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

[Aussie Digger]

I think that the F-35s combat performance will be significantly higher than that of teen series fighters due to a significantly more comprehensive and advanced avionics suite. No one should forget about its external payload capabilities either. One has to consider the intended missions and mission profiles. The F-35 will operate stealthy in the first days of a conflict with internal weapons only (2 JDAMs or the like for destroying the target and 2 AMRAAMs for self defence). If air superiority is achieved the Litening II to switches to more flexible payloads including external stores. The aircraft will be able to deploy all the modern weapons or at least similar weapons as other fighters. Its flight performance is not going to be significant, but the F-35 combines a robust performance with full stealth. The F-35s strenght is stealth and avionics.
In terms of flight performance based on fair assumptions and available information I think the F-35 will provide similar climb performance and manoeuvreability as the F-16, superior acceleration and of course range on internal fuel. Ceiling will be similar but speed inferior. The F-35s range performance is impressive, but one has to consider it's a single engined design with about 2 times the internal fuel of a Rafale or Eurofighter and seen in relation it looks not that impressive. In terms of costs the F-35 is going to be no low-cost fighter anymore. Total programme costs has risen by 1/3 in recent years, while the total numbers has been reduced. Fly-away cost is already nearing twice that of what was envisaged during the projects early days, very much like with the F-22. And today even LM refueses to guarantee fixed prices for the aircraft. I wouldn't wonder if the F-35 will become a more flexible and advanced, but less capable and powerful fighter with a price not much lower than that of the F-22. Time will tell...

Production numbers of F-35 haven't been reduced only LRIP aircraft. F-35 wil hardly be a "low cost" fighter (what IS such a thing anymore anyway?) but it should prove massively cheaper than the F-22 and likely cheaper than the Euro-canards, due to a MUCH larger build program...

In any case the costs for an F-35 compared to an F-22 aren't all that relevant if we can't buy the F-22 anyway is it?

 

[BKNO]

I typoed F35 for F15 previously; READ:

"In fact it appears that comes 2015 F-35 will be the one with the oldest avionic set, in the case of some competitors this will includes Defense Suite, Radar, optronics etc."

FACT: F-35 might not having been flying for long, its avionics aren't anything new technologicaly speaking, in terms of technology generation cycles.

Since both F-22 and European 4.5 gen fighters have seen a lenghtly developement time, their avionics suffered of obsolescence at an early stage, thus in solving the problem, manufacturers have/will equiped them with avionics of the same generation or even newer come 2010/2015.

Since i dont have proper comparative for other aircrafts than ours please forgive my insistance in using the Rafale as a benchmark but it is still very relevant, as both F-22, Gripen and Typhoon have seen (will see) a similar upgrade path in recent years...

>>>>>

F-35 Avionics and Systems developements (Comparative):

From first tests to up to 2000 h+.

Source: Jane's Wordl's Aircrafts.

FCS = ------------------------TESTED IN April 1998.

Avionics = -------------------TESTED IN 1999.

HMD = ------------------------TESTED IN 2000.

ATC/EOTS = -------------------TESTED IN 2000. SNIPER DEIVATIVE.

APG-81 FIRST TEST-FLIGHT: = --------Aug 2005.

Comparison:

SPECTRA/Rafale F1 = ----------TESTED IN 1996. Standard F1.

SPECTRA/Rafale F2= -----------TESTED IN 2000. (NATO MACE-X = F2 Standard).

NEW MDPU = -------------------TESTED IN 2000.

DVI = ------------------------TESTED IN 2001.

MIDS/LVT = -------------------TESTED IN 2002.

DGA contract RBE2 AESA (1) dev = ------ 2002. Programme terminated.

DGA contract F3 dev = --------------Feb 2004. (STILL in developement).

DGA contract RBE2 AESA (2) dev = ---Jun 2004. (STILL in developement).

SPECTRA Defense and EW SUITE = -----Feb 2004. (STILL in developement).

RBE2 AESA (2) FIRST TEST-FLIGHT: = -----2007. (STILL in developement).

DGA Missile Launch Detector (DDM) NG = -------(STILL Technology R&D).

