So what happens if the F-35 is canceled? Oh and before you go one step further this is just an off the top of the head, arm chair general list. I'm sure there are better ideas floating around...probably inside the Defense Depts and Ministries of the countries involved. This is just an exercise in "what if" thinking.
USAF.
The main problem for the USAF isn't that they will be losing the F-35. The problem for them is that they will have to admit that a concept has gone beyond its shelf life. That concept? Stealth! But to the issue at hand. The USAF could simply opt for new build Advanced F-16's. They could take advantage of tech developed for the F-35 and revive proposals from the past. Fitting F-22 engines into the F-16. Building the F-16XL air frame. Working with the US Navy to develop aerial lasers. Taking as much of the sensor fusion from the F-35 that can quickly and affordably put into the Advanced F-16....but again. The problem isn't stealth. The problem is concept. The lowest level and most affordable option is to simply put the F-22, F-16 and F-15 back into production...upgraded to the extent affordable and work on a real deal 6th gen fighter.
USN & USMC carrier mission.
This one is obvious. The Advanced Super Hornet. Instead of a modest upgrade as is planned now we go full force. More powerful engines. Make it as stealthy as is possible. Take what widgets you can from the F-35 program. Consider a full hybrid force of Growler/Advanced Super Hornet Frankenstein models that combine the features of both aircraft to make your entire fleet capable of conducting electronic warfare, an area where the USN is the world leader and call it a day. An even easier solution would be to simply piggy back off Navy buys of the Advanced Super Hornet.
USMC.
Extremely simple. Follow the backup plan that saw the Marine Corps purchase British Harriers. Keep the AV-8B in service until 2030 and beyond. Purchase Advanced Super Hornets and position them with SPMAGTFs (they already deploy with KC-130's...putting F-18's in the mix shouldn't be hard) and forward deploy them to cover MEU's.
Brits and Allies.
The Brits will have the most heartburn among our allies to a possible cancellation of the F-35. The Dutch, Italians, Japanese, Australians, Canadians and others will almost smile that the heart wrenching and budget busting decision has been taken out of their hands.
They'll want refunds and that will be sticky...but it doesn't have to be. They'll need replacement aircraft and will probably follow the USN and USAF's lead on buying upgraded F-15 and 16's. Discounted pricing should make the financial ministry smile and lessen the pain while at the same time getting them an affordable option that matches US jets and planning.
But what about the Brit carriers?
Interesting issue. The Brits have a couple of options here. First they can piggy back off the USN and install electromagnetic launch systems on their ships or they can make them huge LHDs. Personally I believe that the Brit carrier mafia will want the capability to launch conventional aircraft. That means you're looking at either Super Hornets or Rafale's for the decks. I have no idea which way the wind blows in the UK on the issue.
The facts?
Its real simple. There is a way out. Is it pleasant? No. Is it pain free? Not at all. Does it stop the bleeding now? Definitely. All it takes is the will and the acknowledgement that a mistake was made and needs to be corrected.
Physical courage is easy. Moral courage is hard.
UPDATE: I did not consider another airplane that is currently available that is low cost, STOL capable and would truly get Marine Air headed back in the direction of an affordable AND capable part of the Marine Corps. The SAAB Gripen! If it is equipped with the same engines as the Super Hornet, if the same avionics are installed then we can have an extremely capable close air support with fighter capability we've always wanted. Then we turn our attention to developing more capable missiles and enhancing our electronic attack and all is right with the world again.
Mounting catapult on carriers would demand a very serious redesign Sol' Brit's did the most stupid thing they can, they put everything on one card. I'm still in little unbelievable zone when I think about that, the Royal Navy, precursors of carrier operators, for so long the First Navy of the world. And they did such thing...
ReplyDeleteTo mount an catapult, electromagnetic one (as it take less place then an classic stream one) or rather at least two you will need to put those poor ships for month's maybe even years in to drydock. Cut her open, stab in the very heart (engine room) of it and start the serious operation. That would cost huge amount of money, HUGE. Maybe at the end they would receive a true aircraft carrier not an... F-35B carrier.
For the planes, some time ago they show this: http://cdn.defencetalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/eurofighter-naval-aircraft-carrier.jpg
So I think Sol' they would prepare own planes for operation from own carriers in time ship's would get back to service.
