F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[fretburner]

How bad an idea is it for the USAF to just buy more F-22s and have Lockheed focus on the F-35C and B?

I know the F-35A is progressing better than the other 2 variants, but unlike the 2 other services who don't really have any other option whereas the AF has one, i.e. build more F-22A which can also do precision strikes.

 

[Sea Toby]

How bad an idea is it for the USAF to just buy more F-22s and have Lockheed focus on the F-35C and B?

I know the F-35A is progressing better than the other 2 variants, but unlike the 2 other services who don't really have any other option whereas the AF has one, i.e. build more F-22A which can also do precision strikes.

The long lead times for parts from the different suppliers have long passed for further F-22A purchases... Aircraft assembly lines aren't just developed overnight...

 

[SpudmanWP]

The F-22 will cost about twice as much as the F-35A and any slowdown of F-35A buys will make the rest (B&C) cost more. As of now the F-22 (FY09 buy) costs $150 mil and the F-35A (FY12) costs about $122 mil.

 

[Aussie Digger]

How bad an idea is it for the USAF to just buy more F-22s and have Lockheed focus on the F-35C and B?

I know the F-35A is progressing better than the other 2 variants, but unlike the 2 other services who don't really have any other option whereas the AF has one, i.e. build more F-22A which can also do precision strikes.

At this time, F-22 can only do GPS/INS guided JDAM (500, 1000lbs only) and SDB strikes. No laser or electro-optical targeting. It's getting SDB II for moving targets, but it's ability in the maritime environment and against hardened structures remains limited.

2000lbs class weapons will not fit in the F-22 internal bay, nor will longer weapons such as Paveway II/II LGB's, Laser JDAM or standoff weapons such as HARM/AARGM, JSOW, JASSM etc.

Overall the F-22 is limited in the air to ground mission and will remain so, unless some sort of Strike Eagle is developed in future years (unlikely).

 

[fretburner]

At this time, F-22 can only do GPS/INS guided JDAM (500, 1000lbs only) and SDB strikes. No laser or electro-optical targeting. It's getting SDB II for moving targets, but it's ability in the maritime environment and against hardened structures remains limited.

2000lbs class weapons will not fit in the F-22 internal bay, nor will longer weapons such as Paveway II/II LGB's, Laser JDAM or standoff weapons such as HARM/AARGM, JSOW, JASSM etc.

Overall the F-22 is limited in the air to ground mission and will remain so, unless some sort of Strike Eagle is developed in future years (unlikely).

But then the primary mission of the F-35A is supposed to similar to that of the F-117 right? And perhaps SEAD?

IIRC, the F-117 has been the most precise bomber yet, but I don't think they carried a lot of 2,000lb bombs and those large stand-off weapons. Or perhaps the US is thinking they probably won't need a fighter/bomber to have penetrate air-defenses and just launch a large amount of stealthy stand-off weapons, i.e. don't have to do F-117 type missions?

The F-22 will cost about twice as much as the F-35A and any slowdown of F-35A buys will make the rest (B&C) cost more. As of now the F-22 (FY09 buy) costs $150 mil and the F-35A (FY12) costs about $122 mil.

But the costs of the F-22 are just going to go down and the F-35 costs are projected to be a LOT higher than today's estimates. Even the maintenance of the F-22's are supposed to be lower now right (or at least that's what I've read)?

I agree though that lowering the buys of the F-35 would drives costs upwards further, but then the difference in costs versus purchasing more F-22s shouldn't be that high and then you get a superior air superiority fighter which is likely going to kick PAK-FA and J-20 butt.

Or maybe the US really do believe the number of F-22s are sufficient and they just need more "bomb trucks".

 

[Cailet]

But then the primary mission of the F-35A is supposed to similar to that of the F-117 right? And perhaps SEAD?

More like the F-16 I think. The F-22 may be the finest A2A platform in the world but the F-35 is intended as the workhorse, going everywhere, doing everything.

