F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[Occum]

Lrip Schedule

........When Aussie JSFs come into production after 700-900 builds will their JSFs cost more than a final build F-22.

First aircraft pencilled in for Australia is from LRIP Tranche Four in 2012, before LRIP aircraft # 110.

Current production plan not scheduled to hit 700 CTOLs till after 2016.

SAR December 2005 shows average unit procurement cost at US$94.8 million. This would be an aircraft somewhere after production # 1,100. As Air Commodore Harvey advised the Australian Senate two weeks ago, aircraft bought after should cost less, those bought before will cost more, those bought much earlier will cost much more.

Of course there is a skew, simply because Raptor is in full rate production and operational now while JSF has yet to fly. The Raptor Program is well on its way to achieving learned out cost levels (mature production cost) on all systems which further build numbers through extension of USAF procurement numbers and/or FMS sales will enable further cost improvements and gains. F-22 is over the risk hump and on the front side of the curve. Meantime, JSF is on the backside of the risk hump with much to do and many challenges to meet. By definition, this is a skew, mathematically speaking.

 

[Totoro]

You're saying there is public data out concerning precise jsf production schedule? With how many units of each version will be built each year and for which US service/foreign buyer? Please DO give some links to such data, i'd be very interested to read it, also very grateful.

 

[rjmaz1]

Everyone could see this coming. I still think that the JSF is not needed, as their is far too much overlap between the current aircraft. They are adding far so much equipment to the JSF, making it a mini F-22.

From the start the JSF should have had basic avionics from an F-16. The fly away cost would have been half the price of what it is now. Even with the basic avionics it would have slot in perfectly and still dominated any perceived threat. The advanced avionics could have been added 10 years later just like the F-16 when it was first introduced.

The F-22 is in service no questions asked cannot be canceled now.

There are a few solutions that have been floating around but time is running out FAST.

One option is to cancel the JSF completely or some of the versions.

The airforce version is most at threat as the latest F-16 block 60's with conformal tanks can do EVERYTHING that a JSF could do at a quarter the price. Performance, range, weapons load capabilites are similar. The airforce beleive that 2000 F-16's and 500 F-22's would be far suprerior than 1000 JSF's and 200 F-22's, and it would be cheaper.

The only thing the F-16 doesn't have is stealth however the F-22 would be the first wave and neutralise all threats. The amount of money saved with the F-16's would allow the 500+ F-22 to take to the sky.

Think about a future Block 80 F-16. An F-16 equiped with the JSF APG-81 radar, as well as the F119 turbofan used in the F-22. The F-16's would have supercruise even with a light external weapon load, its radar would be more powerful than any aircraft except the F-22 itself. Even though the airframe is inferior it would hold its own against any enemy aircraft in service or will be in service. This future F-16 model is fictional though i just made it up.

If all the current F-16's were upgraded to Block 60 or higher these aircraft would last another 20 years until the next UCAV aircrafts take to the skies.

Only problem with this as the Navy and VTOL version will cost an insanely large amount. This would create a spiral by cutting the airforce version. The Navy version would cost double the price of super hornets so the Navy would then cut the Navy version. This would end up leaving the basic VTOL version costing so much that it wouldn't be worth it. Remember the VTOL version is over weight only because it needs to be similar to the airforce and navy versions.

They'd be better off redesigning an entire new VTOL aircraft if it came to this stage. Same powerplant, but lighter and more harrier like.

So either way the end result is not going to be good.

My opinion on this is that the JSF should be canceled completely. A navalised F-22 should be made, even if its performance is reduced to half that of the air force version it will still be better than a superhornet. This solves the problem for the US Navy and Airforce but screws over the British and Oversea's customers.

However the other countries all have other options to choose from. Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F-16 or even the F-22 to australia.

Some times a stop gap solution is the best solution

 

[Big-E]

My opinion on this is that the JSF should be canceled completely. A navalised F-22 should be made, even if its performance is reduced to half that of the air force version it will still be better than a superhornet. This solves the problem for the US Navy and Airforce but screws over the British and Oversea's customers.

However the other countries all have other options to choose from. Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F-16 or even the F-22 to australia.

