Two Questions

[shimmy]

I) Will it eventually come to a decision whether to build a force of Raptors or (not and/or) the JSF -35 ?
II) If the answer to the above question is yes , then which one would you select?

Also:Is it true that the JSF-35 has no gun and its only weaponry is missile?
Is it trrue that VTOL capabilities are that important to the Marines ?
Is it true that there is a decreasing foreign market for American made aircraft so that whichever one is selected it may very well be used only for USAF missions?

 

[rjmaz1]

I) Will it eventually come to a decision whether to build a force of Raptors or (not and/or) the JSF -35 ?

There will never be a set decision where its "go" or "no go"... The USAF are just going to build both and try and pull money out of their ass

Its highly likely that F-22 production will just keep running well past its current order. The reasons are simple. The USAF has cut it order of F-22 so the price has sky rocketed. Parts of the development cost is integrated into the purchase price of the F-22. The more aircraft you buy the less development cost per aircraft. The current F-22 costs more than double or even tripple the cost of a full scale production F-35, quite expensive. However when the current F-22 order is finnishedadditional F-22's will be MUCH cheaper, probably half the price that the US are currently paying for its F-22's.

The current F-22 order will run out at the same time the JSF hits full production. The USAF will have the option of buying a JSF for 100 million or a F-22 for 150 million. The choice will be easy for the USAF and F-22 production will stay open. The USAF will then allocate most of its F-35 slots to international customers so they can get their aircraft quicker.

II) If the answer to the above question is yes , then which one would you select?

The F-22 isn't available for the US Navy or Marines so it will be fine for the USAF to go with the F-22, but everyone else has no such luxury.

If the JSF was cancelled it would free up ALOT of money which the US military does not have.

The USAF could buy 300 additional F-22's and continue to use F-16's for the cheap low end aircraft.

The US Navy could begin production of the Block 3 super Hornet. Basically it has slightly increased performance in most area's and would make a good replacement for the US Navy.

The US Marines i do not think even need a Vertical takeoff aircraft. I believe an unmanned aircraft could do the role of the current Harrier. If you remember the latest Mission impossible movie how they had the remote controlled aircraft to take out the bridge. Something like this would be cheaper and more efficient than the Harrier or JSF.

International customers would not be at a loss, they have the F-16, Gripen, SU-30, Rafale, Eurofighter to choose from.

The only people who will be pissed off with the JSF being canceled are those who need a harrier replacement, mainly Italy who is replacing its harrier. The U.K's new aircraft carrier can easily be adapted to suit conventional aircraft like the Super Hornet.

The only reason for cancelling the JSF would be to save lots of money. By operating fewer types of aircraft you can buy a larger total of aircraft.

E.g 100 aircraft of type A, 100 aircraft of type B or 100 aircraft of type C, for a total of 300 aircraft. However if you canceled one aircraft you could buy 200 of type A and 200 of type B for a total of 400 aircraft. If you only went with one aircraft you could make 500 of type A and have more aircraft and most likely greater fighting power.

Also:Is it true that the JSF-35 has no gun and its only weaponry is missile?

The airforce version has a gun. The navy version will be used for strike so does not need a gun. The marine version also does not have a inbuilt gun. However a gun can be added on an external pylon if its needed.

Is it trrue that VTOL capabilities are that important to the Marines?

The Marines have lots of small helicopter carriers VTOL allows the aircraft to get close to the battlefield thus providing long reach and endurance for a relatively small aircraft. However a unmanned aircraft operating from a conventional aircraft carrier twice as far away would have longer range and endurance than the JSF even if its half the size.

Is it true that there is a decreasing foreign market for American made aircraft so that whichever one is selected it may very well be used only for USAF missions?

The foreign market for US made aircraft is huge. There are aircraft being made right now to fill international orders. F-15's and F-16 production is still going strong for international customers. The JSF would most likely be the aircraft of choice for international customers when it enters production. If the JSF is canceled the Block 3 Super Hornet will be very popular, as it will be the second best aircraft in the world behind the F-22.

