I'd forgotten about the flow on effects due to rummys exit.
it makes it all rather interesting. The wild card being the Dems if they get in.
F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
it makes it all rather interesting. The wild card being the Dems if they get in.
During times when ignorance is bliss, it is oftentimes folly to be wise!
I agree with you on the F-22 but not on the JSF.
The aircraft is already over the design's IOC target empty weight of 27,100 lbs by some 1,900 lbs and heading North. The JSF is unlikely to have the aerodynamic performance of the F/A-18 Classic. This would put the aircraft’s performance into the less than competitive category with current regional capabilities, let alone those presenting in 2015 and beyond.
Put simply, the JSF is not the right aircraft for Australia.
As to an F-22 and JSF combination, the single point of failure and, therefore, the Archilles heel in this force structure for Australia is tanking, made worse by the multi ship flight tactics that will be the norm for JSF operations. The same single point of failure applies to the Super Hornet which many conveniently forget does not even have a weapons bay!
For those who still think the F-22 is purely a single role air-to-air fighter, they might find the following questions of some help in better understanding this awesome machine.
Why does the F-22 airplane have 4 bays designed for the internal carriage and delivery of weapons; is able to internally carry 2 x 1,000 lb JDAM plus 2 x AMRAAM or 8 x SDBs plus 2 x A2A in the cheek bays; and, have 4 x 5,000 lb hardpoints for external carriage of stores on the wings?
Why does the current USAF Chief of the Air Staff, General 'Buzz' Moseley say, “What we found with the F-22 is the airplane is one of the finest bombers we've ever had”?
Surely General Moseley would be in a position to know, so why is it that our own CAF and CDF continue to claim that "the F-22 was only built for air to air ... is a single role aircraft"?
Tactics of the future will be centred around persistence in BVR and WVR engagements as well as strike and ISR. The F-22 already outstrips, by some degree, what the JSF marketeers are hoping it will be able to do come the Block 4 configuration. Moreover, the F-22 has the growth capacity (ie. volume, power, cooling, etc.) to evolve ahead of all forseeable threats in the next 20 to 30 years. The JSF has no such growth capacity.
FYI - the currently approved production number of F-22s is 185 units (refer SAR Dec 05). For those interested in finding out more about costs, take a look at #80 this thread. Also, some earlier posts on the subject of costs, availability and, moreover, savings and cost effective solutions for getting Australia the best air combat capability that would be second to none in the region - thus maintaining the current paradigm of us having the meanest pack of dogs on the block when it comes to air power.
Magoo,
I agree with you on the F-22 but not on the JSF.
The aircraft is already over the design's IOC target empty weight of 27,100 lbs by some 1,900 lbs and heading North. The JSF is unlikely to have the aerodynamic performance of the F/A-18 Classic. This would put the aircraft’s performance into the less than competitive category with current regional capabilities, let alone those presenting in 2015 and beyond.
Put simply, the JSF is not the right aircraft for Australia.
As to an F-22 and JSF combination, the single point of failure and, therefore, the Archilles heel in this force structure for Australia is tanking, made worse by the multi ship flight tactics that will be the norm for JSF operations. The same single point of failure applies to the Super Hornet which many conveniently forget does not even have a weapons bay!
For those who still think the F-22 is purely a single role air-to-air fighter, they might find the following questions of some help in better understanding this awesome machine.
Why does the F-22 airplane have 4 bays designed for the internal carriage and delivery of weapons; is able to internally carry 2 x 1,000 lb JDAM plus 2 x AMRAAM or 8 x SDBs plus 2 x A2A in the cheek bays; and, have 4 x 5,000 lb hardpoints for external carriage of stores on the wings?
Why does the current USAF Chief of the Air Staff, General 'Buzz' Moseley say, “What we found with the F-22 is the airplane is one of the finest bombers we've ever had”?
Surely General Moseley would be in a position to know, so why is it that our own CAF and CDF continue to claim that "the F-22 was only built for air to air ... is a single role aircraft"?