Some times a stop gap solution is the best solution

I was really starting to agree with you until I started reading this part... Let me go back and adress your ideas about over-complicating this airframe. First, I agree. The developers proudly tote that JSF is revolutionary in how much "stuff " they can jam into her framework. On the side it is becoming way too expensive. Sometimes you can expect just too much from an aircraft. Her sensor package is bordering on riduculous. A couple of UAVs could replace all the millions of sensor "crap" they are cramming into the airframe. If she was JSF airframe and SH avionics I would be completely happy to fly her. The F-22 is the one that needs the out of this world avionics, not the F-35! DoD seems to forget that if we want to keep this bird affordable we have to simplify the package so she can be useful and most importantly COST EFFECTIVE for our allies. Without the exports she is just going to be too costly to purchase the numbers we need.

To address your comment on scrapping the program I think you are jumping the biggest gun I can think of... could you jump Dora?:lol2 Just stripping the extra sensors and super avionics will cut costs by a third. Keep the aircraft just strip her down for export.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I was really starting to agree with you until I started reading this part... Let me go back and adress your ideas about over-complicating this airframe. First, I agree. The developers proudly tote that JSF is revolutionary in how much "stuff " they can jam into her framework. On the side it is becoming way too expensive. Sometimes you can expect just too much from an aircraft. Her sensor package is bordering on riduculous. A couple of UAVs could replace all the millions of sensor "crap" they are cramming into the airframe. If she was JSF airframe and SH avionics I would be completely happy to fly her. The F-22 is the one that needs the out of this world avionics, not the F-35! DoD seems to forget that if we want to keep this bird affordable we have to simplify the package so she can be useful and most importantly COST EFFECTIVE for our allies. Without the exports she is just going to be too costly to purchase the numbers we need.

To address your comment on scrapping the program I think you are jumping the biggest gun I can think of... could you jump Dora?:lol2 Just stripping the extra sensors and super avionics will cut costs by a third. Keep the aircraft just strip her down for export.

It was my understanding (happy to be wrong) that the original JSF proposal, was essentially a networked bomb truck that took advantage of other advanced sensors etc??

 

[Big-E]

It was my understanding (happy to be wrong) that the original JSF proposal, was essentially a networked bomb truck that took advantage of other advanced sensors etc??

Have you seen the video cameras, network antennas and data-links they are jamming into this bird... it's crazy. No wonder the price is going thru the roof!

 

[Occum]

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise, Sargeant!

Have you seen the video cameras, network antennas and data-links they are jamming into this bird... it's crazy. No wonder the price is going thru the roof!

You are right. It is not really that surprising, is it.

As a close colleague and very smart person who lives just the other side of the Beltway said to me back in 2000, the JSF Program was going to be established, basically, as a 'technology cow' and a 'cash cow' with a secondary driver being to maximise that portion of the then perceived burgeoning fighter replacement global market.

As a 'technology cow' there has been some great stuff done - engine, radar, DAS (though still a video game), and other very valuable stuff like the CFD and related modelling capability development and the unitary design come cost effective manufacturing/production processes development. All good solid stuff, Gentlemen (as one of my pure maths professors from the UK used to say about non linear perturbation theory). The latter has seen some great advances though has cost dearly. However, what you have got to remember is that this technology mainly applies to the airframe/tinware which is only about 28% to 30% of the cost of a modern fighter. A 25% saving in this area (which is significant) is less than an 8% saving on the total aircraft cost. I think the jury may still be out, but I am prepared to say that, as a 'technology cow', the JSF Program is well on its way to being somewhat of a success, though it is costing a bucket of cash to get there.

As a 'cash cow', I would also tick its box. Getting budgetary provisions upwards of $300 Bn under the Defence banner is no mean feat, particuarly when it is being done on a single program. Sure, the Executive or the Congress could take these budget provison back from Defence. However, in running the Congressional gauntlet (like all projects have to do and often a multiplicity of times - 'Whose turn is it in the barrel this year?'), the JSF Program is well placed to provide 'supplementation' to other projects/defence activities as it runs its race.

Back to what was perceived, earlier this decade, as a burgeoning fighter replacement market, there are two questions worth asking.

1. Is the market actually shrinking or, rather, has it shrunk from what was being marketed back in 1999/2000? Makes one wonder whether it was really that big in the first place.

2. Is the JSF going to miss the boat? Unlike the F-16, the JSF has got competition for sales. At the end of the day, dollars and risk will rule.

Interesting times we live in when marketeers and others who are into blowing smoke up fundamental orifices can get something like this so far down the track!

