F-35 First Flight Comments...

[phreeky]

So anything we devise will need a robust backup - including manned aircraft tossing GPS guided PGMs.

If satellites were knocked out, I get the feeling even dumb munitions would become very common again. Surely you'd prefer not to, but if sh*t hits the fan (which it surely does in a major conflict), you want to have the capability to go back to basics.

Similarly, if a method of detecting stealth aircraft became quite reliable, having only 600 (or so) F-22s would surely be a less useful force than 2000+ F-35s? (that's a question, because I truly don't know, just seems logical to me).

Planning ahead with a whole lot of assumptions (i.e: they will not be able to disable our satellites; they will not be able to detect stealth aircraft) is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[swerve]

When that 276 billion $ number is being tossed around, I've never been able to figure out if it includes the partner nations buy, which is something like 700+..

No, it doesn't. Only the US buy.

 

[swerve]

It is difficult to get through all that in his posts, but I do believe that the core of his message is sound.

It's unfortunate that he doesn't try to simplify, de-jargon, and tone down the emotional aspects.

It would make for a more powerful argument.

He does himself a disservice. Many, whom might otherwise take something from the substance of his posts, are put off by the style of delivery.

Agreed. There is substance to his posts. Shame about the style.

 

[Grand Danois]

No, it doesn't. Only the US buy.

Ah! Too bad. That makes it 113 million $ per F-35.

 

[Big-E]

So anything we devise will need a robust backup - including manned aircraft tossing GPS guided PGMs.

If you have manned aircraft they need to be stealthy because radars are still working. That isn't legacy aircraft.

Agreed. And all of which (fixed targets), are strikeable by a UCAV. Assuming appropriate munitions are available, and the target is within range.

Not for $30 million, this thing will hardly be able to defend itself. That's half the flyaway price of JSF, this things supposed to be cheap. What is the range without sat com... nothing special. In this scenerio UCAVs become extremly less utilitarian and more vulnerable. The JSF can carry at least twice as much internally as a UCAV can. At 60 million for JSF internal loadout and 60 million to reach the same loadout UCAV breaks even. This thing is too expensive.

I don't know, but i would guess up to several hundred miles.

You would guess incorrectly. Try under 100...

The efforts to turn AESA radar antennas into high-bandwidth comm arrays is particularly interesting in this regard.

I'm not going to base my future acquisitions on that.

Yes, there would be growing pains. This would have to be factored in to the costs.

Which means billions of dollars more if we push this platform thru. We have already dumped $30 billion into JSF... IT WON"T BE CANCELLED!

China would also undoubtedly also target fixed airfields and carriers in the opening stages as well. So a short-ranged system like the F-35 might not be much, if any, more valuable.

Call in the Marines... we have a contingency for everything.

Plus, UCAVs could still strike the numerous fixed targets TLAM-style, assuming it had airfields or carriers to fly from.

There is no plus in this scenerio... that is their ONLY strike mode. Preprogrammed missions without satellite guidance leaves little room for flexibilty and leaves no chance of it participating in an A2A role.

Ah! Too bad. That makes it 113 million $ per F-35.

F-35 flyaway cost will be no where near that much. That's twice the flyaway.

 

[Grand Danois]

F-35 flyaway cost will be no where near that much. That's twice the flyaway.

I know. That's PAUC. Similar figure for F-22 is 370 million $. The latter is so high because of the small quantity.

You just can't beat the huge numbers the F-35 will be built in.

 

[B.Smitty]

If you have manned aircraft they need to be stealthy because radars are still working. That isn't legacy aircraft.

Well, it all depends on how far they can stand off and still communicate.

Not for $30 million, this thing will hardly be able to defend itself. That's half the flyaway price of JSF, this things supposed to be cheap. What is the range without sat com... nothing special. In this scenerio UCAVs become extremly less utilitarian and more vulnerable. The JSF can carry at least twice as much internally as a UCAV can. At 60 million for JSF internal loadout and 60 million to reach the same loadout UCAV breaks even. This thing is too expensive.

The X-45C/X-47B were spec'd to carry 4000-4500lbs internal - just like the F-35.

A UCAV's defense is it's very high degree of stealth, and the fact that if we lose a few - oh well.

Their combat radius was supposed to be something like 1300 nm. That's almost twice the radius of the big wing F-35C (on internal fuel).

You would guess incorrectly. Try under 100...