 

[Tasman]

The US Marines i do not think even need a Vertical takeoff aircraft. I believe an unmanned aircraft could do the role of the current Harrier. If you remember the latest Mission impossible movie how they had the remote controlled aircraft to take out the bridge. Something like this would be cheaper and more efficient than the Harrier or JSF.


The only people who will be pissed off with the JSF being canceled are those who need a harrier replacement, mainly Italy who is replacing its harrier. The U.K's new aircraft carrier can easily be adapted to suit conventional aircraft like the Super Hornet.

Where is the evidence to support this comment? I would be interested in reading the opinions of any forum members who are past or present marines re this suggestion.

The USMC and USN have invested heavily in large VSTOL capable amphibious ships and the ability to get their own fixed wing air support close to their area of operations must be invaluable. Of course they could be supported by aircraft like the SH or F35C operating from the large carriers but this would force the navy to dedicate a large carrier to support these operations. Based on comments from forum members in other threads I think there is still a long way to go before unmanned aircraft can successfully carry out the close support role. Maybe in the future they will have this capability.

As far as the RN is concerned I tend to agree with the idea that the British would be better to go for a conventional catapult equipped layout to operate the higher performance F35C (or alternatives such as Rafale, SH, etc).

Cheers

 

[Rich]

There will never be a set decision where its "go" or "no go"... The USAF are just going to build both and try and pull money out of their ass

Having once been in it I can assure you we dont "pull money out our ass". Never underestimate the Yanks ability to use their Visas and Mastercards to build a monster air force. On the flip side the price to be paid for not financing your military is blood and war.

If the JSF was cancelled it would free up ALOT of money which the US military does not have.

Poor, "poor" Yanks. Canceling the F-35 would be a disaster. The Super Bowl would be cancelled before that airplane was.

The USAF could buy 300 additional F-22's and continue to use F-16's for the cheap low end aircraft.

So we should settle for an 30+yo F-16 design the enemy can see instead of a new F-16 they cant? We need a 5th gen multi-role fighter. End of story.

The US Marines i do not think even need a Vertical takeoff aircraft. I believe an unmanned aircraft could do the role of the current Harrier. If you remember the latest Mission impossible movie how they had the remote controlled aircraft to take out the bridge. Something like this would be cheaper and more efficient than the Harrier or JSF.

A "Mission Impossible movie"?

The only reason for cancelling the JSF would be to save lots of money. By operating fewer types of aircraft you can buy a larger total of aircraft.

By "operating fewer" you can "buy a larger total"?:unknown

E.g 100 aircraft of type A, 100 aircraft of type B or 100 aircraft of type C, for a total of 300 aircraft. However if you canceled one aircraft you could buy 200 of type A and 200 of type B for a total of 400 aircraft. If you only went with one aircraft you could make 500 of type A and have more aircraft and most likely greater fighting power.

Or you can drag 3,000 F4s, F-86s, P-51s, and Sopwith Camels out of the boneyard, get them shipshape, for the same amount of money. The money isn't the point ; The mission capabilities and requirements are. The point is we may need 100-100-100 to complete the mission.

 

[qwerty223]

I) Will it eventually come to a decision whether to build a force of Raptors or (not and/or) the JSF -35 ?
II) If the answer to the above question is yes , then which one would you select?

Also:Is it true that the JSF-35 has no gun and its only weaponry is missile?
Is it trrue that VTOL capabilities are that important to the Marines ?
Is it true that there is a decreasing foreign market for American made aircraft so that whichever one is selected it may very well be used only for USAF missions?

Erm, just my 2 cents.
From what i know, F-22 is something like F-15 which is a "high-end" & heavy fighter. But now not only air superior, it also multi-role capable.

JSF program was meant to produce a "Low-end"(compare to F-22) & light fighter to replace such as F-16s in the future. The program itself is trying to gather funds and share resources with various country so that the price will split in to pieces and eventually cost saving. But from the news released, it is going the opposite way.

F-22 + JSF is an ideal formation in the origin plan. But now, JSF is out cost and merging toward a F-22. That makes no sense since JSF was meant to be a huge quantity low cost fighter. The JSF out cost makes the problem complicated.

 

[Grand Danois]

But from the news released, it is going the opposite way.