 

[rjmaz1]

I dont think the market hasn't shrunk its just that the prices of the aircraft have grown higher than expected so fewer aircarft are being bought. This makes it appear like the market is smaller.

If the JSF were 50 million fly away no more to pay they would be selling twice as many aircraft.

What does everyone think the solution will be?

If the JSF goes ahead costing twice as much as expected, orders will have to be cut dramatically. The US may end up with 200 F-22's and only 1000 JSF's spread across the three navy forces. Thats a huge reduction in fire power to what the US had during the first gulf war.

I think that the current F-16's and F-15's will have to keep flying for many years to come just to make up the numbers.

The JSF was originally designed to provide precision strike while the F-22's provide air dominance. The JSF needed stealth to attack ground targets as the SAMs would be a threat to current non stealthy aircraft. However this all changed when the F-22's gained the ability to strike ground targets.

The only mission JSF that requires alot of stealth is the first wave strike mission, but this mission can now be done by the F-22's. It nows makes the JSF's primary mission redundant. All its other missions such as bomb trucking and Close air support do not really require stealth at all. Sure the stealth is a bonus but its not worth the money for these roles.

So if you remove the stealth from the JSF you are now left with an aircraft with the same performance of an F-16 yet costs double the price.

The idea of 100 F-22 and 10 B-2 bombers attacking a country in the first days of the war is good enough to bring down any countries defences. Then the F-16, A-10 and Hornets can take to the sky and swamp the enemy.

Sounds good enough to me, the JSF is just an expensive overlap.

I think the JSF has missed the boat. The F-16 production line will be open for atleast another 3 years and is still selling very well. Even though the almighty JSF is just around the corner many countries are still buying the F-16's now.

 

[Occum]

Not So Squeezy

.......................................
Just stripping the extra sensors and super avionics will cut costs by a third. Keep the aircraft just strip her down for export.

Big E,

Talk about jumping big guns.

What you have in mind ain't so easy or, moreover, riskless as you suggest with such a heavily integrated design as the JSF avionics with a commercial spine - particularly since the design isn't even complete yet let alone integrated and T&E'd. As to cost, 'just stripping etc' will add to program costs at this stage.

Sorry about that, Chief.

I am surprised that no one seems to see the obvious.

Current unit average procurement cost for JSF = $94.8 million and rising (still on the back side of the risk curve).

F-22 learned out costs at a production of 260 units (based upon cost model for the 277 planned back in 2003) = < $100 million and falling.

How many extra F-22s could one get for half the current procurement budget ($233 Bn) for the JSF? .......1,000?.......1,200?

Would the larger volumetric capacity (aka growth capacity) of the F-22 lend itself to utilising the outputs from the JSF 'technology cow'?


And with such a large production run underway, how difficult would it be and how much would it cost to develop the FB-22A, with commonality and interoperability with what is already operational, to meet the QDR direction for a long range supersonic regional bomber capability by 2018?

..........and even a Raptor that nests on CVNs.

What do you think?

 

[swerve]

I am surprised that no one seems to see the obvious.

Current unit average procurement cost for JSF = $94.8 million and rising (still on the back side of the risk curve).

F-22 learned out costs at a production of 260 units (based upon cost model for the 277 planned back in 2003) = < $100 million and falling.

What do you think?

I think that they aren't comparable prices. The JSF procurement price includes an estimate for inflation from now until the actual year of procurement, averaged over the period for which it's intended to buy them, weighted by numbers to be bought each year. The F-22 cost is what Lockheed say it'll cost 'em to build one, which is rather less than the actual, real, current procurement cost for the USAF (about $130mn, IIRC), & is in todays prices. Doesn't mean that the F-35 will necessarily end up cheaper to build than the F-22, but you can't tell from those figures. Too many uncertainties.

Also, if you propose cancelling the F-35, you have to come up with alternatives for the USN & USMC. They can't use the F-22. A naval F-22 is a non-starter, as is a STOVL F-22. You have to balance any potential savings for the USAF against the extra costs for them. Also, lost export earnings, as potential foreign F-35 buyers promptly start inviting representatives of SAAB, Dassault & Eurofighter round for a cosy chat.

On second thoughts, go for it! The Italians, Spanish & anyone else with STOVL carriers will have a problem, but the RN will have to get proper carriers (hooray!), & Eurofighter & Gripen sales will go up.