The F-117 was defined and heavily limited by the LO elements of it's design (no radar, no A2A capability, not even a missile lock warning), the F-35 uses them to enhance it's ability to carry out the missions currently undertaken by the 'teen series. I guess the nearest in-service equivalent to the F-35 would be the Super Hornet/Growler.

The F-22's design is just too specialised and expensive for the modern USAF from what I can tell. It was originally built to destroy Flankers over the Fulda Gap and at that it would excel -at a price. The F-35 was designed to be cheaper through it's life expectancy, to use more modern EWAR and datalink systems and was built to carry any munitions you would reasonably try to fit to it.

At this point though the reason the F-22 is dead is simple. Disregarding all arguments about capabilities, marketing or just how much prettier the Raptor looks. Money decides. The production lines are (effectively) closed. To restart them would require massive quantities of money and time, money better spent in the short term on the F-35 and in the long term on projects like the X-47.

 

[swerve]

...
But the costs of the F-22 are just going to go down and the F-35 costs are projected to be a LOT higher than today's estimates. ...

What evidence is there that F-22 costs are going to go down? Future F-22s will need a fair bit of re-engineering, as much of what's in them now is obsolescent. Are you factoring in that? The current fleet has billions of dollars worth of updating scheduled. Also, although it can do some things better than the F-35 will, it lacks many of the other capabilities of the F-35, & adding them would add a lot of cost.

And there's a contradiction inherent in "F-35 costs are projected to be a LOT higher than today's estimates". What I think you mean is that there's a range of F-35 cost predictions. But how do you know which one (if any) is right? I don't. I think LM is probably being far too optimistic in its projections, but that doesn't mean the greatest pessimists are necessarily right.

 

[PeterCrisp]

Please don't take this the wrong way but how can parts of the F-22 be obsolete given that it's only just been built? If the F-22 is obsolete I dread to think how you feel about the Eurofighter? Museum piece maybe?
Sorry for sounding argumentative but it just seems odd for such an advanced aircraft to be seen as obsolete.

 

[Sea Toby]

Please don't take this the wrong way but how can parts of the F-22 be obsolete given that it's only just been built? If the F-22 is obsolete I dread to think how you feel about the Eurofighter? Museum piece maybe?
Sorry for sounding argumentative but it just seems odd for such an advanced aircraft to be seen as obsolete.

The F-22 is a design from the mid to late 1990s, its taken several years to build what have been built... The F-35 is a current design, more than ten years later, and has all of the latest gear... Simply put, technology is moving fast. Would you rather have the latest iPad or the first iMac of ten years ago with less than a tenth of its processing power?

The F-22 assembly line will soon shut down, and will take a few years to get it back up and running again concerning long lead items for parts whose time has passed two years ago to order more...

Without the recent Indian order for C-17s, that line would have ended soon as well along with its long lead items parts... One can't just flip a switch and expect aircraft assembly lines to function by waving a magic wand...

 

[PeterCrisp]

Ok it may not be bleeding edge any more but obsolete seems a tad harsh.
I suppose it's just that I usually equate the term with much older aircraft like the V-Bombers for instance.

 

[Bonza]

Ok it may not be bleeding edge any more but obsolete seems a tad harsh.
I suppose it's just that I usually equate the term with much older aircraft like the V-Bombers for instance.

There are some major fleet-wide issues with the F-22, apparently related to hardware configuration differences between test airframes, early production and late production airframes. As I understand it (though this information is a bit dated so might have changed), the USAF has essentially identified three "types" of the F-22A, and it's reflected in the upgrade path. For example, if I recall correctly there are 63 aircraft in the fleet slated to received the increment 3.1 upgrade, 87 aircraft slated to receive the increment 3.2 upgrade, and 34-odd aircraft limited to running increment 2 with minor upgrades. Because each type has differences in their hardware configuration as a result of the phase in which they were produced, this makes fleet sustainment a nightmare as you're effectively managing three upgrade paths at once rather than one.