Tactics of the future will be centred around persistence in BVR and WVR engagements as well as strike and ISR. The F-22 already outstrips, by some degree, what the JSF marketeers are hoping it will be able to do come the Block 4 configuration. Moreover, the F-22 has the growth capacity (ie. volume, power, cooling, etc.) to evolve ahead of all forseeable threats in the next 20 to 30 years. The JSF has no such growth capacity.
FYI - the currently approved production number of F-22s is 185 units (refer SAR Dec 05). For those interested in finding out more about costs, take a look at #80 this thread. Also, some earlier posts on the subject of costs, availability and, moreover, savings and cost effective solutions for getting Australia the best air combat capability that would be second to none in the region - thus maintaining the current paradigm of us having the meanest pack of dogs on the block when it comes to air power.
Last edited:
China has agreed to 200 if i recall, and several variants to build their own, the J-11 along with the new purchase of SU-33, only two for evaluation, but they will build their own indiginous version, and russian media reports a deal for 50 for China. The indonesians have expressed interest in the SU-27
The Su-27SK fighters sold to China by Russia are known as the J-11 within the People's Liberation Army. China and Russia agreed up to 200 Su-27 and two-seat Su-27UBs to be produced in China.
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/su-27_pm00289001.aspx
Russian media
Russia’s state exporter of weapons, Rosoboronexport is completing negotiations to ship to China up to 50 Su-33 jet fighters for a total worth of $2.5 billion. If the deal is ever clinched, it will be the second biggest contract for export of Russia’s armaments.
http://www.kommersant.com/p715509/r_528/China_jet_fighters_export/
True that, but then we look at all traffic from the US, and its not good for getting any F-22s, in next 5 years they might release to the world, but then if we go by the RAAF they want a single Fighter, and i stated later on i did not agree with this platform, i support more the Hi/Low in concept, but the ideas proposed here don't work too well.
The more you buy, the cheaper it is, the less you buy, the more it is, is this not the problem many people have with the numbers for the JSF, is countries pull out or don't buy, then the price will alter. How does the F-22 differ, more planes means more investment. I don't have subscription, so i'm going off exerpts, anyone have more?
InsideDefense.com reports that the current draft of the Pentagon's FY 2008-2013 program objective memorandum (POM) includes changes to the JSF program that reflect an agreement between the Navy and Marines to postpone initial operating capability by 14 months for the Marines' F-35B STOVL (2011-2012) and the Navy's F-35C carrier version (2013-2014). Subsequent reports note that the proposed POM would also cut production by 72 planes.
As Inside Defense points out, 'stretching' the program this way will raise costs, and could cause trouble with some allies. While most allies will buy the F-35A version, the British are depending heavily on the F-35B and many pointed qurestions have been asked re: will the plane be ready when the new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers are? Over in the USA, meanwhile, the rising average age of its TacAir fleet is becoming a concern.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/f35-joint-strike-fighter-sdd-contracts-events-fy-2006/index.php
The JSF is on shaky ground, many congressmen in the US are proposing more F-22s to the JSF, thats what i'm talking about. With Rummy gone they might buy more, but at what cost? The budget for the US is tight enough, with everyone proposing their own service needs, and the JSF may not make the cut.
I do tend to ramble without pause:roll
Gunna add more funds to the 300mil or so already invested in the JSF and Aussie companies gaining contracts. The first pass approval means more money to be added, right? You don't just sign and wait for the world to happen, this means the government is supporting the JSF and that means politically and financially. And yes a mixed force would be good,i never said otherwise.
The Australian Government has moved a step closer to ensuring Australia’s future air superiority, by giving First Pass approval for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This will be Australia’s largest defence procurement.
I plan to sign the JSF Production Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in December, once final administrative arrangements are in place.
Signing this MoU will open up billions of dollars of opportunities for Australian industry. Twenty Australian companies have already won work estimated at US$90 million.
To cover against potential delays that can occur with projects of this scope, the Government is looking at cost effective options to ensure Australia maintains air superiority during the transition period.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6120
I was talking about US pulling out of F-35, not F-22,as its already built, the F-35 is still in testing phase.
First you said that no one is buying Sukhois in large numbers, and now you're saying "everyone else will have their shiny new fighters"! Who is "everyone else" and what are the "shiny new fighters"?