According to this,

https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/weapons/SensElec/Sensors/link16.htm

JTIDS range can be as much as 500 miles.

So I would think an enhanced UCAV datalink could go a bit more than 100.

Which means billions of dollars more if we push this platform thru. We have already dumped $30 billion into JSF... IT WON"T BE CANCELLED!

Well I agree it won't be canceled. There's just too much juicy pork to go around for that to happen.

There is no plus in this scenerio... that is their ONLY strike mode. Preprogrammed missions without satellite guidance leaves little room for flexibilty and leaves no chance of it participating in an A2A role.

I believe the combat controller would be a useful backup. Once could also envision a Global Hawk with a datalink repeater payload.

They won't participate in the traditional A2A role at first, but striking airfields has always been a better way to knock out an enemies air force. Plus, they'd have F-22s clearing the skies for them.

 

[Big-E]

I classify your response as realistic sci-fi. All of it is possible but not proven and will not be ready in the time we will need the replacements JSF will provide. The technology will definetly be there in the future and the F-22 and JSF will retire with dignity after serving their purpose to be replaced by these vehicles. In the mean time we will make do with a combination of both until these technologies mature. Us pilots aren't ready for the retirement village just yet.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The F-35 first flight video is available here:

http://www.crmstudios.tv/videos/F35/

It's not all THAT exciting and it's 15.1mbs but if you're interested, there you go...

 

[Tasman]

The F-35 first flight video is available here:

http://www.crmstudios.tv/videos/F35/

It's not all THAT exciting and it's 15.1mbs but if you're interested, there you go...

Thanks AD. It is an interesting video.

I see now why the comment "It flies like a smaller and quicker Raptor" was a bit over the top.

It did seem, though, to my untrained eye, that the aircraft does handle well at low speeds with its wheels down! nfloorl:

 

[ripper]

Which means billions of dollars more if we push this platform thru. We have already dumped $30 billion into JSF... IT WON"T BE CANCELLED!

Why not? Commanche was cancelled. The A-12 was cancelled. XB-70 was cancelled. The supersonic A-7 was cancelled. The B-1A was cancelled.

This "thing" can be cancelled if the congress wants it cancelled, or if it does not live up to the hype surrounding this fat-cat of an ugly duckling airplane.

Regardless of how many billions has been spent thus far, it would still be cheaper to cancell it and actually build a useable number of F-22s while allowing the Navy to fill its carriers with Super Hornets, and further still allowing the USAF to build another couple hundred Strike Eagles.

There would still be money left over from the 275 billion US dollars to build up an advanced ramjeted 120 and to still more money left over to develope a useable quantity of UCAVs and advanced cruise missiles.

Not to mention the money to be saved by reducing the number of types of airframes in the arsenal by reduced training, maint. costs, spare parts costs, and ect, and ect.

Why spend 275 billion dollars to field a plane that carried TWO aams and TWO bombs? The Dept of Defense, the Pentagon, the US Congress have all lost their minds.

The USAF already has a plane that can take over for the role of the F-117 and the F-15C in one tidy package called the Raptor. Last time I checked, the F-35 with more than 2 missiles will be carrying those extra missiles externally, and if it carries more than 2 bombs will be carrying those externally and thereby defeating the cry of the F-35 proponents of it being a stealthy fighter/bomber. Although it may be able to fly w/o AB around 1.2-1.3 mach, it certainly cannot fight its way into nor out of any heavily defended airspace and with its puny load will rely on sheer numbers for success... But, its numbers if not cancelled will not be even close to published requirements. With another 100 billion going into Iraq (recently) and even more 100's of billions to come, the F-35 is going to be facing an ever increasing up hill battle to hang onto the airframes needed to keep the costs below what the F-22 costs today.

 

[Occum]

Beers For All

Thanks AD. It is an interesting video.

I see now why the comment "It flies like a smaller and quicker Raptor" was a bit over the top.

It did seem, though, to my untrained eye, that the aircraft does handle well at low speeds with its wheels down! nfloorl:

Yep, Jon Beesley will be buying beers for the boys for years to come on that one.

Couple of observations that have been made -

1. Apparent low level of damping in both the mains and nose gear.

2. Apparent excessively long ground roll.

3. Apparent uncommanded role to the left at lift off.

4. Apparent directional twitchiness.

5. Apparent preference for RH turns during air test.

A first flight of thirty five minutes weight off wheels was not conducive to doing much, flight test wise, particularly given the marketing intensity of this flight.

