A real simple question.
If not the F-35 then what?
The Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Super Hornet? Against Russian and Chinese stealth fighters? Against sophisticated air defenses?
I keep hearing that the F-35 should be killed but no one ever has a real answer for what would replace it if it is. If you can body slam the F-35's performance then the same can be done to every fighter listed above. And they don't come with stealth or sensor fusion.
So tell me oh wise one. What do we buy if F-35's aren't good enough?
This administration wishes to kill the United States military industrial complex.
ReplyDeleteThey wish to buy Euro fighters and French jets so we can become more militarily as The UK and Europe. Four years from now the US will not have a military but we will have a DHS version of the NKVD.
Then this nation will become one big prison run by elites on the coasts and in Denver Col.
Perhaps Obama wishes to enable a mass casualty attack on those states that don't vote democrat.
ReplyDeleteThere is no better way to politically and ethnically cleans a large population than allowing your enemies do the job for you so the democrats won't get blamed.
All POTUS has to do is drop the nations guard and destroy it's military.
If this ain't the plan then perhaps our leaders are just stupid to the bone.
Thinking out of the box I believe what should be done is to make the F-35 B work.
ReplyDeleteThen, make the F-22 work.
What ever the cost we are in a tight place and even going back to a super multiple upgraded and up dated Old F-14's as FAD/BARCAPS is an option.
Keep in mind, The main aircraft used in the Pacific theater WW2 was the older Wildcats, Kittyhawks and it's series used as patrol planes and defensive missions with attacks in low threat arena's. The more advanced Corsair's and Hellcats were fewer and used in major operations. The Mustangs and Lightnings were all fewer in number and more expensive.
The average aircraft used COMPAC was the P-40 KittyHawk an average yet still good fighter.
Make fewer F-35 B and F-22 that work with older aircraft filling the normal missions that do not require our best jet fighters. most fighter missions are not combat where the best enemy fighters are flown and attacks are expected and imminent.
The Aviators will have to be prepared for large losses in the first strikes while Our best aircraft are booted up and en-route.
Kinda like That Pearl Harbor event and Clarke airbase attack we will lose some god folks but the riposte would be with better faster stealthier and more lethal aircraft.
If we are lucky.
"Sucks to be us!"
I dont think that its possible to kill the JSF...to much money invested,to much parteners and there is a future market for it...
ReplyDeleteBut to take on your point Solomon i disagree with you on a couple of points here:
There is the comon notion that only the F-35 has sensor fusion.Not true.The sensors,weapons and systems of the JSF are not unique to this aircraft.There is talks(i think i read it at Poder Aereo blog)of Bae integrating an helmet and a DAS like system in to the Saab Gripen.There is the Super Hornet Inter.road map...the F-15SE...
And we have to be aware of one thing:the F-22 is said to be invincible ,but the more 4th gen pilot fly againt it the more they learn how to deal with VLO aircraft...AESA radars can detect LPI tech...so a 4th gen. fighter can force a 5th gen to engage in a classic dogfight...the F-15 as a bigger nose(and so radar dish) than bouth the Raptor and the JSF.It is a better platform to detect and kill bombers and cruise missiles.The F-16 could in theory be fitted with similar tech and sensor fusion as the F-35...in theory because LM will never let this happen.The SH is a very agile aircrat at slow speeds and when ask what was the plane he feared the most in a dogfight a Thyphoon pilot responded «the Hornet...at slow speed that thing can point the nose at everything».
So to end the post,i love what the JSF promisses:F-16 agility with stealth...this will be a GREAT aircratf.But if wath LM delivers is F-105 agility with a little bit better stealth than a small F-5...i dont like it and it should be killed...
the Super Gripen as being touted for sale to various customers does not have sensor fusion. as a matter of fact it'll be lucky to get a JHMCS. same with the Super Hornet...in its international model it could get severly updated but still wouldn't have sensors equal to the F-35.
Deletewe can talk about how the Typhoon, Super Hornet and Rafale are all learning to kill F-22's but we don't know the rules of engagement and we don't know if we're not seeing the game played so the other fighters can compete.