Not quite what i said, only china is buying Sukhois in numbers, while others are looking, and the US has a shiny new fighter, the F-22. Everyone else being those involved in JSF would get their new multirole fighter, the JSF, hold on and i'll get the Tier listing.
I'm also poking around for the Congressmen who state against JSF and for more F-22s, i'll get back to you on that
Icelord
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Had a read at this:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA_606-05-11_Pt2-41_10Jun06.pdf
The F-22 is already a horribly expensive fighter, and making it able to do what the F-35 can do is going to be more expensive on top of that. The US has all the strike aircraft it needs, it can wait. Will Australia undertake the task?
Or does Peter Goon envision to keep, say, the Pig in service post 2010 - perhaps upgrading it to a Super Pig, undertaking the marstrike role etc., whilst the F-22 stays as a pure fighter...
Hmmm...
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA_606-05-11_Pt2-41_10Jun06.pdf
A$2,000m for ‘Australian specific project requirements’! The JSF is a multirole aircraft. Then how much does it cost to upgrade the F-22 barebone fighter to ‘Australian specific project requirements’ ? And as I understand it, the F-22 upgrade path spins off from the F-35 R&D, anyway.
The F-22 is already a horribly expensive fighter, and making it able to do what the F-35 can do is going to be more expensive on top of that. The US has all the strike aircraft it needs, it can wait. Will Australia undertake the task?
Or does Peter Goon envision to keep, say, the Pig in service post 2010 - perhaps upgrading it to a Super Pig, undertaking the marstrike role etc., whilst the F-22 stays as a pure fighter...
Hmmm...
All that is needed for evil (or stupidity) to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Based upon the force structure analyses I have read, the right number is around 50 x F-22's plus 5 attrition aircraft when combined with a force of around 36 x Evolved F-111S. Checking the numbers, the overall cost of such a force structure would be significantly less (over $4,500 million saving) than the costs of current Defence plans while the overall capability would be some 2 to 3 times greater than a single type JSF fleet while retaining significant growth capability - even more on both scores when compared with the Project Archangel Super Hornet solution.
As to program risks, that should be obvious.
Operationally, such a fleet would not have the various single points of failure that exist in the RAAF's currently planned force structure.
The other result of such a buy would see Australia having over 22% of the world fleet (over 12% when the USAF raise their numbers to the requisite 380). This is a position Australia has never been in before and should not be dismissed lightly. The commercial and strategic industry leverage such a holding brings would, alone, be significant.
Naturally, there are many other benefits/opportunities. Would be interesting to see how many of these the subscribers to this forum are able to identify.
Magoo,
Based upon the force structure analyses I have read, the right number is around 50 x F-22's plus 5 attrition aircraft when combined with a force of around 36 x Evolved F-111S. Checking the numbers, the overall cost of such a force structure would be significantly less (over $4,500 million saving) than the costs of current Defence plans while the overall capability would be some 2 to 3 times greater than a single type JSF fleet while retaining significant growth capability - even more on both scores when compared with the Project Archangel Super Hornet solution.
As to program risks, that should be obvious.
Operationally, such a fleet would not have the various single points of failure that exist in the RAAF's currently planned force structure.
The other result of such a buy would see Australia having over 22% of the world fleet (over 12% when the USAF raise their numbers to the requisite 380). This is a position Australia has never been in before and should not be dismissed lightly. The commercial and strategic industry leverage such a holding brings would, alone, be significant.
Naturally, there are many other benefits/opportunities. Would be interesting to see how many of these the subscribers to this forum are able to identify.
It has to be high cost and low cost (or atleast medium cost).
As you said the "low" capability provides "suitable numbers of aircraft to support sustained operations if required." If we go the F-22 and JSF we still wont have suitable numbers as we will only get a handful extra JSF aircraft compared to going with an F-22 only fleet.
If we cant even get enough aircraft with a JSF only fleet, then how can we get enough aircraft with an F-22 and JSF fleet?