 

[Occum]

The figures are from the same type of budgetary reports and are in 'current year' (aka 'then year') dollars, so they are as comparable as you can get.

The F-22 in 2010 has an estimated Unit Procurement Cost of $126.4 million. According to Adm Steve Enewold's statement on 02 Jun 06, the JSF will cost an average of $150 million per unit 'till the end of the decade'.

Certainly not advocating cancellation of the JSF. Rather, continue development of the STOVL since this is the requirement that is having the greatest effect on the design of the other two variants. Put the other two variants on hold till the STOVL has been fully tested and proven.

Then, on the basis of the results from such testing, decide what to do with the other two variants - whether to accept the limitations that the STOVL requirement places on them (single engine, size, undercarriage configuration, etc. - which are fundamental design parameters for any aircraft) or reconfigure their design to better address (rather than compromise) the requirements for these variants. In other words, get a better handle on those features that make the JSF 'neither fish nor fowl'.

Such an approach would be prudent risk management.

 

[rjmaz1]

Also, if you propose cancelling the F-35, you have to come up with alternatives for the USN & USMC. They can't use the F-22. A naval F-22 is a non-starter, as is a STOVL F-22. You have to balance any potential savings for the USAF against the extra costs for them. Also, lost export earnings, as potential foreign F-35 buyers promptly start inviting representatives of SAAB, Dassault & Eurofighter round for a cosy chat.

A naval F-22 would be great, the design wouldn't be that hard to make land on a carrier. The landing speed is very high i accept that. However carrier aircraft land with a higher angle of attack which usually drops 10-15knots off a conventional landing which only puts more stress on the landing gear. Landing gear could easily be upgraded.

If a carrier can accept a 30 tone F-14 landing then it can accept a 20 tone F-22. Only problem is the wings dont fold. A slight redesign of the wing only with a thicker cord, larger flaps and with allowing the wings to fold up for storage would not cost that much.

The main problem is the angle of the wing cannot be changed as the entire aircrafts is designed with a set angle for stealth. However even with the same angle of wing the landing speed could be reduced dramatically. Top speed and supercruise speed would be then reduced but it would still be superior to all aircraft except the airforce F-22.

The navy dropped out of the F-22 program because the F-22 was going to be an air dominance fighter not the multirole aircraft it is today. A naval F-22 would provide superior capability to the superhornet and JSF, its the ideal aircraft that the navy would want.

The navy just bought a whole heap of super hornets, so if the Naval F-22 didn't come until 2015 they would still have good aircraft to use now.

The problem with the USMC would also be solved, as they usually get old navy aircraft. This would allow them to get all the old hornets and then super hornets down the track.

A decision like this is too hard to be made by one person though so they'll most likely stick down the current path and have fewer aircraft overpriced aircraft.

 

[Big-E]

It's almost as if the USN knew JSF was going to take longer than expected... hence the SH purchases.

 

[410Cougar]

Wow, interesting thread to say the least. A wise man once told me that if you miss a day you miss alot, and I can see that he's right.

IMHO, the JSF is asked to do way too much. To replace the F-16, A-10, Harrier and F-18 is just plane (yes, pun on words) crazy. I love their attempt, there is no doubt that the plane is a marvel of science, engineering and software development.

But the fact of the matter is, you can't take all those requirements and squash it into a small plane. It'll cost way too much and since I'm an air show fan it'll also make airshows the most boring thing in the world...JSF'S every pass?? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Keep the SH, keep upgrading the Vipers and A-10's....as for the Harrier, sorry, but it is time for that thing to go. You already have 3 airframes that can do the job...do they REALLY need stealth? As someone pointed out above, the Raptors and B-2's will take almost everything out in the initial wave...everything else will be gravy for a Viper, Hornet and an A-10.

 

[Big-E]

Big E,

Talk about jumping big guns.

What you have in mind ain't so easy or, moreover, riskless as you suggest with such a heavily integrated design as the JSF avionics with a commercial spine - particularly since the design isn't even complete yet let alone integrated and T&E'd. As to cost, 'just stripping etc' will add to program costs at this stage.

Sorry about that, Chief.

I am surprised that no one seems to see the obvious.

Current unit average procurement cost for JSF = $94.8 million and rising (still on the back side of the risk curve).