I see all partner nations will have signed the SDD MoU ultimo february. 2/3 of the increase in PAUC so far has come from cutting numbers - not from actual cost overruns.

F-22 + JSF is an ideal formation in the origin plan. But now, JSF is out cost and merging toward a F-22. That makes no sense since JSF was meant to be a huge quantity low cost fighter. The JSF out cost makes the problem complicated.

Current estimated UPC, F-35A, is 69M$ with PAUC of 97M$.

Current UPC, F-22A, is 168M$ and PAUC is 350M$.

At optimal, cost effective production F-22A is something like 106M$ fly away and 150+M$ UPC. This figure exclude the 4.4B$ R&D still to be done (which only affect PAUC) on that fighter and the inclusion of additional avionics (affects fly away and UPC).

The fly away and unit procurement cost of the current run of F-22A is very close to the optimal numbers!

A "multirole"* F-22A produced optimally is roughly 3 times the cost of a F-35A.

However, using a F-22A for F-35 work is a waste of money. As the F-35A does it way cheaper.

* It can also do what the F-35 does.

 

[rjmaz1]

Where is the evidence to support this comment?

.....The USMC and USN have invested heavily in large VSTOL capable amphibious ships

The Harrier provides close air support...

In 30 years time all close air support aircraft will be unmanned as they can not only provide 24 hour endurance but are also much simpler and cheaper as they do not have a pilot onboard.

There is no need to have a manned aircraft hovering 50 feet off the ground when an unmanned aircraft at 20,000 feet can use advanced imagery equipment to tell the difference between friend and foe. It can then drop a very small 20 kg munition with pinpoint accuracy. Talk about efficiency, the same mission can be done at a fraction of the cost and the enemy will get destroyed quicker as the unmanned aircraft will be flying nearby.

Cancelling the JSF would only increase the development of unmanned aircraft in this role. Right now the MQ-9 Predator B can destroy all the targets that the Harrier can. The Predator could easily be adapted to operate off the large amphibious ships.. the US navy already have smaller unmanned aircraft operating off ships.

But now, JSF is out cost and merging toward a F-22. That makes no sense since JSF was meant to be a huge quantity low cost fighter. The JSF out cost makes the problem complicated.

Too late now.. The F-22 production will definitely continue and long term JSF orders will most likely be cut. This will cause a mini death spiral which would see the JSF nearly reaching the price of additional F-22's. At that point the US will realise that they should have canceled the JSF before it entered production.

However even if the JSF cost 200 million if we compared it to any aircraft besides the F-22 it offers excellent capabilities for the money. The JSF will most likely beat all Russian aircraft, Eurofighter, Rafale & Gripen in air to air combat. That alone is worth 200 million. The JSF will also be able to drop bombs better than all those aircraft.

Only when we compare the JSF to the F-22 we see that it could be better. The F-35 is still a very fine aircraft. The F-35 has turned into a mini F-22 except the F-35 is inferior in stealth and every aerodynamic aspect, something that cannot improve with age.

So we should settle for an 30+yo F-16 design the enemy can see instead of a new F-16 they cant?

Block 52 F-16's are excellent aircraft. The original design goals of the JSF were to be cheap and small to make up numbers while being a bomb truck with limited air to air capabilities. That sounds more like an F-16 to me than the JSF.

The original design listed the STOVL version with no stealth requirement, and the Air force requirement was for moderate stealth i guess like the current Super Hornet.. Only the Navy version required extreme F-22 levels of stealth and as a result caused all versions to be stealthly and expensive. The US Navy requirement for long range also made the JSF overweight and added cost.

The F-16 Block 52 is MUCH closer to the US Air force JSF design goals than the F-35. If the F-16 had an internal bomb bay it would meet them perfectly. The F-16 has the lowest radar cross section of all 3rd generation aircraft as and most 4th generation aircraft. The figures i've seen show that the F-16's radar cross section is a single figure percentage of an F-15 Eagle.

We need a 5th gen multi-role fighter. End of story.

I agree. The USAF gets the 5th generation F-22 and the US Navy gets the 5th generation Block 3 Super Hornets.