DGA OSF NG = ---------------------------------(STILL Technology R&D).

>>>>>

 

[AGRA]

I typoed F35 for F15 previously; READ:

"In fact it appears that comes 2015 F-35 will be the one with the oldest avionic set, in the case of some competitors this will includes Defense Suite, Radar, optronics etc."

That's the dumbest crap I've read on the internet for a long time.

 

[philk]

JSf/Australia

The idea that JSF Australia will have a lower build cost than any alternative is basically a financial canard.
As advanced, the idea is that Aussie JSF's will have a lower unit cost because of the great numbers of JSF's being (point: greater than build numbers for what exactly?).
Anyway, this fantasy is already exploded . . the in-service date keeps going back, the interim costs (eg Super Hornet buy) keep going up, and there is still no guarantee on final fly-away unit costs.
The next fantasy is that these very expensive planes can deliver a little pin-point load and then return later (tankers galore either way, which aren't in the RAAF's inventory) . . . and that the pin-point load delivered will do the trick until they can come back much later . . this is really "Boy's Own" stuff.
The fact is Ozzie has given the makers of JSF an ATM card to it's defence account, just as happened with F-111, and the real combat capability of the Aussie Navy, Army, and basic support (including equipment) for all three services will be crimped to pay for this grandiose waste of valuable defence dollars.
Poor value for money, under-capable, late, over-budget.
A crap decision frankly; and a serious waste of resources available for a robust Australian defence.
How much close-air-support, armoured transports, decent wages and conditions and basic equipment to encourage valuable and experienced RAAF, RAN, and Aussie Army to continue to serve will this poor choice nullify . .. lots. But never mind. The Defence Minister of the day can stand on the reviewing stand at a fly-past, and we can all feel "safer" as a couple of hundred millions bucks flies past.
JSF is a huge waste of money .. it doesn't strength Australia's future defence; it swallows defence dollars which weaken it where it really matters.

 

[Tasman]

I typoed F35 for F15 previously; READ:

"In fact it appears that comes 2015 F-35 will be the one with the oldest avionic set, in the case of some competitors this will includes Defense Suite, Radar, optronics etc."

FACT: F-35 might not having been flying for long, its avionics aren't anything new technologicaly speaking, in terms of technology generation cycles.

Since both F-22 and European 4.5 gen fighters have seen a lenghtly developement time, their avionics suffered of obsolescence at an early stage, thus in solving the problem, manufacturers have/will equiped them with avionics of the same generation or even newer come 2010/2015.

Since i dont have proper comparative for other aircrafts than ours please forgive my insistance in using the Rafale as a benchmark but it is still very relevant, as both F-22, Gripen and Typhoon have seen (will see) a similar upgrade path in recent years...

You seem to be suggesting that because Euro designs have avionics that were obsolescent early in their development they will therefore automatically have more advanced systems in 2015 than later designs like the F-35. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying but if I haven't it sounds like a ridiculous suggestion IMHO!

Cheers

 

[BKNO]

Tasman You seem to be suggesting that because Euro designs have avionics that were obsolescent early in their development they will therefore automatically have more advanced systems in 2015 than later designs like the F-35. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying but if I haven't it sounds like a ridiculous suggestion IMHO!

I personally find ridiculous the fact that you can ignore FACTS...

AGAIN in my post you can SEE for yourself what F-35 avionics developement dates are and what are that of the Rafale.

As for systems lie IR/Optronics being more advanced on F-35 if you knew the state of advance of that of europe and France in particular you'd be thinking twice before posting staments like these.

France Optronic, Optical and IR/UV technology is a full generation (if not 2) in front of that of the US and looking Sci-Fi because of packaging doesnt make an EOTS or DAS more advanced it makes it more commerceable.

Grand Danois Excellent! You had to go 8 years back in order to find a quote that fit your purpose. And then you post it without context. See:

Excuse ME dear. If you're into the buziness of analysis you'd better BE collecting archives such as these so as knowing your subject from A-to-Z.

