22 as it was had been a mistake, but the F-35 only compounds that mistake further.

There's no way you're going to be able to buy a Block 50/52 for $20M, much less its external targeting pods, etc...

Stealth, range, not acceleration, not agility, not speed with combat load, situational awareness, etc...

It's a dangerous assumption to think that we only need planes capable of operating in Third World countries.

If you look at the sum of the capabilities, then the F-35 is more than 2x as capable as an F-16.

What if the targets are mobile? The only way to find certain targets is to get closer to them, and the F-35 allows that.

You're confusing LRIP prices with series production prices. Once the production line is operating, the costs will be more in the $60-70M range for the F-35A.

The F-22 most certainly cannot carry 4 1000lb JDAMs. It has smaller weapons bays than the F-35. It can however carry 8 SDBs(not 16).

This is based upon what metric exactly? Which other aircraft performs as many missions as well?

He is old enought to remember Korea and Vietnam when all the clever boys said the USAF would walk it in with its superior technology. They were outclassed when they went into action. All the talk leading up to those conflicts was the same as now - no worries - we are the best. Also remember for about 8 years the US had nothing that could touch the now maligned MIG25. He lived that period, he knows it never pays to get too confident and ignore the basics. He was part of the solution - the F16. The Russians showed how deadly the MIG25 could have been when they flew Reconisance versions over Isreal in 1967 and 1970. Israel with a good up to date airforce could not stop them. His generation fixed that problem and kept the USA in front for about 30 years - not that the US airforce has gone up against any well equipped and trained airforce in the meantime. Iraq does not rate. These men deserve some respect and there wisdom should not be ignored.

The block 52+ is more in the realm of $40 million. That's an F-16E/F with LO features, AESA radar, conformal fuel tanks, a more powerful engine, upgraded electronic warfare package... and this aircraft was already perfected without the need for a completely new program.

Agility? A heavier fighter with higher wing loading and no thrust vectoring... F-16 wins this one hands down.

The $20 million figure is about standard for a standard block 30 falcon. The block 52+ is more in the realm of $40 million.

A That's an F-16E/F with LO features, AESA radar, conformal fuel tanks, a more powerful engine, upgraded electronic warfare package... and this aircraft was already perfected without the need for a completely new program.

Stealth, range, not acceleration, not agility, not speed with combat load, situational awareness, etc...

Acceleration may be about the same, but definitely nothing to brag about.

Agility? A heavier fighter with higher wing loading and no thrust vectoring... F-16 wins this one hands down.

Speed with combat load... you mean two AIM-120's and two JDAM's? An F-16 carrying that load can just about match the F-35's internal capacity in terms of speed. If you mean adding external stores to both aircraft, then the added drag and reduced stealth makes the F-35 completely impractical. Performance with a full combat load is comparable to an F-16.

The F-35 was designed with an entire air campaign in mind. For “first day of the war” operations when stealth is of supreme importance, the F-35 can carry two 2,000-pound bombs (two 1,000-pound bombs for the F-35B) and two radar guided dogfight missiles internally. Critics of the F-35 have complained that this loadout is far too light for sustained combat. However, in stealth configuration, all F-35 fuel is internal, as are all sensor and targeting systems. On legacy aircraft such as the F-16, fuel, weapons, targeting pods, etc., are carried externally and their weight and drag severely hamper performance. With a full internal load of fuel and weapons, the F-35 is as agile as a “clean” F-16 carrying no weapons. In other words, in stealth mode, the F-35 gives up nothing in range or weaponry, but adds considerable ability to penetrate enemy air defenses.

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said.

In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor,

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets' superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor

While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said.

Beesley explained that the F-35 is different from legacy fourth generation fighters such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, or even more modern aircraft such as the Eurofighter, in that the primary weapons load is stored internally. This arrangement means that there is no added drag to the airframe from externally carried weapons, fuel tanks, or sensor pods as in older aircraft types. The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters.

The F-35 is amazing in action: Able to simultaneously fight at least eight enemy planes, and, at the same time, lock-on to as many as 16 enemy ground targets. She can track literally hundreds of targets for 360 degrees and at tracking distances that -- though classified -- far exceed the distances of the legacy jets. And like the F-22, there is nothing out there that can outfight F-35. Except the F-22.

So which of the two would win in a dogfight? Difficult to answer, says Beesley who states that “subsonically, the F-35 and F-22 are very much the same airplane.

Even when loaded internally with two 2,000lb GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 AMRAAMs, Griffith says the sheer power of the Pratt & Whitney F135 is evident. “The engine has a lot of thrust. It’s been fun to outrun the F-16 (chase aircraft). They can’t keep up. If we go to full military power the F-16 has to go to afterburner to keep up.”

Better situational awareness isn't a feature limited solely to the F-35 program... it could just as well be integrated into future variants of the F-16 with AESA radar and a HMD.

Okay... so you're defeating your own argument. The F-35 is a design poorly suited for fighting future threats, especially generation five air superiority fighters, nor is it well suited for maintaining numerical advantage in its attack capabilities.

Hardly. All the Lightning II really has is stealth and that AESA radar, but it's not an effective force-multiplier like the F-22. If you had F-35's working in tandem with other fighters like the F-16, using its stealth and relaying tactical data to other fighters... then you could effectively give ten or twelve cheaper fighters the same advantages of the F-35. This goes back to the high-low fighter concept.

The problem is that the Lightning II isn't all that stealthy in comparison to the Raptor,

nor does it have the capacity to dictate when it can engage and when it can withdraw from battle. The primary advantages that a generation five fighter can provide is in acting as a force multiplier... one or two raptors could serve as mini-awacs and transmit data back to a force of 12 F-16's, guiding their missiles and surface weapons from a safe distance.

What kind of targets are you referring to? SAM systems?

So we're just taking it on faith that this aircraft isn't just following the trend of the F-22, as it has so far?

The E is an export model, and is in the $60M+ range. By LO, you're talking about an RCS of ~1m^2(not even competitive with the Super Hornet, much less an F-35's .001m^2).

No F-16 is going to reach M1.6 with 2 2000lb JDAMs, 2 AMRAAMs, LANTIRN/SNIPER/LITENING pods, fuel tanks.

The F-35 was designed with an entire air campaign in mind. For “first day of the war” operations when stealth is of supreme importance, the F-35 can carry two 2,000-pound bombs (two 1,000-pound bombs for the F-35B) and two radar guided dogfight missiles internally. Critics of the F-35 have complained that this loadout is far too light for sustained combat. However, in stealth configuration, all F-35 fuel is internal, as are all sensor and targeting systems. On legacy aircraft such as the F-16, fuel, weapons, targeting pods, etc., are carried externally and their weight and drag severely hamper performance. With a full internal load of fuel and weapons, the F-35 is as agile as a “clean” F-16 carrying no weapons. In other words, in stealth mode, the F-35 gives up nothing in range or weaponry, but adds considerable ability to penetrate enemy air defenses.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/0 ... -jets.html

The 'alternate' engine - if it survives - is for all variants. Please show me a reference that says otherwise. Thanks.

Considering the original requirement was to make the STOVL version is the reason the F-35 exists - one can hardly fault the aircraft for that.