It's also had a pretty major effect on fleet capabilities as the F-22 is lacking such systems as the JHMCS, for which integration funding was cut in 2005, and even AIM-9X integration (which is going to the 87 aircraft receiving increment 3.2, but not the rest of the fleet). These are examples of systems already used on older aircraft in the USAF fleet but which, due to hardware issues, have remained conspicuously absent on the F-22.

I'd say you could definitely make a case for the F-22's datalink being outmoded as it lacks multi-platform compatibility and can only talk to other F-22s. The USAF made the decision to upgrade increment 3.2 aircraft with the MADL datalink to ensure some F-22s could share information with the F-35 when it comes in to service, however funding for MADL integration has been delayed until 2014.

These aspects of the F-22, the extreme complexities and difficulty surrounding fleet-wide upgrades and maintaining a consistent capability, is not necessarily caused but is certainly exacerbated by choices made in hardware and so I don't think it's unfair to call certain aspects and even management strategies of the F-22 outmoded or obsolete. From what I understand the fleet sustainment issues fed into the decision to develop the F-35's software in the manner it did, to avoid such problems in the future.

There are other posters around who could add to the above, and probably correct me in a few places... apologies if I've made any errors, I haven't been following the F-22 closely for a while now so some of my information could be dated.

If you google around for "F-22 upgrade problems" or "F-22 increment 3.2" you should be able to find more information on the above, if you're interested.

 

[Aussie Digger]

But then the primary mission of the F-35A is supposed to similar to that of the F-117 right? And perhaps SEAD?

No. Look at the aircraft the F-35 is primarily replacing: F-16, F/A-18, Harrier. The F-22 has already replaced the F-117 in some of it's roles. F-35 will perform others, but F-35 is first and foremost a multi-role fighter. It is in concept closet to a stealthy version of the aircraft the F/A-18 was when it first entered service (minus the carrier capability in the -A version).

An aircraft with a good radar system and equally capability at air to air and air to ground missions. Except the F-35 also offers vastly superior range on internal fuel, better agility and maneuvering more akin to the capability of the F-16, which was initially intended as a day only light weight fighter. It was evolved to become more F/A-18 like with multi-mode radar, precision guided weapons capability etc, but that was not it's original intent.

F-35 will do all of this as well as SEAD, from it's inital operational capability (Block 3)...

The low observability inherent in the F-35 design, is what the US thinks a multi-role fighter will need in the future battlespace to be survivable. It includes penetrating heavily defended airspace sure, but that is not it's only purpose.

IIRC, the F-117 has been the most precise bomber yet, but I don't think they carried a lot of 2,000lb bombs and those large stand-off weapons. Or perhaps the US is thinking they probably won't need a fighter/bomber to have penetrate air-defenses and just launch a large amount of stealthy stand-off weapons, i.e. don't have to do F-117 type missions?

It employed primarily laser guided bombs, which are precise, but I'm not sure was all that much more precise than other modern aircraft employing the same weapons. The F-117 was certainly capable of carrying 2000lbs weapons internally in it's weapon bays and I'm sure they picked whatever munition was assessed as being required for the mission at hand. They didn't carry a standoff weapon as we know them today, no.

In terms of penetrating enemy air defence systems, it is quite the opposite. The US is looking at IMPROVING it's ability to penetrate enemy air defence systems in a vast variety of ways with manned, unmanned, standoff weapon systems and electronic systems all being pursued vigorously to achieve this very thing.

It is one major reason why the F-35 is considered so vital to their future force structure. Especially in the Navy and Marines, where F-35 will be the only manned LO aircraft they are likely to see in the next decade or 2.

The USAF by contrast will operate (at least) 3 separate LO manned aviation systems designed to do this very thing within the next decade.

But the costs of the F-22 are just going to go down and the F-35 costs are projected to be a LOT higher than today's estimates. Even the maintenance of the F-22's are supposed to be lower now right (or at least that's what I've read)?