Sol, do you think the F-35 will be a major improvement over the F-16 C/D? Will the cost per flight hour be the same or lower? Will maintenance per flight hour be the same or lower? What are the available flight hours? Will it have better agility than the F-16 C/D? Can it carry all 8,000 kilograms of payload internally in order to maintain stealth and agility? Does it have the long legs we need in the Pacific? Can it watch out for itself in a tight spot? Does it have the ability to do anything other than tuck tail and run as fast as it can at the sight of an aggressor? Can it take the amount of damage an F-105 or A-10 could take?
ReplyDeleteI like the F-35's sensor fusion, especially the DAS, but this plane is bleeding us dry and it gives us only marginal improvements. It's taking up all the funds we need for the B-1/B-2/B-52 replacement. It's taking up all the funds we need for the ACTUAL F-15E and A-10 replacements. It's taking up all the funds we need for the Minuteman III recapitalization or replacement that we desperately need. We can't develop or even dream to fund development for our next generation of tactical airlift aircraft which will have to fly further, carry heavier payloads, fly cheaper and be able to survive in an increasingly deadly air space.
Bits and pieces of the F-35, DAS and the F-135, are great but overall the plane seems to be a dud. It's no big leap from the previous generation when you take into account range, fuel efficiency, cost per flight hour, stories carried stealthily (internally), agility and numerous other attributes a true blue fighter jock can rattle off to you. There may be no acceptable replacement for the F-35, we will never buy Euro fighters, but we can't go on spending so much money on an rather mediocre aircraft and letting LM and the brass bleed us dry.
Concurrency was a fucking terrible idea (the Navy with the LCS is now realizing this). I say we take the outstanding bits and pieces that we can salvage: the F-135, the DAS, the HMD, the mono-display and the maintenance software. While putting back into development the full software suite and a create a new airframe for the Air Force at least. If we are spending all this money we (the Air Force) needs at least an aircraft will do a helluva lot more than F-35A is about the give us. I personally think we should give more effort to the next generation bombers, next gen standoff weapons, the T-X (holy shit I forgot to mention that!) and restart the F-22 (which yes doesn't have the range or amount of internal stores we need but at least it works/worked).
I won't speak for the C variant, I understand the Navy absolutely loathes it. The B variant seems to be a whole lot of meh. But you Marines have no other choice but to go with it so I say, "Happy trails and good fortune."
if you want to take that position then i ask you. if not the F-35 then what?
Deletea non-stealthy teen series fighter?
it would get ate up against a Chinese or Russian stealth plane. take off the gas bags and it can barely patrol an airfield. so what is the answer?
oh and please don't say re-open the F-22 line! it has shorter legs than the F-35, its sensors are not as good and its not the end all be all in WVR combat.
so i ask again. if not the F-35 then what?
P-47 Thunderbolt.
DeleteIf not the F-35, then what? How bout a clean sheet of paper plane for the Navy, and one for the Air Force? We had the same problem with the F-111, and that was solved by the Navy getting the F-14 and the Air Force getting the F-15. With the f-35, each service is taking a hit in theirm performance needs by having a joint aircraft. The Air Force does not need a heavy landing gear, tail hook,and beefed up air frame for their bird - these are weight penalties that are clearly not necessary. The Air Force model needs a bigger wing to reduce wing loading for manueverability in a dog fight. The F-35 got the smaller wing to satisfy the Navy for carrier ops. The Air Force can get by with one engine - replacement for the F-16, as the F-35 was supposed to be. The navy ideally wants a plane with two engines for over water ops. The navy needs a beefed up landing hear, tail hook and beefed up air frame for carrier landings. Buying more of an inferior product - the F-18 is not the answer and wll not win a dog fight against a stealth opponenet. Nor will the F-35 win that same dog fight. You clearly are talking about two different plane designs for the Air Force and the navy. With the F-35, you are getting a plane designed to be a jump jet for the marice Corp, with teh Air Force and navy being asked to take a bastadized version. The procurement system in the military is severely screwed, with poorly designed weapons such as the Littoral Combat ship and the F-35 surviving. A massive waste of taxpayers money, with a buthcer's bill ultimately to be attached.
Deletethats probably the most reasonable answer so far but you're talking about 10 years of waiting for that clean sheet airplane to arrive. additionally everyone wants to dog on the F-111 but it was at one time the premier strike fighter in the world. it was faster on the deck than a F-15E could ever hope to be, it blew the doors off the A-6 and the only plane that could even compete was the British Buccaneer but they retired it early...just like the F-111.