F-22 learned out costs at a production of 260 units (based upon cost model for the 277 planned back in 2003) = < $100 million and falling.

How many extra F-22s could one get for half the current procurement budget ($233 Bn) for the JSF? .......1,000?.......1,200?

Would the larger volumetric capacity (aka growth capacity) of the F-22 lend itself to utilising the outputs from the JSF 'technology cow'?


And with such a large production run underway, how difficult would it be and how much would it cost to develop the FB-22A, with commonality and interoperability with what is already operational, to meet the QDR direction for a long range supersonic regional bomber capability by 2018?

..........and even a Raptor that nests on CVNs.

What do you think?

I think if much of JSF went OTS she would save billions but still have the stealth which is what matters. The earlier planned versions are still cost effective and proven in the earlier testing. If they decided on one of those models rather than having an endless requirements list she would be done by now.

If your asking if I would mind flying a naval F-22 then HELL NO!

Question is can it be done at cost?

 

[Wild Weasel]

Of course it can. The problem is the defense contractors bottom line.
We probably wouldn't even be discussing this if the USN hadn't cancelled the A-12 program.
Now, they can't afford to shelve the JSF, because that would mean that the Air Force would have all the stealth capability ( and defense budget dollars ) for the forseeable future.

The JSF will be costly, and it will be bloated. It will probably even be redundant when combined with the F/A-22.
But I also believe that when it is produced- it will be very combat effective, and probably the best choice for nations that cannot afford ( or will not be granted technical access to- ) the Raptor, but still want a low-observable, late-generation strike fighter.

ATM, aside from the Raptor itself- there isn't anything else that compares to the JSF's capabilities. Sure, there are paper designs that may one day enter production, and have some of the F-35's capabilities.
But chances are, your neighbor may not be willing to wait for the almost-but-not-quite-as-good imitation, and you may be wishing that you had bought the JSF when it was much less expensive.

As for nations that want or need an advanced, stealthy, STOV/L and/or navalized multi-role fighter- there really is no other option.
It's JSF or bust.

 

[Cootamundra]

As for nations that want or need an advanced, stealthy, STOV/L and/or navalized multi-role fighter- there really is no other option.
It's JSF or bust.

And as I said over on the other thread none of us have any real idea, no numbers have been settled on, no production contracts signed so NONE of us have any real idea of what the final unit costs will be.

 

[Wild Weasel]

OK, I see your point. But if not the JSF, then what? Is it to be nothing, for decades to come?

 

[swerve]

The figures are from the same type of budgetary reports and are in 'current year' (aka 'then year') dollars, so they are as comparable as you can get..

Yes, but "then year" prices for JSF production in 2020 (which is part of that average $94.8mn - it assumes production until well into the 2020s) includes 10 years of estimated inflation to add to that "then year" estimate for F-22 production in 2010. If F-22 production continues to 2010 (currently scheduled to end in 2008 or 2009, IIRC), 2010 F-22s will be cheaper than 2010 F-35s, which will be early LRIP examples. But I expect that would be reversed if F-22 stayed in production until 2015.

However: as Cootamundra says, the F-35 figures are all estimates. The only production contract signed so far is for the first 5 LRIP, while development continues. The price for them is truly scary ($180mn ea), but can't be taken as representative.

410cougar - the F-35 isn't so small - max T/O weight is about the same as n F-4, more than an F-18A or C.

 

[rjmaz1]

OK, I see your point. But if not the JSF, then what? Is it to be nothing, for decades to come?

Not buying a new aircraft is fine.

The airforce has its F-22's that tackle all the high threat targets without any problems. The current force can easily be maintained for the next decade providing numbers and can take out the low threat targets with ease.

By then UCAV aircraft will be taking to the skies, really if the JSF was canceled the US air force would not miss it. Hell i reccon the air force would be happy if the JSF was canceled as they could get more F-22's.

The Navy can use their brand new Super hornets that they are currently buying and the Marines can keep using the same aircraft. No loss really.

Australia would also be happy if the JSF was canceled as they would purchase F-22's instead. Europe would be too concerned as they would buy cheaper F-16's or Eurofighters.

It seems the only person that will be dissapointed if the U.K for their VTOL version. However it seems they may be going with a conventional carrier, so VTOL is no longer needed. They could go with Super Hornets, a Naval Eurofighter or even a Rafale.