Once the data starts to flow is when people will start to see how this little muther compares with the marketing hype.

 

[icelord]

Why not? Commanche was cancelled. The A-12 was cancelled. XB-70 was cancelled. The supersonic A-7 was cancelled. The B-1A was cancelled.

This "thing" can be cancelled if the congress wants it cancelled, or if it does not live up to the hype surrounding this fat-cat of an ugly duckling airplane.

Regardless of how many billions has been spent thus far, it would still be cheaper to cancell it and actually build a useable number of F-22s while allowing the Navy to fill its carriers with Super Hornets, and further still allowing the USAF to build another couple hundred Strike Eagles.

As true as that is, most of the projects you mentioned there were not as international in purchase and input as the JSF is. If Congress did pull the pin on the JSF, then their would be a couple of cheesed off countries who put large amounts of money into a project some beauracrat recommened to be scrapped. This is a major project not just for the USAF, but every other Air force and the US Defence Industry. if it were to be scrapped, every project worked in conjunction with US and Allies would be viewed Sceptically and funds might not be as forthcoming, which would not help anyone.

They are beyond the cancel point really in terms of everyone elses involvement, and i don't see Congress recieving a good review from the friends its got if they lost out on future international contracts, just because the USAF can go F-22, doesn't mean everyone else will, more likely out of spite some might look elsewhere, ie typhoon. which leads to an even bigger loss in the long term. And this revolves across the board, with Army or Navy upgrades.
Too many factors now to see an end.

 

[ripper]

As true as that is, most of the projects you mentioned there were not as international in purchase and input as the JSF is. If Congress did pull the pin on the JSF, then their would be a couple of cheesed off countries who put large amounts of money into a project some beauracrat recommened to be scrapped. This is a major project not just for the USAF, but every other Air force and the US Defence Industry. if it were to be scrapped, every project worked in conjunction with US and Allies would be viewed Sceptically and funds might not be as forthcoming, which would not help anyone.

They are beyond the cancel point really in terms of everyone elses involvement, and i don't see Congress recieving a good review from the friends its got if they lost out on future international contracts, just because the USAF can go F-22, doesn't mean everyone else will, more likely out of spite some might look elsewhere, ie typhoon. which leads to an even bigger loss in the long term. And this revolves across the board, with Army or Navy upgrades.
Too many factors now to see an end.

True, the JSF is an international effort, and its going to be hard to kill the program completely as such. But, and there is a but, I can guaranty that before its said and done that the F-35 program is going to be restructured to contend with reduced purchase quantities. 3000 airframes? Yeah, right and we're also going to see the USAF get it's 750 F-22 aiframes. I've been around long enough to see the writing that is on the wall of the F-35 program and there are more (-)'s to (+)'s coming down the road. My armchair prediction is:

USAF: 500-700 total program buy
USN: 200-300 ""
USM: TBD

And per unit airframe cost ~ 80-95M USD

It would be cheaper for the US to simply give back the money collected from our international partners and cancell the program outright and actually field more F-22s, Strike Ealges, Super Hornets, UCAVs, and ALCMs.

Though Kurt Plummer is a little out there, he is right and the F-35 is going to wind up being a tanker hog, and worse yet a tanker hog for the sake of delivering TWO bombs (not counting SDB). There is already a platform than can carry two bombs internally, and carry them further/faster to target and generate more sorties per airframe per unit of time: the F-22 which has the benefit of not needing to be flight tested and have 'bugs' worked out during and extensive flight test program; which has the benefit of already having been production tooled. For that matter, considering the international cooperation in the F-35, it wouldn't be *that* difficult nor *that* expensive to build an internationalized F-22 for export. Considering how 'electronic' the F-22 is, it could be programmed (w/o supplying source code to the other nations) to fly at reduced cruise speeds, and its radar set could easily be downgraded such that the USA maintains a supperior fighter/bomber which is the prerequisite for the international cooperation/export of the F-35.

Its rare to see logic ever applied to the US defense industry, so we'll never see the 35 cancelled or an export version of the 22. We will only see reduced buys of the 35 and increased per unit costs. The last two aircraft that the generals kept their noses out of were the A-10 and YF-16, and we all know what a success each of those aircraft were/are.