As MAIN customers it IS pretty OBVIOUS that they wouldn't even consider the option F-35 WITHOUT F-22, THIS fate is reserved to lesser customers than the US services, including Europe and Australia.

As a matter of FACT they want MORE F-22s...

AND BTW with such archives you could have figured that F-35 requierements for better turning capabilties and 9 Gs have been MISSED by SWAT.

The LARGE LEX of the 230-3 configuration is now gone and the airframe is now structuraly limited to 7.0, 7.5 and 9G Max all of it for the purpose of meeting weight targets with reduction of structural mass.

= NO improvements in performances since 8 years but lower G tolerances and lesser turning performances.

I personally have archives dating of more than 12 years on the subject and that's HOW i can figure a few thing...

That's MORE than 4.63 GB and 30.281 files on my HD (Plus all my ouvrages/doc/mags), 131 MB and 3.097 files on F-35 only...

Grand Danois Without the F-22, USAF says, it would have to rethink its requirement for the multirole JSF, potentially delaying the international, 3,000-aircraft, $150 billion programme while the design is reworked to fulfil some of the F-22's mission.

Grand Danois How wonderfully informed of the Raptor, you are.

Keep showing the good yourself, it makes for a better debate.

Admin. Develop some manners or run the risk of being banned.

Keep the patriotic rubbish at home and argue with merit. Having over 4 gig of data doesn't demonsrtrate competency. There are people in here who actually do have industry and verifiable experience. It would pay to pause in posting rather than act as a one man marketing machine for Dassault etc....

1st warning.

 

[BKNO]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/990414-ART-Super-Hornet.htm



If you guys really want to know about the S-H, try this for size:

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet:
A Test Pilot Dispels The Myths By CDR Rob Niewoehner

Quote 1: In unloaded, tactically representative accelerations, the two aircraft are indistinguishable. "Apples-to-apples" comparison of the two aircraft must be done cautiously, however. One must remember that the E/F moves the C/D’s ever-present external wing tank fuel into the fuselage and wings. Deploying with a single centerline tank (its projected typical carrier configuration), the E/F’s acceleration performance will be a substantial improvement over a cruise-configured (two fuel tanks on wing stations) C/D everywhere in the flight envelope.

Quote 2: "The air combat maneuvering (ACM) flights have revealed that the airplane may still be maneuvered at speeds as low as 80 KCAS. This airplane will be quite comfortable in any type of a "phone booth" close-in dogfight."

Quote 3: "Agility, however, should really be considered in terms of the lethality of the complete weapons system. While thrust vectoring is maturing at a pace that might have allowed incorporation into the E/F, the weight and complexity penalties were prohibitive. Instead, adding the Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (HMCS) and a highly maneuverable off-boresight missile (AIM-9X) generates E/F total-system lethality that exceeds that available from a much more agile airplane with current missiles. HMCS and AIM-9X will enter the Fleet in 2001 and 2002, respectively."

Since F-35 is ONLY benchmarked vs REAL Legacies (wich list i will post AGAIN should you guys keep calling anything else than L-M list a legacy) i dont think it offers any improvement in terms of performaces over the S-H appart for the L.O and then again, Boeing like the Russians and the Europeans believe in Optronic systems for A2A BVR duety....

Here is the REASON:

Quote: "The only US fighter now equipped with an IRST, meanwhile, is the F-14D, which has a Lockheed Martin mid-wave system installed in a chin turret. The same system has been repackaged into a pod and is being marketed for the F-16. Integrated with the radar, an IRST provides passive target detection and tracking. This allows the radar to be used only to provide mid-course guidance updates to the AIM-120 medium-range missile, reducing the probability that emissions will be detected."

DATE:28/01/98
SOURCE:Flight International
Launching forward

READ: MULTI-SENSOR DATAFUSION ENHANCES EACH OF THEM PERFORMACES AND THE PROBABILITY OF DETECTION OF L.O TARGETS.

READ: Future generation US and European BVR AAMS are Dual-mode (BOTH IR and EM seekers), USAF's dual-range missile (DRM) programme is one of them (Wright Laboratory Armament Directorate at Eglin AFB in Florida).