Deletebut if a clean sheet design is your answer then can we wait another 10 years for it to make it through design? and i'm being extremely generous. most design efforts take 15-20 years now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletec-17 arsenal ships
ReplyDeleteForget about buying more F22s, that horse has left the barn a long time ago. The idea of salvaging the best parts of F35 (DAS, engine, software...) to install it inside a F16 is a none starter, LMT would never go for it. Inside an Super Hornet? It pretty much already has quite a lot of good gear, would cost a lot for marginal gain in digital performance. Salvage it to install inside a new airframe to get better performance? You push back the program at least 10 to 15 years, huge money has to be spent AGAIN and you get some better Gs and more range? Not worth it.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I'm ANTI-F35, we are better keeping it. I have said for years that F35B should be cancelled and Marine Corps should buy SHs and Growlers. Navy keeps F35C and USAF buys a F35C "lite", you lose in performance compared to -A version but with the same large wing, no folding wing, beefed up landing gear (love that), maybe a few more pounds shed, USAF would get a world class, decent range bomber and NOW you really are buying basically the same bird for both services....Very similar as when USAF was buying Phantoms at the same time as Navy was....Prices wouldn't go up that much since F35B isn't the biggest buy and now you have a lot more communality and certainty in buy between services anyways.
If you want a new fighter, after F35C and C lite is in service, start a fresh design in 2020 and go 6th gen, twin engine with possibility of a Navy version, something that replaces F15/F14, very little ground and pound, just A2A performance, my preference would be THEN TO USE THE BEST of the F35, same F135s, DAS, radar, software,etc....that would be more efficient use of time and money,IMHO.
Sol, you didn't answer any of my questions but I answered at least one of yours. I would salvage the DAS, the HMD, the F-135, the maintenance software and the mono display (LCD) and shift them to a new airframe or just install them onto an upgraded Increment 3.4 Raptor.
ReplyDeleteNo, the Raptor doesn't have the same range as the Lightning but I believe that to be an acceptable trade off. At least the Raptor can work, does work and we have its cost under control. We've been operating the Raptor for what a decade now? We know the airframe, we have experienced pilots and aircrew who can make a quick and orderly transition to the F-22B, and we know how to quickly and efficiently build it with multiple contractors (Boeing, Lockheed and possibly Northrop).
So why not use the F-22, not as a replacement for the F-35, but as an air superiority fighter like it's supposed to be? Why do we a need an end all be all fighter for WVR? Have we ever had one? I never argued that we did have one or needed one. I have argued that we should get something that works. And besides you can't argue the F-22 is inferior to the F-35 WVR.
We can make do with the F-16 Block 60, or even an F-16XL/VISTA if you want to be bold, instead of the F-35.
We need the T-X, we need the B-1/B-2/B-52 replacement, we need ACTUAL F-15E and A-10 replacements, we need next generation Tactical Airlifters and we need a Minuteman III recapitalization or replacement. We need all those things but we can't get them with the F-35 bleeding us dry and only giving us a mediocre improvement overall. Again, there are bits and pieces of the F-35 that are good but overall the damn thing is a dud.
We can and I say we should wait for a different airframe, whether it takes 10-15 years is fine with me. That's better than spending all this money and all this time on a mediocre piece of crap that can't give us what we need. Let's make do with what we have and can afford.
Of course all this is just my opinion.
i didn't read a question in your first statement. its interesting that everyone wants to take bits and pieces from the F-35.
DeleteTHOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WILL MAKE IT SUPERIOR TO WHATS FLYING NOW! THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE CAUSING DEVELOPMENTAL HEADACHES!
additionally the plane will match both the F-18 and F-16 when it comes to flight performance. the only difference will be in top end speed...but we don't want to go there do we? the F-15 is faster than the F-22 and if you strip it down its faster still.
i don't dabble much in Air Force procurement so when i look up and see a C-17 and see what our allies and potential enemies are flying i feel good. when i look at the A-10 i see a plane that has no match. when i see the B-1 i see a plane that has so much untapped potential its scary...etc...so the Air Force looks to be in at least ok, if not perfect shape.
one last point. if the F-35 hits the fleet with all its baubles working it will absolutely destroy the F-22 in WVR fighting.