What the US air forces need are more C-17s, C-130s, tankers, F-22s, Super Hornets, AWACS (USAF/USN), Strike Eagles, UCAVs, a better AMRAAM, a better ALCM, and new build B-1s -- not a two bomb carrying 275 billion dollar airplane that is a step backwards in everyday performance of what is already in production. For the first time in US history the generals have seen fit to whip up a plane that does not have everday speed, range, altitude, payload of whats already in production. Sure the F-16 was slower in top end speed than the F-15, but top end speed is never even flown at briefly in combat situations. The F-16 could also more than hold its own in a turning engagement with the F-15, and I find it highly unlikely that the 35 will be as comparable to the F-22 and is the F-16 comparable to the F-15.

 

[Big-E]

One thing you need to contend with in this debate is the limited number of F-22s we will have. Even if you build 750 it wouldn't fullfill USAF/USN/USMC needs much less our international partners. Even if you divide the JSF program cost and fund F-22s you still don't have enough to fill all the active squadrons. If you divide the cost between three airframes needed to replace F/A-18s, F-16s, AV-8Bs then your talking even more R&D and redundancy programs. If you think JSF R&D is a waste your just hitting the tip of the iceburg. It might not be perfect but it is WAY better than anything else that can be thought of.

 

[rjmaz1]

One thing you need to contend with in this debate is the limited number of F-22s we will have. Even if you build 750 it wouldn't fullfill USAF/USN/USMC needs much less our international partners.

F-22 and UCAV can completely fill the USAF needs for air dominance and strike.

Super Hornet and UCAV can completely fill the needs of the US Navy carrier protection and strike.

UCAV can perform alot of the missions that the harrier performs for the Marines.

Internation customers have: Eurofighter, Rafael, Gripen and F-16 for the international market. If the JSF program is cut to only 1500 aircraft (which is likely) then the price could be greater than the Eurofighter. So international customers can just buy the Eurofighter or cheaper F-16's.

If you divide the cost between three airframes needed to replace F/A-18s, F-16s, AV-8Bs then your talking even more R&D and redundancy programs.

The only extra aircraft that is needed to replace those three aircraft is UCAV. The US already has the F-22 and Super Hornet in place that can perform the majority of the roles.

So really they dont need to spend any extra on R&D, as the UCAV is the only aircraft that needs to be added to the current aircraft in production to completely replace the JSF program. If UCAV has delays, new F-16's can be purchased to make up numbers.

If you think JSF R&D is a waste your just hitting the tip of the iceburg. It might not be perfect but it is WAY better than anything else that can be thought of.

Actually the JSF R&D has not been a waste. The technologies and techniques that have been developed will allow future UCAV aircraft to be produced at half the price and with an extremely low radar cross section.

So at the end of the next decade if the JSF is canceled everyone will be happy.

USAF will have 500+ F-22, 500+ F-16, 500+ UCAV plus the bomber fleet

US Navy will have 500+ Super Hornets and 500+ UCAV on its carriers

US Marines would simply tap into the US navy UCAV network and would have 24 hour support on demand. The UCAV aircraft could even operate off the WASP class helicopter carriers as their long endurance would not put that much extra workload on them.

 

[Big-E]

F-22 and UCAV can completely fill the USAF needs for air dominance and strike.

Super Hornet and UCAV can completely fill the needs of the US Navy carrier protection and strike.

UCAV can perform alot of the missions that the harrier performs for the Marines.

Internation customers have: Eurofighter, Rafael, Gripen and F-16 for the international market. If the JSF program is cut to only 1500 aircraft (which is likely) then the price could be greater than the Eurofighter. So international customers can just buy the Eurofighter or cheaper F-16's.

UCAV is still 10-15 years in development before the technologies mature enough for widespread use. JSF is just about finnished.

The JSF is better than Typhoon in stealth... no one will pass that up if the price is under 60 million USD.

Super Hornet/Eurofighter/ Gripen/ Rafale/ F-16 were all obsolete the first day JSF flew.

The only extra aircraft that is needed to replace those three aircraft is UCAV. The US already has the F-22 and Super Hornet in place that can perform the majority of the roles.

UCAV was cancelled and will thus take much longer to develop. It isn't a funding priority right now and is waiting on certain technologies to mature.

So really they dont need to spend any extra on R&D, as the UCAV is the only aircraft that needs to be added to the current aircraft in production to completely replace the JSF program. If UCAV has delays, new F-16's can be purchased to make up numbers.

Why waste money on obsolete F-16s... taking steps backward are not how you reach the finish line.