The USAF then uses F-16's to meet its original JSF requirement and the Marines can refine the Predator B to meet their requirement.

The F-16's a few decades later would then be replaced by a stealthy unmanned bomb truck aircraft.

Its a shame though as the JSF will not be getting canceled so it will completely bloat the US military with excessive overlap. It will also draw money out of other key area's such as inflight refueling etc. The US will still be able to fight wars and win, but it would be much powerful if the JSF was cancelled.

 

[Lawman]

One question that might be worth asking would be whether the F-22 could have its weapons bays 'bulged' (i.e. allowing 2000lb class weapons). If the F-22 could be modified to use bulged bays, and possibly weapons pods on the wings (the stealthy pod proposed for the later FB-22 proposals), then it might make sense in place of the F-35. As for exports, simply fit the F-22 with a lower thrust version of the F-119 engine, or even the F-110 engine, and use the AESA from the Super Hornet. As for the F-16 proposal, it has real merit, since most of what you are actually doing doesn't require stealth anyway! Have a force of 500 normal F-22s, 500 strike-optimised F-22s (a la F-15E), and a few thousand F-16s and UCAVs! As for the Navy and Marines, a mix of Super Hornets and UCAVs is probably the best option in the event of JSF cancellation!

 

[Occum]

Can someone explain the somewhat myopic focus the RAAF have developed for a 2000lb class weapon to be carried internally on a fighter?

Back in 2000/01, when it looked like the JSF CTOL design would be changed to an internal carriage of 1,000lb class stores (like the STOVL design back then and now), people in Defence were saying that they did not need the 2,000lb+ carriage capability of the F-111; that smaller bombs with less collateral damage was the way to go.

The F-22 has 4 external hardpoints that have the capacity (today) to carry 5,000lbs per station. The JSF is likely to only have two external hardpoints with such capacity, the utilisation of which is likely to be limited anyway because of the wing design and specific excess power (Ps).

Anyone else detect a certain level of disingenuous in the argument for internal carriage of 2,000lb class stores? Methinks this is simple benefit trawling in order to avoid the real issues.

Shouldn't the priority be for capabilities that enable achievement of air dominance to be higher up the pecking order than busting deeply buried bunkers? Surely, once air dominance is achieved, bunker busting using externally carried stores (if the 1,000lb class stores internal can't do it) would be the go. Ignoring a capability which can achieve air dominance for the sake of the somewhat whimsical, wishful thinking 'cut off the head on Day 1' scenario (ie. take out the opposition's deeply buried headquarters/command centre on Day one of the conflict) is a sure fire way of dumbing down an air force.

Again, what are the strategic, operational and tactical imperatives for being able to deliver 2,000lb class weapons from an internal weapon bay? Does anyone know?

nfloorl:

 

[Tasman]

Shouldn't the priority be for capabilities that enable achievement of air dominance to be higher up the pecking order than busting deeply buried bunkers? Surely, once air dominance is achieved, bunker busting using externally carried stores (if the 1,000lb class stores internal can't do it) would be the go. Ignoring a capability which can achieve air dominance for the sake of the somewhat whimsical, wishful thinking 'cut off the head on Day 1' scenario (ie. take out the opposition's deeply buried headquarters/command centre on Day one of the conflict) is a sure fire way of dumbing down an air force.

nfloorl:

I don't know the answers to the other questions you have asked but I do think you make a good point in suggesting that achieving air dominance should be priority one in an air war. It seems to me to be a logical conclusion that once air dominance has been achieved the issue of stealth would be of less significance and weapons could therefore be carried externally. IMO this makes a strong case for the Raptor.

Because of its high cost the numbers of F22s will always be limited (even without the F35 program) so it would make sense to me to back it with a second tier aircraft (FA18, F16, etc) to deliver most of the ordinance, with the Raptors, once freed of the air dominance role, attacking the toughest targets (there will always be some where defences such as SAMs are still intact).

Having said that my preferred mix would be the F22/F35 mix favoured by the USAF, but that would go outside the question raised in this thread.