Of course the production cost of the F-22 is going to go down. It's production will be finished in 2012... It's support costs won't appreciably go down though. The LO treatments on the aircraft are particularly support intensive from all reports and it is an aging aircraft too. As Swerve has mentioned, most of it's systems are mid-90's level systems and the computer code used is early-mid 90's type machine code as well. The supportability of this architecture is what has primarily killed off the F-22 as a useful platform.

I agree though that lowering the buys of the F-35 would drives costs upwards further, but then the difference in costs versus purchasing more F-22s shouldn't be that high and then you get a superior air superiority fighter which is likely going to kick PAK-FA and J-20 butt.

Or maybe the US really do believe the number of F-22s are sufficient and they just need more "bomb trucks".

The F-35 is no more a "bomb truck" than the F-16 or F/A-18 is. All are meant to be equally adept at both air to air and air to ground missions. Lockheed Martin who are tendering advanced F-16 versions in many fighter competitions around the world would not be describing the F-35 as the 'second best air to air fighter" in the world if it were demonstrably untrue and as always there is MORE to combat capability than who has the biggest, fastest, mostest...

Regards,

AD

 

[Aussie Digger]

Please don't take this the wrong way but how can parts of the F-22 be obsolete given that it's only just been built? If the F-22 is obsolete I dread to think how you feel about the Eurofighter? Museum piece maybe?
Sorry for sounding argumentative but it just seems odd for such an advanced aircraft to be seen as obsolete.

It's only just been built, but it was designed in the late 80's and early 90's and the systems with which it is still being built today, also date from that time. It's system backbone is not of a modern open archtictecture and cannot easily be upgraded with modern data-buses and processors etc and it's machine type code is hideously ancient and difficult to code in.

In short, the modest announced upgrades in the F-22 capability have been enormously expensive for the benefit they are providing. Further upgrading the F-22 to make it more like the F-35 and upgradable in future years is just too costly.

This is one of the reasons why it was killed early and also why USAF is already working on 6th Gen fighter designs. Despite it's current capability, I predict a fairly short overall life span for the F-22, I certainly don't see it lasting as long as the F-15 in-service, for instance...

 

[RubiconNZ]

There are some major fleet-wide issues with the F-22, apparently related to hardware configuration differences between test airframes, early production and late production airframes. As I understand it (though this information is a bit dated so might have changed), the USAF has essentially identified three "types" of the F-22A, and it's reflected in the upgrade path. For example, if I recall correctly there are 63 aircraft in the fleet slated to received the increment 3.1 upgrade, 87 aircraft slated to receive the increment 3.2 upgrade, and 34-odd aircraft limited to running increment 2 with minor upgrades. Because each type has differences in their hardware configuration as a result of the phase in which they were produced, this makes fleet sustainment a nightmare as you're effectively managing three upgrade paths at once rather than one.

That was the plan however I believe if I read the 2012 Budget information correctly they have earmarked funding to upgrade all F-22's to the 3.2 standard as of last week.

Of course 2011-12 has not been past so 2012-13 is still away in the future though it states intention at least .

Airforce Times Budget Articles

The Air Force will fund modernization of the C-17, C-5, and older C-130s. It is also funding modernization of the F-15, B-1, B-2 and F-22. Under the new fiscal 2012 budget, the entire combat coded Raptor fleet will now receive the Increment 3.2 upgrade.

 

[Bonza]

That was the plan however I believe if I read the 2012 Budget information correctly they have earmarked funding to upgrade all F-22's to the 3.2 standard as of last week.

Of course 2011-12 has not been past so 2012-13 is still away in the future though it states intention at least .

Airforce Times Budget Articles

Oh excellent, that's really good news that they're making headway on the issues. Thanks for the info.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just to bring back the reality of what ADF and AustGov are saying about JSF unit costs.

AVM Kym Ostley again reiterated that the average unit recurring flyaway cost of RAAF JSF will be $75m AUD

The USG and confirmed under Ashton Carter has repeatedly reinforced that the Aust estimates were more conservative and realistic. This was due to the way that we assess contingency and how we forward estimate on exchange rates.