If Australia purchases the F-22, to get 100 combat aircraft it requires a cheaper fighter to make up the numbers. The JSF is not cheap enough to greatly overcome the additional cost of running two combat aircraft.
The F-16 is perfect it can escort Australia refueling tankers, Wedgetails and provide a bit of CAS. As its significantly cheaper than the JSF we could buy more F-22 giving as a good first day of war punch. Then in the second and third day the F-16's come out to play.
Ok ill estimate prices of the Current western Aircraft.
F-22: 200 million
JSF: 140 million
Super Hornet: 80 million
F-16 Block 52: 70 million
A-10C: 20 million
nfloorl: For conversation sake, we will make it 2 billion dollars extra for running a dual aircraft fleet, or 1 billion for the Superhornet as we run the hornet.
100 JSF = 14 billion
100 F-22 = 20 billion
50 F-22 + 50 JSF = 19 billion
25 F-22 + 75 JSF = 17.5 billion
50 F-22 + 50 Super Hornet = 15 billion
25 F-22 + 75 Super Hornet = 12 billion
50 F-22 + 50 F-16 = 15.5 billion
25 F-22 + 75 F-16 = 12.25 billion
50 F-22 + 50 A-10C = 13 billion
As you can see the F-22 and JSF options is WELL over budget, it would result in less aircraft than going with the JSF only option. Notice how 50 JSF and 50 F-22 nearly reaches the cost of a F-22 only fleet. So Australia CANNOT RUN BOTH F-22 AND JSF!!!!!!
The Super hornet and F-16 provide the High-Low ratio well. It hits the sweet spot in my opinion as we can afford it and it brings the total number of aircraft to 100.
The A-10 option is attractive in that it allows for more "high" aircraft to be purchased but results in the "low" aircraft having less capabilities. This means the F-22 would have a greater workload that would offset the extra number of "High" aircraft.
I still say the F-16 is the best option. Having F-22's escorting tankers and wedgetail aircraft would be a waste. The F-22's should be supercruising further out picking off enemy fighters and striking enemy targets. Cheaper F-16's can do the house keeping so to speak. The F-16's with three external tanks and AMRAAMs would be a perfect escort aircraft, as it offers good subsonic cruising speed and endurance.
The F-16's could also be trained to do Close air support like they are currently doing in Afganistan. It would give alot of flexibility. Even if our F-16's got jumped by a Flanker the F-16 will not be a sitting duck if it has a couple AMRAAM's. So our "low" capability is still equal or even greater than the best our potential enemy has to offer.
Saying we picked the Hornet 20 years ago over the F-16 means nothing. The F-16 has now grown to probably be the most cost effective combat aircraft available. Cost effective are the words we should be looking for when it comes to purchasing a "low" aircraft to suit a high-low combat mix.
Last edited:
Sure, the first few F-22s might be $200m each, but if we get 100 of them (which I'm NOT advocating), the unit cost will progressively decrease to perhaps 2/3 that amount. And if the USAF buys more, then that price will come down further.Ok ill estimate prices of the Current western Aircraft.
F-22: 200 million
JSF: 140 million
Super Hornet: 80 million
F-16 Block 52: 70 million
A-10C: 20 million
About right I'd say, maybe a bit less.rjmaz1 said:
I'd estimate more like $17bnrjmaz1 said:
too complicated for me - depends on SOOO many factors.rjmaz1 said:
Perhaps about right, which is only $1.5bn more than we're currently budgeting?!?!rjmaz1 said:
Not to mention the much cheaper integration costs of the Super Hornet on top of this.rjmaz1 said:
Sounds like a bargain to me, plus we wouldn't have to do centre-barrels if we decided soon.rjmaz1 said:
, So, 50 F-16s are more expensive than 50 Super Hornets? Sounds better all the time!rjmaz1 said:
Give me the Supers, as we'd easily save the difference over the life of type.rjmaz1 said:
Oh puhleese...:nutkickrjmaz1 said:50 F-22 + 50 A-10C = 13 billion
But what you're getting is 24 to 36 F-22s which will provide much more persistance, a high sortie generation rate due to its faster transit speeds, higher weapons loads, and its ability to go right 'down town' and get a much better strike rate than the JSF which will do most of its work from near stand-off ranges. 50 F-35s for 24-36 F-22s is a pretty good trade off if you're still getting 50 F-35s!rjmaz1 said:
But the F-16 is going to be a sitting duck against most threats in 2025, and the Super Hornet will by then be about in a similar position to where our current Hornets were pre-HUG.rjmaz1 said:
DO NOT get me started on the A-10, it aint gonna happen...ever!rjmaz1 said:
It's TOTALLY relevant. The Super Hornet is to the F-16 Block 50/52 as what the F/A-18A was to the F-16A in 1981; in price, in air-to-air and air-to-ground capability (even wider gap if you ask me), in all round effectiveness, in networkability, and in supportability, plus there would be a fraction of the transition headaches from the 'classic' Hornet.rjmaz1 said:
Magoo
Magoo
Yes, the Democrats in control of the US Senate and House next year might build more F-22s, but no one in America expects it to. The Democrats might build F-35s, but no one in America expects it to. Why? For the past decade the Democrats have wondered why we need any stealth aircraft at this high price when F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s are winning wars today!