Cheers

 

[Occum]

One of the single points of failure in the F22/F35 force mix is tanking. For that matter, this same single point of failure exists for a single type fleet, whether F35 or F/A18A/B/E/F or even F22 (though subsonic cruise on fairly large fuel load >22klb will give quite respectable range figures) or any mix of these. Australia's planned tanker fleet just not big enough (eg. not the overall off load capacity nor sufficient platforms) to support operations, especially when failures considered that ground the fleet or part thereof (eg .50cal sniper round through the guts). Single point failures in a force structure significantly constrain air combat capabilityand capacity. These manifest themselves in other areas eg. tactics and peace time training will have to consider such scenarios (to be realistic) which, by their nature, will constrain strategic, tactical and, thus, operational preparedness.

Not smart.

 

[Tasman]

One of the single points of failure in the F22/F35 force mix is tanking. For that matter, this same single point of failure exists for a single type fleet, whether F35 or F/A18A/B/E/F or even F22 (though subsonic cruise on fairly large fuel load >22klb will give quite respectable range figures) or any mix of these. Australia's planned tanker fleet just not big enough (eg. not the overall off load capacity nor sufficient platforms) to support operations, especially when failures considered that ground the fleet or part thereof (eg .50cal sniper round through the guts). Single point failures in a force structure significantly constrain air combat capabilityand capacity. These manifest themselves in other areas eg. tactics and peace time training will have to consider such scenarios (to be realistic) which, by their nature, will constrain strategic, tactical and, thus, operational preparedness.

Not smart.

I agree that other assets such as tankers need to be considered in any mix. Also available weapons or lack of access to a particular weapon could swing an air force's decision towards a particular aircraft. For example, you've mentioned the 2000lb bomb issue. In the case of tankers I don't disagree that the planned RAAF tanker force looks woefully inadequate, regardless of what fighter or fighters end up with the kangaroo emblem. Maybe the inclusion of the F22 in a force mix might slightly reduce the number of tankers required but I think that any air force should aim to achieve the right balance between combat and support aircraft, which would also include AWACS. Maybe it is harder to sell aircraft like tankers to the public, and therefore politicians, than it is to sell a shiny new fighter like an F22 or F35!

Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

Actually the F-22 has less endurance and consumes fuel more quickly than the JSF..

For example:
The JSF can travel 4,000kms at Mach 1 and take 3 hours.
The F-22 can travel 4,000kms at Mach 1.5 and take only 2 hours.

So inflight refueling would be similar with both the F-22 and JSF. It depends on the mission but it will always be similar.

The only missions that will require heavy inflight refueling are the long range strike missions. This is not a problem for the USAF as their F-22's and JSF will not be performing long range missions as they have bombers to do this. However in Australia's case we will be forced to rely heaviliy on refueling tankers. This is why a handful of B-1b bombers would be good for Australia, they cost less than an F-22 to buy and even though the require alot of maintenance the RAAF could handle it easily with such few aircraft. The B-1b as a regional bomber would never need inflight refueling.

So to perform a massive air strike against indonesia you would need the following:

A) 15 JSF aircraft and 4 inflight refueling tankers. 10 bombers + 5 fighters.
B) 10 F-22 aircraft and 3 inflight refueling tankers. 10 bomber/fighters
C) 2 B-1b aircraft and 2 F-22 and one refueling tanker.

You could see how having a few B-1b bombers would drastically reduce the load on the fighters and significantly reduce the inflight refueling required. Even if a single B-1b had 1000 times the operating cost of a single F-22 it would still be cheaper.

Not to mention the Australia Navy would not have to add cruise missiles to their ships if we went with the B-1b. Plus we dont have to buy a jack of all trades master of none aircraft and buy the best air dominance fighter available.

 

[Tasman]

Not to mention the Australia Navy would not have to add cruise missiles to their ships if we went with the B-1b. Plus we dont have to buy a jack of all trades master of none aircraft and buy the best air dominance fighter available.

Hmm ... I can see your argument for the F22 with a mix B-1Bs and I presume from what you've said that you would opt for the F22 if B1-Bs were available, but to come back to the questions asked at the start of this thread:

If you had to make a choice between the F22 or F35, and the B-1B was not available for purchase, which way would you go?