Quote: "DRM Integrated Product Team leader Jeff Jones describes the programme as a "technical initiative-developing advanced technologies within the context of a fictitious system". If these technologies were to prove successful, however, then at least elements of the fiction would almost certainly become fact.

A DRM-class missile is projected as being available between 2010 and 2015, potentially providing a successor (or successor technologies) to the Evolved Sidewinder and the AIM-120. The DRM project is intended to design a weapon capable of addressing both the WVR and beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement regimes - arenas which have traditionally remained separate, with good reason."

DATE:30/04/97
SOURCE:Flight International
Resolving contradictions

READ: MICA IS a Medium-Range BVR DRM AAM, the Russians have such AAMs in service and the USA are following suite only they DONT have the capability today...

So as one can conclude for themself, even NOW a BVR IR AAM launched in "Fire and Forget" mode doesn't NEED mid-course guidance updates as its seeker can be (pre-launched) programmed to kick-in just when it is in range of the target.

AdA estimates a kill ratio of 75% for MICA in this mode.

Data fusion enhances BOTH sensors performances and probability of detection of L.O targets, impossible with internal mounting of IR AAMs.

The IR AAM seeker will have to be slaved to the Optronic system and this system be dual channel as soon as the target is in range of the camera <> 60 km now (declassified OSF) it will be possible to fire the AAM if its seeker haven't detected the target by then...

As for trying to pass the S-H for another F-18 version, think again:

Quote 4: "Those involved in support and maintenance are justifiably excited about this airplane. Squadron and Air Wing maintenance officers will get another step improvement in reliability and reduced mechanical complexity. (E/F is 25 percent bigger than C/D but has 42 percent fewer parts). The logisticians will see a resultant reduction in parts support to remote theaters."

S-H is a totally NEW design and doesn't qualifies as a "legacy" as listed by L-M in their documentation...

Quote 5: "What such a pundit does not appreciate is how much more combat capability the F/A-18E/Fs state-of-the-art improvements will deliver, when compared to the improvements that cannot be realized by modifying the C/D. The F/A-18E/F’s improvement in combat capability is substantial, making the technical low-risk approach of E/F a procurement bargain."

So when it comes to staments bashing the S-H for capabilties, it is quiet interesting to compare it to F-35 on manufacturer datas only and forget about the 2nd hand hearsay...

FINAL Quote: "Range... Payload... Growth... Bringback... Survivability... We’re getting what we asked for."

CDR Robert Niewoehner, USN, Ph.D., served as the Navy’s lead test pilot on the Super Hornet program from prior to first flight until July of this year. During that time he flew 296 E/F missions and more than 450 flight hours.

As i try to say, Boeing aren't too bothered, they KNOW about the shift in detection capabilties from EM to IR as well as the planned AAM roadmap.

They are part of it.

 

[swerve]

But isn't 116 million USD for F-22A the UFC? So the comparable UPC for the F-22A would be 168 million USD?

And isn't the projected F-35 UFC circa 49 million USD, and UPC circa 69 million USD?

For the F-35A (the version Australia intends to buy) the UFC was projected at USD 47mn in December 2005, in 2002 prices. In 2006 prices, that's about 51.7 mn USD (inflated by the GDP deflator from here - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/sheets/hist10z1.xls ).

Programme unit cost is now USD 85.1mn in 2002 prices, spread over the three variants, or $122 mn in then-year dollars. That's about $93.6 mn in 2006 prices. (From Dec 2006 SAR summary, link below). The APUC (i.e. procurement excluding fixed costs) was projected at 69.2mn 2002 USD in December 2005, or 76.1mn 2006 USD.

Note that the increases in F-35 price projections have been well ahead of the GDP deflator to date. Between October 2001 & January 2005 the predicted UFC of the F-35A (the cheapest) rose from 37.0 mn USD to 44.8 mn, then to 47.0 mn by December 2005 (all in constant 2002 prices, i.e. over & above general inflation).