America expects the Democrats to kill both stealth fighter programs, continuing the Super Hornet program for the navy. The Republicans had already killed the F-22 program at 183.
What do you think Australia will do if the Democrats pull the rug out of both stealth fighter programs? Buy 100 Super Hornets, that is what I think. That would run Australia $80 billion, not $140 billion for the JSF. They are and will still be in navy production, which means Australia and America could get them for less.
As for the British, they will have to put catapults on their new carriers. While the Democrats may have seen the need of 183 F-22s to replace the F-117s, they don't see a need for more.
Anyone want to bet? The Democrats priorities are to balance the budget and somehow spend more for health care. Expect defence cuts, stealth aircraft are the first item on the chopping block.
America expects the Democrats to kill both stealth fighter programs, continuing the Super Hornet program for the navy. The Republicans had already killed the F-22 program at 183.
What do you think Australia will do if the Democrats pull the rug out of both stealth fighter programs? Buy 100 Super Hornets, that is what I think. That would run Australia $80 billion, not $140 billion for the JSF. They are and will still be in navy production, which means Australia and America could get them for less.
As for the British, they will have to put catapults on their new carriers. While the Democrats may have seen the need of 183 F-22s to replace the F-117s, they don't see a need for more.
Anyone want to bet? The Democrats priorities are to balance the budget and somehow spend more for health care. Expect defence cuts, stealth aircraft are the first item on the chopping block.
Last edited:
Dunno if it'll happen, but if it does, I agree F-18E would be the favoured choice for Australia, but I'd expect a competition, & the Rafale & Typhoon to be put forward, & maybe something from Sukhoi.
The UK would, as you say, have to re-jig CVF to include catapults. Not a big problem. Already being designed in for PA2. We'd either buy F-18E, Rafale, or develop a Sea Typhoon. The Italians would be left with a rather expensive LPH when their Harriers wear out, unless they rebuild Cavour with catapults & fund the development of a new lightweight carrier fighter. Sea Gripen? Seahawk? (Goshawk carrier mods applied to Hawk 120-series, with Hawk 200 forward fuselage?). Well, a man can dream.
I actually took into account the Superhornet being cheaper to integrate in those numbers, 1 billion less with each of the super hornet options, which is why the F-16 option was actually more expensive even though per aircraft the F-16 is cheaper.
Ok expanding on the Superhornet option instead of the F-16 and A-10.
The sweet spot with the Superhornet option would be slightly more super hornets compared to F-22. 60:40 or 70:30. This is similar to what Magoo suggested.
F-22 and Superhornet would indeed provide a good High-Medium capability.
Would it be safe to say that the Super Hornet requires less maintenance and support compared to an F-16 Block 52?
With an F-22 AND Super Hornet purchase, which aircraft would be ordered first?
Buying 60 Superhornets right now would be good. Then the F-22 at the end of the production run. IMO the F-22 production line will be kept open much longer than currently expected.
What about UCAV? I think UCAV will be able to provide all the strike and SEAD capabilities of an F-22 for a much cheaper cost.