Actually the JSF R&D has not been a waste. The technologies and techniques that have been developed will allow future UCAV aircraft to be produced at half the price and with an extremely low radar cross section.

It hasn't been a waste because it will go into building thousands upon thousands of F-35s. :

So at the end of the next decade if the JSF is canceled everyone will be happy.

Every partner nation will be pissed off... I'm not going to refund their money... so it can come out of your paycheck. :tomato

USAF will have 500+ F-22, 500+ F-16, 500+ UCAV plus the bomber fleet

US Navy will have 500+ Super Hornets and 500+ UCAV on its carriers

US Marines would simply tap into the US navy UCAV network and would have 24 hour support on demand. The UCAV aircraft could even operate off the WASP class helicopter carriers as their long endurance would not put that much extra workload on them.

I wouldn't wish that orbat on my worst enemy. Talk about inflexible.

 

[icelord]

How would the Marines look into a replacement for Harrier, the VTOL is a central reason for their demand, correct?
The F-35 is being built for carriers to replace current AV models, with UK, Spain and Italy building carriers for short term use of Harriers, and prepare for F-35B(not saying they can't change to something else, its just what they planned for)
The worlds Air Forces are investing a ton of money for the JSF because it fits into their structure, for once the USAF is not the centre of the world, as the JSF is being done for the rest of the world who put in for it, to match thier requirements. The RAAF want a single Fighter Frame for their Squadrons, to reduce expanditure on parts, not some mix of F-16s and F-22(which will not happen!) so the JSF is what we want, much to everyone elses belief. The other partners would also like the same, they don't want to see money thrown around for a fighter that gets cancelled because someone didn't like it. Generals/Air Marshalls are getting a say in what they want, and they want the F-35, of course its expensive, and going to cost more, this is an airframe that is designed for STOL, VTOL and CTOL. Trying doing that on the cheap.

 

[ripper]

One thing you need to contend with in this debate is the limited number of F-22s we will have. Even if you build 750 it wouldn't fullfill USAF/USN/USMC needs much less our international partners. Even if you divide the JSF program cost and fund F-22s you still don't have enough to fill all the active squadrons. If you divide the cost between three airframes needed to replace F/A-18s, F-16s, AV-8Bs then your talking even more R&D and redundancy programs. If you think JSF R&D is a waste your just hitting the tip of the iceburg. It might not be perfect but it is WAY better than anything else that can be thought of.

Well, the USoA will NEVER see 750 F-22s. That's a moot(?) point. Considering that the USAF feels that 381 F-22s can completely replace the F-15A/B/C fleet, then its not out of the question (taking into account that 1 F-22 can sweep the sky clear time after time of 6 F-15s in mock engagements), then its not out of the question that 750 F-22 airframes could completely replace the fleet of F-15s (except the Strike Eagles) and all of the F-16s and F-117s. Coupled with a couple hundy of the Stike Eagle airframes I'd sleep just fine w/o worrying about the decaying fleet the USAF is flying today. But thats just wishfull thinking as I believe the Lockmart is only capable of producing something like 36 F-22 airframes/year.

The F-35 would not exist if it were not for the F-22 ATF program - its engine, airframe, materials, production methodes, coatings, avionics, except for the hydraulic system/s, are all lesser/cheaper derivatives of the F-22 systems (well, that engine I believe is more $ but its still a derivative of that the ATF program pioneered).

The F-35 program has been an invaluable "vehicle" for the new sensors that are planned to outfit the aiframe with. They could easily be added to F-22s for airframes that are primarily taksed with ground strike missions firstly and air supremacy secondy. Those sensors can also be added to UCAVS (and don't believe for a minute that the AF has canceled the UCAV program - its just gone black) and new ALCMs/SLCMs. The F-35 could also make for a fine platform as an unmanned strike bomber. Remove the pilot and all the human stuff from the plane and theres more room for all-axis cameras/IR sensors.

The engine technology of the F-35 could also be added to new build B-1 bombers along with the 35s sensors and a new AESA radar, and you would have an "can't be beat" faster longer ranged go anywhere/anytime heavy hitter - another 100 airframes would do nicely for USAF/ANG. Of all planes, the B-1 should still be in production today. What a shame the USAF developed the B-2 and axed the Bone. While the Bone isn't as LO, with a quantity increase over the 96 airframes and new engines/sensors/etc that plane could not be beaten and go into environments/times/weather that a B-2dare not.