Between December 2005 & December 2006, programme cost in 2002 USD increased 3.8%, & in then-year prices (including measured & projected inflation) by 8.5%. There's a breakdown here - http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/2006-DEC-SST.pdf

 

[swerve]

BKNO, do you have any sources from this millennium?

 

[Grand Danois]

Thanks Swerve and AGRA. The most direct posts on the topic, which answers a few questions. Particularly wrt "then year dollars", infation, etc.

I usually get my info on this subject from places like this:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7424&sequence=0#_ednref3

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2006/July/Nelson 07-25-06.pdf

Where it for the F-22A can be seen that average UPC lots 1-6 was c. 157 mn USD and lot 7-9 is 177 mn USD AUPC. With build rates of 24 and 20 airframes/year, respectively. As the lot 9 UPC will be 168 mn USD and the 157 mn USD figure is several years old, i.e. will have to be adjusted, then I cannot see how a F-22A can get below 160 mn USD in unit procurement cost in "present dollars".

 

[philk]

JSF Aussie/Point being avoided

Hi hi, hi hum,

Lots of technical banter re JSF versus Raptor, Mirages, and second-hand 1967 Holdens.
But no comment on the real hard stuff . .. JSF is late, overweight, under-capable, over-budget, and has necessitated the extra buying Super Hornets. So JSF was a good cost decision wasn't it? A serious waste of money, is actually very poor value for money, which will end up crimping important Aussie defence expenditure elsewhere in the three services.

When we gonna debate whether the JSF is actuallyworth what it's gonna cost, instead of all this other extraneous stuff?
Could it be the Aussie defence infrastrusture and it's outriders don't want to debate JSF because they know the answer would be embarrassing?
I'm for a strong Aussie defence; I'm against JSF because it's grandioise waste of money will leave Aussie defence looking good at Airshows, but weak where it really counts.

 

[AGRA]

The 06 SAR on F-35 was represented in Australia by many of the talking head Muppets as a cost “blow out” but if you actually read the SAR it says:

“F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) – Program costs increased by $23,365.2 million (+8.5%) from $276,458.9 million to $299,824.1 million, due primarily to a decrease in the annual procurement quantities and a stretchout of the production buy schedule from FY 2027 to FY 2034 (+$11,207.8 million), revised estimate for airframe materials due to commodity market increases (+$5,472.8 million), increase due to revised assumptions based on contractor LRIP I proposals and methodology (+$8,307.1 million), and support increase due to aircraft configuration update, revised procurement profile, and methodology changes (+$6,423.2 million). These increases were partially offset by revised assumptions for prime and subcontractor labor rates (-$3,576.3 million) and revised assumptions for subcontractor costs (-$5,201.4 million).”

The primary rise in cost is only for the US in the ‘stretchout of production from ending in FY2027 to FY2034. Of course the US will have to pay more for this as that’s another seven years of worker wages, electricity bills, factory rents etc. The commodity market increase is certainly not the fault of the JSF program. The actual program related price increase is only $5.9 billion or 2.1%. Mmmm a 2.1% rise per annum in the largest fighter aircraft project in history… That hardly sounds bad now doesn’t it…

 

[Grand Danois]

Excuse ME dear. If you're into the buziness of analysis you'd better BE collecting archives such as these so as knowing your subject from A-to-Z.

As MAIN customers it IS pretty OBVIOUS that they wouldn't even consider the option F-35 WITHOUT F-22, THIS fate is reserved to lesser customers than the US services, including Europe and Australia.

As a matter of FACT they want MORE F-22s...

Frankly my dear...

Any material has to read in the context it was created (possible political cancellation of the F-22A). It also has to evaluated wrt currency to what has passed since then (has circumstances changed). The posted article failed on both accounts as relevant input as to the capabilites of the F-35.

Wider context also has to be considered. The US has to rapidly deploy MASSIVE and DECISIVE firepower almost anywhere in the world. And this is best done with very expensive fighters, but with a small logisitics footprint as possible.

This is a superpower requirement. It tells you little on how platforms perform on other parameters, if used by regional or small powers.

 

[BKNO]

Grand Danois The posted article failed on both accounts as relevant input as to the capabilites of the F-35.