"Sol, do you think the F-35 will be a major improvement over the F-16 C/D? Will the cost per flight hour be the same or lower? Will maintenance per flight hour be the same or lower? What are the available flight hours? Will it have better agility than the F-16 C/D? Can it carry all 8,000 kilograms of payload internally in order to maintain stealth and agility? Does it have the long legs we need in the Pacific? Can it watch out for itself in a tight spot? Does it have the ability to do anything other than tuck tail and run as fast as it can at the sight of an aggressor? Can it take the amount of damage an F-105 or A-10 could take?"
DeleteI count ten questions. Not one, not two, not three but ten.
I bet five bucks the F-22 destroys the F-35 in WVR whenever the hell the F-35 decides to function.
Are you saying that because the C-17, the B-1, the A-10 and the Minuteman III are good enough RIGHT NOW we can just stop there and leave them all alone and instead dedicate nearly all our funds to a mediocre aircraft that continues to grow in cost, continues to be delayed year after year, and continues to have its performance parameters and abilities reduced? Really?
Again, sadly, we still need the T-X, we still need a new heavy bomber, we still need an F-15E replacement, we still need an A-10 replacement, we still need sufficient numbers of air superiority aircraft, we still need a new AWACS aircraft (I just remembered that! We're operating freaking 40+ 707s) and we still need either a new ICBM or recap of the ones we got now. Ah shit and we need a sustainable fuel source to feed all of our lovely aircraft! Goddamnit!
It's time like these I envy the Army. They seem to have their shit together and have no drama.
Oh on a sidenote, why are we content with the F-35 MATCHING the F/A-18 and the F-16 for all the billions of dollars and decades in development shouldn't this damn thing be leaps and bounds ahead of it not comparable? Anyway, the ten questions still stand.
"Sol, do you think the F-35 will be a major improvement over the F-16 C/D? Will the cost per flight hour be the same or lower? Will maintenance per flight hour be the same or lower? What are the available flight hours? Will it have better agility than the F-16 C/D? Can it carry all 8,000 kilograms of payload internally in order to maintain stealth and agility? Does it have the long legs we need in the Pacific? Can it watch out for itself in a tight spot? Does it have the ability to do anything other than tuck tail and run as fast as it can at the sight of an aggressor? Can it take the amount of damage an F-105 or A-10 could take?"
i thought you were being rhetorical in that. i can't answer that question. no one can really and truly answer that question thats outside the program. we don't have visibility on what is and isn't classified when it comes to those airplanes and we don't know what is and isn't.
Deleteall we're doing is operating from open source material. that material says that the F-35 when all things are considered will smoke the legacy airplanes. the same argument can be made from open source materials that the F-35 is a dog compared to those airplanes.
but if you're actually trying to make arguments then i could easily contend that an F-4 with modern avionics, new engines etc...could best both airplanes. (especially since the F-4 could easily accommodate the F-22's engines)
so where does that leave us? it leaves us in a foggy area where only opinion rides and everyone is left with nothing else to go on.
oh and you're right. only the Army seems to have its shit together lately.
*40+ year old 707s.
ReplyDeleteIrrespective of LO'ness, the F-35 is going to need heaps of support missions which will greatly aggravate the costs of operations and ultimately result in a tacair community that costs more to train in peacetime than simply buying the added warshots (as pure missiles, sans delivery busses) would for any given war.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, it's not the costs to ourselves the matters here, it's the cost to our potential enemies.
And by capability as interest, those enemies are basically three:
Europe, especially one that tries to dominate the Mediterranean as an economic exclusion zone 'Mare Nostrum' style.
China, and the country which deserves the most and best of everything because she supplies the most and best of everything on a market economics basis of endless consumption.
And Russia. Whose nationalism, like Germany's was never really detoothed so much as rendered dormant by the 'loss' of the Cold War and who has unique ethnic population and resource problems to deal with of her own.