We'll see what happens to the USMC F-35: that thing may or may not "fly". And its the sole reason reason the F-35 is such an underdog fighter: it had to take into account the absolutely PUNY and IGNISIFCANT mission/s of the Harrier - a plane that has never mattered in any conflict except for the Brits Argentina excursions that F-14's/F-18's could have handled better if the Brits actually had a REAL aircraft carrier.

It would be a real shame if the USMC F-35 turns out to be unnacceptable since the F-35 has been so incredibly hemmed in by its requirements.

Ahhhh... If only logic were used in DoD/Capitol Hill/Pentagon. This I can gauranty as well, when that new Chinese fighters comes out... What is it, the J-XX? It's going to take into account everything learned from the ATF and JSF programs.... If Chinese manufacturing is up to snuff (and I have experience that indicates its not but is steadily making improvements), then there could be EASILY at minimum an F-35 beater and with only 183 F-22s, there won't be enough Big Brothers around to defend everyone.

 

[ripper]

Well, the USoA will NEVER see 750 F-22s. That's a moot(?) point. Considering that the USAF feels that 381 F-22s can completely replace the F-15A/B/C fleet, then its not out of the question (taking into account that 1 F-22 can sweep the sky clear time after time of 6 F-15s in mock engagements), then its not out of the question that 750 F-22 airframes could completely replace the fleet of F-15s (except the Strike Eagles) and all of the F-16s and F-117s. Coupled with a couple hundy of the Stike Eagle airframes I'd sleep just fine w/o worrying about the decaying fleet the USAF is flying today. But thats just wishfull thinking as I believe the Lockmart is only capable of producing something like 36 F-22 airframes/year.

The F-35 would not exist if it were not for the F-22 ATF program - its engine, airframe, materials, production methodes, coatings, avionics, except for the hydraulic system/s, are all lesser/cheaper derivatives of the F-22 systems (well, that engine I believe is more $ but its still a derivative of that the ATF program pioneered).

The F-35 program has been an invaluable "vehicle" for the new sensors that are planned to outfit the aiframe with. They could easily be added to F-22s for airframes that are primarily taksed with ground strike missions firstly and air supremacy secondy. Those sensors can also be added to UCAVS (and don't believe for a minute that the AF has canceled the UCAV program - its just gone black) and new ALCMs/SLCMs. The F-35 could also make for a fine platform as an unmanned strike bomber. Remove the pilot and all the human stuff from the plane and theres more room for all-axis cameras/IR sensors.

The engine technology of the F-35 could also be added to new build B-1 bombers along with the 35s sensors and a new AESA radar, and you would have an "can't be beat" faster longer ranged go anywhere/anytime heavy hitter - another 100 airframes would do nicely for USAF/ANG. Of all planes, the B-1 should still be in production today. What a shame the USAF developed the B-2 and axed the Bone. While the Bone isn't as LO, with a quantity increase over the 96 airframes and new engines/sensors/etc that plane could not be beaten and go into environments/times/weather that a B-2dare not.

We'll see what happens to the USMC F-35: that thing may or may not "fly". And its the sole reason reason the F-35 is such an underdog fighter: it had to take into account the absolutely PUNY and IGNISIFCANT mission/s of the Harrier - a plane that has never mattered in any conflict except for the Brits Argentina excursions that F-14's/F-18's could have handled better if the Brits actually had a REAL aircraft carrier.

It would be a real shame if the USMC F-35 turns out to be unnacceptable since the F-35 has been so incredibly hemmed in by its requirements.

Ahhhh... If only logic were used in DoD/Capitol Hill/Pentagon. This I can gauranty as well, when that new Chinese fighters comes out... What is it, the J-XX? It's going to take into account everything learned from the ATF and JSF programs.... If Chinese manufacturing is up to snuff (and I have experience that indicates its not but is steadily making improvements), then there could be EASILY at minimum an F-35 beater and with only 183 F-22s, there won't be enough Big Brothers around to defend everyone.

Going back to the B-2 (I know, wrong forum), I have it on good authority that what it originally was prpopsed to be was an F-111 sized F-117 replacement since the F-117 was *actually* a active force/test program for LO technology in the field. The USAF said "No, devlope a big heavy LO Buff/Bone replacement," and wha'la we get 21 airframes instead of the 80+ F-111/117 total-LO replacements. Again, logic seems to fall on the deaf and blind in the higher ranks.