If the UCAV ends up coming to the US Navy its safe to say the Super Hornets will be somewhat linked in with the UCAV's. So Australia having Super Hornets would be excellent as we'd be able to get all the upgrades.
100 Super Hornets NOW and 50 UCAV aircraft in 10 years times would probably be the prefered option.
This would be the cheapest and best option Before this purchase was made Australia would have to have a solid date and specification sheet of the UCAV setup. This is a gamble that could pay off.
UCAV's dont need training and can sit in storage during peace time so its a good long term investment.
100 Superhornets would do a fair job of replacing the Classic Hornets and also replace the shorter ranged missions of the F-111.
Less rebarreling required as we could have our first squadron of Super Hornets available within a couple years.
An Australian purchase of 60 Superhornets with an option of 40 more sounds good. Then once we have 60 Super Hornets, we have two options.
A) Buy 40 more Super Hornets and look at a UCAV purchase.
B) Buy 40 F-22 aircraft if its available to us.
I have posted a few times that if Australia has to go a single aircraft fleet we cannot afford 100 F-22, and we will struggle to afford the 100 JSF aircraft. 100 Super Hornets is spot on
Exactly.
I hope the JSF gets canceled, its sucking far too much money out of everywhere. They have turned into into a mini F-22 with lower speed, stealth and agility. Unless its less than half the cost of the F-22 it should be canceled.
US will then order more F-22's to compensate.
400 F-22's
1000 F-16's upgraded to Block 52's
200 A-10C aircraft
Close the production line of the F-15, suspend all F-15 upgrades and use up the flight hours of the newer F-15's on the current wars then retire them. Keep the bomber fleet as is.
This leaves an excellent fighter fleet for the USAF.
The US navy just has to keep buying Super Hornets, maybe they could get an extended range Small diameter bomb, with a little rocket booster providing a 100mile standoff range.
Marines and Royal Navy? They can open up Harrier production again and make an upgraded Harrier with AESA and capable of dropping SDB's.
Australia? The price of the F-22 would drop enough to the levels where Australia could purchase 80 F-22 aircraft and be within budget. The super hornet will also drop in price so we could go Superhornet and F-22 option and get more aircraft now that the JSF was canceled.
Other JSF buyers? They can just order Eurofighter, or F-16 block 60's.
The JSF wont be missed if it was canceled. However if the JSF isn't canceled then alot of money WILL be missed.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
The JSF will be missed if cancelled, i believe mostly the STOVL nations, there are at least half a dozen nations relying on the JSF to provide their STOVL replacement, not least the USMC who are relying on the JSF to replace both Harriers and FA-18's for their fleet, UK, Italy, Spain this alone is approximately 700 aircraft, now dependant on cost which I'll admit I don't know specifics when breaking down airframes, the STOVL JSF may and should go ahead regardless, there is nothing AFAIK even on the public drawing board which represents any replacements of this aircraft type, UCAV in 10 years may be adequate and in Australia's case the final tranche of fighters been listed as possible UCAV purchases but it will not at this time meet the STOVL capability.
Perhaps I should add some comments. I saw on a program on sky news or BBC that there was a program to make the Eurofighter Typhoon carrier capable and there was a defense expert that claimed that would not be so hard and it was feasible and it would cost much less than buying the JSF. Do you have any comments on that. IMO I never liked the idea of the JSF if only the UK were more integrated in Europe they would have taken the Rafale which is an excellent plane and co produce it instead of going to the US. Old anti French mentality played against them.
With the Democrats having been against any stealth fighters for the past decade, I don't think anyone in America expects them to acquire any of either. Besides, how many first day stealth fighters do we need. Yes, Democrats are happy with a high low mix of aircraft, its the Republicans who aren't happy unless all of the fighters are high. I fully expect both stealth fighters programs to die a quick death, its no longer a matter of one or the other.
When a Democrat President is elected in another two years, I could see in its administration finally a stealth replacement for the F-111. The USAF sorely misses the long range of the F-111, which may be the stealth aircraft Australia finally buys several years hence. The need will be there because of the world's opposition to British and American involvement in Iraq. America will find it harder to get overflight rights in the next decade because of this hostility.