Cheers

 

[Occum]

Why introduce a whole new type such as the B-1? Sorta like the SH 'interim fighter' solution this introducing a whole new type. And before the bug afficianados come falling out of the rafters, if you think there is commonality, think again!..Different engines, different fuselage (except for FWD section which is 'similar'), different radar, different ECM, different software load, etc. etc. etc. Different NATOPS, different tech documentation, different maintenance manuals - therefore different aircraft - QED!

Why go for such a bomber as the B-1B when we already have and operate a high speed strike capability which also has a lot more complemetarity with the F-22A than any other aircraft eg. the airframe is designed to cruise at Mach 1.2 on the deck and Mach 2+ at altitude which means, equipped with the right radar, it makes an ideal cruise missile defence machine. Equipped with the right engines, it will super cruise.

The fundamental question is, "Why opt for some other aircraft, either new (JSF, SH, etc) or pre-loved (B-1B), when you already have a far better capability, which can be made even better for a small fraction of the cost of new by having the dollars spent in Australia by Australians for Australians?"

1. Shut Down the HUG Program as quickly and cost effectively as possible;
2. Replace Hornets with F-22As between now and 2012; and,
3. Keep F-111s operational, even in current configuration, though progressive low risk block upgrades (as originally planned by those who know as opposed to those "who don't know what they dont know" and have stated so) would be smart.

Then, with the pressures of the self generated air combat capability gap removed, get the 'head space' by removing all the the sophistry and spin and BS that surrounds the JSF et al, and get the true gouge - the real skinny - so that informed decisions can be made. Do not understand why this is not being done!


Or have things got so downsized and diskilled in Defence that the cultural cringe now rules!


:shudder

Footnote - If you don't think the air combat capability gap they are now staring into (which is the reason for the mad scramble to get Super Bugs) is not of their own creation, just take a look at Angus Houston's 'Blood Chart' he put to the Parliament back in 2004 in his paper entitled 'Air Combat Capability'. The gap has been there all the time - Defence plans have created this gap!

 

[rjmaz1]

Why introduce a whole new type such as the B-1?

The upgraded F-111 are still pretty average. Not to mention high risk and expensive.

The F-111 will often require inflight refueling, the B-1b will NEVER need inflight refueling. Most F-111 missions profiles include a low altitude penetration and a supersonic exit. These missions DO require inflight refueling.

High speed dash and low altitude penetrations are design to defeat the enemy defences. This is the only way the F-111 can survive by using fuel and sacrificing its long range. A JSF could fly in cruising at subsonic speed and even though its smaller could hit most of the targets the F-111 could.

The F-111 is not stealthy, the B-1b is semi stealth. The different between being detected at 50 miles and 100 miles is the difference between life and death.

The B-1b's have far more advanced weapons and sensors than the F-111. The B-1b has off the shelf upgrades for Small diameter bombs etc. Australia would have to to add these to our F-111's and pay for all the cost.

The F-111 may be fast but will run out of legs. The B-1b may be slower but it can sustain it for longer.

Not to mention that a single B-1b can carry six F-111's worth of weapons TWICE the distance. Or the B-1b could carry six F-111's worth of weapons the same distance but the F-111 would require inflight refueling and the B-1b would not. That means no inflight refueling tankers and no fighter escorts for the tankers, it causes a large ripple effort.

Even four B-1b aircraft would provide greater firepower than 20+ F-111's. If a B-1b required 4 times the maintenance of the F-111's it would still work out cheaper due to less aircraft.

A small B-1b fleet would complement any aircraft we choose. Super Hornet, F-35, F-22 or even Eurofighter. It would also reduce the number of fighters required or keep the same number but have greater fire power. They could also entire service quickly and help bridge the gap when the F-111 retires.

We are getting way off track now.

The US has the luxury of having bombers and fighters. Australia having to use fighters to do all the bombing makes it a completely different decision. The USAF could go with F-22's instead of JSF's and it makes little difference in terms of bombing. With the long range suhkois arriving in the region and the F-111 combat radius getting smaller every year we really do need a bigger strike aircraft. The B-1b is perfect and the USAF has 20 odd available in the boneyard that are in flyable condition.