To take one of those threats as examples, if we want to stop China from re-seizing her 'rebel Province' in Taiwan, we had better be able to react in the three to four hours a Buzzo Tactico attack on the Falkands took or the 10-20hrs that the Russian attacks on Kabul needed to link up with outside forces. The distance across the Black Ditch is only about 100nm and the Chines have guided rockets which potentially give them /thousands/ of 10m DMPIs to hit with.
Since the DF-10 and DF-21 pose an insurmountable threat to any naval force which can be targeted and the likeliest targeting aid is an OTH-B radar some considerable distance inland (think JORN), the truth becomes one of getting forces to the theater in a way that bypasses rather than attempt to find and suppress the A2AD threat and doing so in a fashion which is timely enough to forestall rather than finish a surprise attack.
Which means that if you want to stop a hundred thousand airborne troops dropping in on Taipei with intent of hostile mergership, you had better not be doing the one bullet to one soldier trick.
Rather, you want to be able to influence the minds of that one trooper's commanders.
The only way to functionally effect a command level change in policy is to put the Chinese wallet in danger of being able to pay for the privilege. And that means hitting (mainland) Chinese industry.
Which, in a nation that is 2,500 miles across and 3,500 miles deep, could pose significant problems.
Unless.
You move to an HSP or Hypersonic Strike Platform.
Which would look like a combination of the X-38 and the F-14 as an aircraft which took off using simple turbine technology, climbed up to a reasonable altitude, fired a powerful solid rocket motor to go much higher and faster and then, at Mach 5 and 200,000ft, lit a scramjet which was used to send the aerospace vehicle to
Mach 8-9 and 4,000-5,000nm downrange, in about an hour.
DeleteOnce within a timezone of the target, the HSP would eject busses of 4-5 mini-MIRV busses with conventional warheads which would strike from so far away and so quickly that even S-500 class interceptors and lasers would be hard pressed to stop the terminal attack and hitting the parent would be all but impossible to what would be seen as 'point defense' systems, 400-500nm away. Each KEM package being slung like a skipped rock across water before activating tilt motors to dive back into the atmosphere.
No attempt to stop the aircraft across the full width of a continental defense zone = no need for masses of conventional support missions which makes the jet cheaper. While the ability to fly 5,000nm in single legs means you can launch from the South China Sea, hit a northern target and Great Circle your way into Bodo in Norway. Before making a return trip the next day.
Having VG wings means the ability to fully retract the airfoil into the upper fuselage for purposes of heat shielding and to extend the wings for a 125 knot approach to a Carrier while keeping the system short ranged (compared to FALCON) means that if-not-when it is copied, the Chinese will still only be a threat to our military, not to CONUS.
If Ansari-X can take a bunch of civilians to Mach 5 and astronaut territory inside a /plastic airplane/, we can do the equivalent using the much more powerful motors (THAAD) available to military use while isolating those parts of the performance envelope where maximum performance is unnecessary. And because the scramjet burns JP-8, the only thing you -have- to segregate in terms of aircraft performance are the one shot SPRs.
The F-35 will be obsolescent to the J-20 and PAK-FA at service entry. The F-22 will be at parity +. But an HSP is so far beyond any of these that the 'Generation' comparison 4-4.5-5-6 would be irrelevant.
While our ability to divide the planet into fifths for purposes of allocating mission capability in the Northern and Southern hemispheres means that we don't need to have as many base-in permissions as Status Of Forces agreements.
Bomb China's wallet and you instantly take the nationalist fervor out of her burgeoning success story.
Fight China in Chinese homewaters and you likely end up with something like the Cuban Missile Crisis as the Chinese have all the home-turft advantages plus and ability to hijack the schedule as initiative in making the war one of recovering what is lost under conditions where a shakey American economy makes it unlikely that we are going to be sympathetic to Taiwan's causes.
Six to Ten HSPs on a carrier vastly reduces the total airframe inventory costs and allows for massive ordnance stockpiling as a fleet of 50 such jets runs you a couple hundred billion for twenty years, rather than the 1.3 TRILLION that the JSF is shaping up to be.
i am not a military person so excuse my ignorance. but how does everybody already know all the capabilities of the f35? personally i would try and keep this a secret. anyway, i constantly hear that the europeans have ewual fighter jets so why did they need US aircraft to open up Libya's air defenses? and now people say stealth is overrated, but every country is desperately trying to make stealth aircraft.
ReplyDelete