At least that is what my tea leaves are saying.
When a Democrat President is elected in another two years, I could see in its administration finally a stealth replacement for the F-111. The USAF sorely misses the long range of the F-111, which may be the stealth aircraft Australia finally buys several years hence. The need will be there because of the world's opposition to British and American involvement in Iraq. America will find it harder to get overflight rights in the next decade because of this hostility.
At least that is what my tea leaves are saying.
No way.
I would rather operate a harrier than an aircraft that cannot hover with weapons or with internal fuel only.
The STOVL version has the most problems.
The JSF is overweight. The original design spec for the STOVL version required the aircraft to be 20% lighter than what it is now.
IF the STOVL was the only aircraft to be produces then it leaves them two options.
A) Build the overweight STOVL version
B) redesign it so the aircraft is 20% lighter.
Redesigning the JSF would cost more than restarting production of the Harriers, and the Harriers would be half the price.'
The JSF was always going to struggle to work.
The Air force wanted a cheap small F-16 like aircraft with basic stealth and avionics.
The Marines wanted a small harrier replacement, stealth and avionics could be basic.
The Navy wanted a large, twin engine strike aircraft that was very stealthy, they wanted a F-22 that can land on a carrier with F-22 levels of stealth, avionics and performance.
Hold on a sec.. Large or small? cant have both
I dont see how these could ever share the same components. The navy requirement kept making the JSF bigger, more stealthy and expensive.
Looking back now 10 years ago the F-22 should have been made to land on a carrier and the JSF should have been a hybrid between the harrier and F-16, with basic stealth, avionics and be VERY cheap.
So the Airforce would have operated 500 F-22 and 1500 cheap JSF's. The Navy operated 500 F-22's and shared 500 JSF's with the marines. Perfect!
Last edited:
I don't think the Eurofighters can be built quicker, its production line is very long. On the other hand, Boeing can build more Super Hornets quicker, its production line can increase production numbers.
Of course, the Australians and the British could choose another aircraft. The British could lease some older Hornets and return them after they have built navalized Eurofighters. The British could easily buy navalized Rafaels too.
In my lifetime I have seen many military programs killed at the whim of Congress or by the Secretary of Defense. The only increase I see the Democrats might be willing to do is to create another Army light infantry division. Otherwise I see cuts. During the Carter and Clinton adminstrations defense spending dropped to around 3 percent GDP, its been during the Reagan and Bush administrations when defense spending increased to 4 percent or more GDP. I have not seen any change in the Democrats whatsoever.
Of course, the Australians and the British could choose another aircraft. The British could lease some older Hornets and return them after they have built navalized Eurofighters. The British could easily buy navalized Rafaels too.
In my lifetime I have seen many military programs killed at the whim of Congress or by the Secretary of Defense. The only increase I see the Democrats might be willing to do is to create another Army light infantry division. Otherwise I see cuts. During the Carter and Clinton adminstrations defense spending dropped to around 3 percent GDP, its been during the Reagan and Bush administrations when defense spending increased to 4 percent or more GDP. I have not seen any change in the Democrats whatsoever.
What I have learned is that the British carrier design is going to have catapults that leads to the conclusion that another aircraft besides the JSF would be used. The only 2 I can think of is the French Rafale or a navalised version of the Eurofighter and lastly the second one will be pretty much on British MP's agenda since the JSF program has come under close scrutiny lately.
No, it is not going to have catapults. Every single official statement on this matter says it will not. Every officially released picture shows a ski jump & no catapults. The official line is that CVF will be built "for but not with" catapults, i.e. provision will be made in the design for fitting them, as a precaution, but no catapults will be bought or fitted.
The official line on the aircraft is F-35B. If the F-35B is cancelled, the carriers would be completed with catapults, & F-35C would probably be favourite. If JSF is cancelled altogether, the options are Rafale, F-18E, & navalised Typhoon.
Why does that lead you to conclude that? The JSFs that are due the fleet are made for CATOBAR ops. There are more than one version you know.