Funny their tune haven't changed and if F-35 had anywhere near the capabilties needed by USAF for the A2A role they wouldn't bother with MORE F-22 today would they???

Grand Danois Wider context also has to be considered.

The US has to rapidly deploy MASSIVE and DECISIVE firepower almost anywhere in the world. And this is best done with very expensive fighters, but with a small logisitics footprint as possible.

AND the RIGHT capabilties. Good to pit F-35 vs Mig-29s tomorow, something else in 2015 with new technologies having found their ways on airframes out-performing it today...

Grand Danois This is a superpower requirement. It tells you little on how platforms perform on other parameters, if used by regional or small powers.

This is the USAF who is equiped with F-22 and still will not envisage today to use F-35 on its own in the same threat environement.

As for how it performs on its own used by regional or small powers, we have the results of the Dutch fighter comperition and it's not too hot.

The commercial aspects have far more to do with this than pure perofrmances and capabilties.

Trying to pass a strike aircraft for an air superiority fighter is L-M technico-commercial job and you're talking to a non-believer with a minimum of education and experience in the buziness to see through it.

Admin. Develop some manners or run the risk of being banned.

I have been very polite haven't I???

Admin. Keep the patriotic rubbish at home and argue with merit. Having over 4 gig of data doesn't demonsrtrate competency..

Datas as you wont see them posted here and which are all coming from official sites might not make the day for some guys no but it doesn't make them either nationalistic nor incompetent.

In particular when it proves that the superiority expected from a brand new airframe/engine combination is not going to be what many here are expecting it to be.

So i will understand why i'll be banned if it turns up to be the case.

Admin. There are people in here who actually do have industry and verifiable experience. It would pay to pause in posting rather than act as a one man marketing machine for Dassault etc....

I have specialised service verifiable experience and am trying to do my best to bring it with a different POV to the debate, there is NO need to get personal here.

Admin. 1st warning.

Thanks.

 

[Rich]

If the Rafael is so superlative then why is nobody buying it? I mean nobody! Especially when considering the French dont attache INTL standards of conduct to their weapons sales.

Yet we have at least a dozen destined to buy the F-35 even tho the thing has only made a handful of test flights.

 

[BKNO]

Rich If the Rafael is so superlative then why is nobody buying it?

Not my concern, i'm barely trying to compare what i know with what i know and apparently there is an information gap here.

It is much more about European/Russian technologies than Rafale, the aircraft is the one i know best in terms of...everything really but the Optronic/IR/UV thing is a trend which involved more the France or even Europe alone.

The point i try to put across is that stealth is NOT perceived as unbeateable from where we are concerned and that there is a huge amount of R&D to counter the threat of L.O; not only US but all L.O including cruise missiles.

So at the end of the day, R&D plus upgrade paths makes for much more capable systems to be fielded for theat purpose in the horizon 2015...

Rich Yet we have at least a dozen destined to buy the F-35 even tho the thing has only made a handful of test flights.

Good technico-commercial work.

 

[gf0012-aust]

When we gonna debate whether the JSF is actuallyworth what it's gonna cost, instead of all this other extraneous stuff?

actually, if you look at all the serious discussion it involves the application of coherent systems. the ones who get hung up on platform to platform comparisons are usually the fan clubbers or kids.

if you want costs, then I suggest that you pay attention to some of the posts. or you could ask ADBR for a copy of Series C1 and C2, Feb to March 2007 which outlines the Air 6000 issues and points out the frailties and deliberate skewing of debate wrt F-22, and the bridging issue. The latter would be useful for you as you appear to be taking the broadsheet lead and bleed approach thats a legacy of being fed by some in industry and academia with their own agenda.

of course, that assumes that you're serious about this or whether you're just going to believe the Alfords and Walters of the world.

Could it be the Aussie defence infrastrusture and it's outriders don't want to debate JSF because they know the answer would be embarrassing?

and who would they be? be particular, as you seem to imply that there ia a cabal that is obstructing considered judgement? you do realise that the strawman arguments had some considerable opportunity to offer a coherent response at the hearings - and yet failed to do so? sao the approach now is to question the integrity of senior RAAF officers who don't fall over supporting the Evolved F-111 and F-022 combo? Ask for a copy of ADBR C1 Feb 2007, Part 2 and Part 3.