AVM Osley has reinforced that any change in Netherlands won't effect RAAF and that any concerns about RN-FAA reqs will be mitigated by other countries like Israel who are keen to pick up any early or vacant spots and who will be buying more aircraft than any of those countries that might delay in the immediate term (or cancel)

At this stage no impact is being seen on any change in RN/RAF orders as the Israelis are more than happy to step into an early slot.

Naturally this won't stop the hysterical handwringing from the naysayers, but its a reality that is conveniently ignored.

 

[jack412]

well said GF and its true it wont stop quite a few..
for those that like mathematical gymnastics, the new budget for the f-35 is out
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110211-038.pdf
page 57

 

[SpudmanWP]

Unfortunately they jacked up the budget numbers for the FY2012 F-35. They did a cut&paste job on the Fy2010 and FY2011 jets (page 59) and kept changing what was used for Flyaway Cost (page 57).

But the costs of the F-22 are just going to go down

Sorry but history does not bare this out. From the FY2006 buy forward the F-22's flyaway cost kept getting bigger and bigger, mostly due to inflation. It topped out at $150mil for the FY2009 buy.

and the F-35 costs are projected to be a LOT higher than today's estimates.

What projected cost vs what estimate?

Even the maintenance of the F-22's are supposed to be lower now right (or at least that's what I've read)?

While the F-22 may be cheaper to maintain today vs what it was years ago, it will NEVER be cheaper to maintain than a F-35. Several factors are twin engines, RAM that is more sensitive to damage, a higher rate of fuel burn, a larger airframe, etc.

 

[swerve]

Please don't take this the wrong way but how can parts of the F-22 be obsolete given that it's only just been built? If the F-22 is obsolete I dread to think how you feel about the Eurofighter? Museum piece maybe?
Sorry for sounding argumentative but it just seems odd for such an advanced aircraft to be seen as obsolete.

Systems architecture (already mentioned), electronic components . . . that sort of thing. I think the production Eurofighter has a more modern systems architecture, & upgrades to address the other obsolescence issues are therefore cheaper & easier (but still expensive & a right pain), but I think it has problems with the early blocks. It's been suggested that it would cost too much to bring Tranche 1 up to current standards to be worthwhile, & at the very least, any future AESA radar upgrade seems likely to limited to Tranche 2 onwards,

 

[SpudmanWP]

Two tidbits that I found while going through the FY2012 budget items.

Both items refer to this FY2012 Budget Document:
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110211-032.pdf

1. Blk 4 is scheduled for deliveries to the services & partners starting in 2015

(pg274) Follow-on development Block 4 capabilities; includes logistics, weapons, security, sensors, survivability, upgrades & urgent operational requirements with 2015 delivery to services & partners.

2. The F-35A (at least) will be nuke capable (twin internal B-61s) with Blk4 which is 2015 (see #1).
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb"]B61 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:B-61_bomb.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/B-61_bomb.jpg/300px-B-61_bomb.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/6/6e/B-61_bomb.jpg/300px-B-61_bomb.jpg[/ame]

(pg 281) The Joint Contract Specification requirements call for the F-35A (CTOL) Variant Air Vehicle to have the capabilities and provisions for Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA) operations. DCA refers to the capability to carry and deliver conventional or non-conventional weapons. DCA operation is internal carriage of two B-61s. In accordance with the Operational Requirements Document, DCA will be integrated in the first post-SDD block upgrade in time to meet Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan force structure requirements.

(pg 282) Under the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase of the F-35 Program (embedded within PE 0604800F), the F-35 Air Vehicle was designed to provide for the future full integration of the B61 weapon. This entailed ensuring that sufficient physical volume be reserved for the weapon and its parent carriage equipment, AME and the capability provide the system 2 interface. Design provision included the space necessary to load, carry, and release the B61 as well as the space needed for the physical interface points, both in the Main Weapon Bay (electrical access panels, harness points, and S&RE Access) and applicable pilot interface. Electrical and functional provisions include power and signals to support weapon statusing and employment as well as the relevant wiring harnesses.