I'm for a strong Aussie defence; I'm against JSF because it's grandioise waste of money will leave Aussie defence looking good at Airshows, but weak where it really counts.

as opposed to the F-111 which is the ultimate air show queen? ie she can't go into complex battlespace unless escorted by legacy hornets (current RAAF doctrine) - so is considerably range delimited already.

 

[Rich]

Good technico-commercial work.

I aint trying to sell anything. In fact, I could care less if anyone buys it. Stealth has never been designed as "unbeatable" but you probably already know that dont you?, "Yaknow Ive always liked the French, c'mere and let me give you a hug".

I also have had a rather positive viewpoint on Rafael. Ask anyone here? Ive called it a nice mix of technologies a few times and have even asked in this forum a few times why nobody is buying it.

So I'll ask again. Why do you think nobody is buying it?

 

[swerve]

...
The primary rise in cost is only for the US in the ‘stretchout of production from ending in FY2027 to FY2034. Of course the US will have to pay more for this as that’s another seven years of worker wages, electricity bills, factory rents etc. The commodity market increase is certainly not the fault of the JSF program. The actual program related price increase is only $5.9 billion or 2.1%. Mmmm a 2.1% rise per annum in the largest fighter aircraft project in history… That hardly sounds bad now doesn’t it…

Certainly not a blow-out, & a lot better than the 6% per year rise in projected UFC over general inflation they were clocking for a few years, but it's too early to tell what it's actually going to cost. I'd happily lay money it'll cost a lot less than an F-22, but I wouldn't like to commit myself to anything more definite.

 

[rjmaz1]

Yep looks like the F-22 has been declined politely and Japan will have the F-35 shoved down their throat.

That's just agitprop (agitation-propaganda). The high-low mix thing whent out the door a long time ago and is sustained by the F-35's enemies. The F-35 is designed to do every mission the F-22 can do. In some cases you will need two F-35s for every F-22 because it can't cover as much aerospace per aircraft nor carry as many ATA weapons (yet).

The funny thing about this high-low agitprop is it comes from the original high-low mix of F-15 and F-16. But in the many engagements this mix has had such as the IDF-AF over Lebanon in ‘82, ODS, Iraq No-Fly, Serbia No-Fly, Kosovo, OIF, etc the F-16s have been doing as much if not more ATA killing as the F-16s…

Is the F-16 a turkey just because at conception it was the low end? Does the F-16 need F-15s around to survive? Of course not, but never let reality get in the way of a good smear campaign.

Very well said, I couldn't agree more. Some people are blind or ignorant to the fact. BKNO took everything you said completely out of context, i dont think ANYONE will be able to change his opinion as he has 'facts' that are can be twisted to suit his argument. I'd have to admit he would make a very fine journalist get a few quotes and turn it into a front page story.

As far as i know the software of the F-35 is far from complete.. So when finnished it will be newer than any operational aircraft. To say that the Rafales hardware is newer that it will be better it incorrect. You could have an older computer with multiple processors like a mini supercomputer and it will be far more powerful even though its older.

Fact 1: The F-22 is being ordered by the best airforce in the world.
Fact 2: The USAF needs the F-22 to inhance the F-35 to keep the USAF as the best airforce in the world.
Fact 3: The USAF needs the B-2 to be the best airforce in the world.

The 20th best airforce in the world cannot afford the B-2 or F-22, infact they do not need these missions. Australia doesn't need the F-22 for similar reasons to why Australia doesn't need the B-2. Cost and overkill applies to both.

The best Navy also has a dozen aircraft carriers too.. That doesn't mean that Australia should go out an buy an aircraft carrier.

The 'fact' that dozens of countries are buying the F-35 over the Typhoon and Rafale goes to show that it is superior to anything other than the F-22. Being superior at one mission and inferior at others may be good for some countries. Each country must evaluate the aircraft to suit their needs. The F-35 obviously suits best.