Britain can sell these carriers to another country. Play a Jedi mind trick on a country like Brazil or South Africa/AUstralia......"you need an aircraft carrier.....these are the carriers you are lloking for". But that seems unlikely in a world of limited defence budgets.
DeleteOffcourse, one single moment of hostility or pig headedness in the South China sea by any protagonist and suddenly demand for a carrier/LHD might go up.
Australians already get own "carriers", rest don't have a money... sooo... Japan? nah, they also have ones. Also those are a symbol, the national pride ones, you would even start to think that in parliament out loud they would burn you on the stack.
DeletePlease no! The french jedi mind trick stabbed our defense budget with Scorpene submarines and a naval base close to Rio. Enough! :-)
DeleteGiven that RN airwing is small in comparison to ship size they might end up like russians with CTOL jump ramp and limited payloads
DeleteThe catapults would have to be electromagnetic not because they take up less space, but because the Queen Elizabeths are gas turbine powered, hence no steam. In addition to cutting her open, you'd have to modify the deck to enhance the angle deck. Plus, you'd have to have a lot of below deck machinery for the arresting gear as well as the catapults. Not to mention, the ship's crew would have to be significantly increased in order to man the catapults and arresting gear.
DeleteA couple of other points: Going to CATOBAR or CTOBAR means a lot more wear on the aircraft, their operating lives will be less. Plus, because coming aboard the boat is so much more complicated in an arrested landing (even with modern automation, it can fail), many flight hours will be used up in training and practice. Finally, with conventional aircraft operation, you need a recovery tanker (VL aircraft do not) for bolters or recovery delays. So either you have to tie up some F-35s with a buddy store (can they carry one?) or you're limited to operations only where there's divert field in range or where RAF tanking is available.
Oh, and a naval Typhoon only exists in marketing drawings, too expensive, too limited (can't take a cat shot, it would be a CTOBAR), etc.
DeleteWould US allies of the F35 trust the US again if the F35 project was cancelled and knowing that the US refused to sell them the F22? If there will be a trust deficit on this issue, how deep or shallow will it go ?
ReplyDeletei really and truly believe that many of our allies already know that they're being sold a bill of goods and are really just seeking to remain in our good graces by buying the airplane. i could be off but i really think that many of them would be relieved at the idea of this program going away and would want to simply be allowed the best of what we build next time....so no. i think an honest appraisal by all involved would give everyone increased confidence rather than a loss of trust.
DeleteBtw: something for your collection Sol' http://www.wallchan.com/images/sandbox/87888-stealth-eurofighter.jpg
DeleteThere are many options, but the first thing to acknowledge that the F-35 program is not delivery a plane for the right price with the right capability. The second is to acknowledge that a stealth only approach is no longer viable and must be re-balanced with both affordable platforms, along with EW capability.
DeleteOptions such as those suggested by Lt Col Pietrucha, would be to build 60 new F-15G along with 72 F-16 Block 70 or other variant. This action, however would only be useful for revamping baseline TAC air as well as adding some EW capability. As for allies, many will probably be "silently" happy to move on, but their will be a concern over their aerospace firms. Some countries should be offered the latest F-16 variant with as much F-35 tech that will work in the plane. The F-16XL could be one hell of a plane.
The second consideration here as to be to re-open the F-22 line and design. Instead of the making more A models look at B and C models. The B model could be an extended strike version, with larger payload and longer range. The C model could be an export model, with lower "stealth" but would still be a LO aircraft. The aircraft would retain all the flight dynamics capability of the F-22. This aircraft could then be made available for countries like Canada, Australia, or even Japan and Korea.
Actually, Strike Eagles would be a better option than F-16XLs, More capability and lower cost, especially when you figure in the cost of developing an operational XL. That's why the Strike Eagle won the competition before.
DeleteThere's virtually zero possibility of reviving the F-22. The line has been broken down and the tooling stored in another part of the country from the production facility. The supplier base has dispersed. De to its closed architecture the F-22 is harder to modify and integrate news systems int than other aircraft (one of the reasons why to this day the F-22 has no HMCS). This would be HIDEOUSLY expensive and years from now at the end of it you'd have an aircraft with obsolete technology. Take those gobs of money and more more rapidly to a true sixth gen.
India could buy them but even we have our carrier project going on. And in this new carrier "Vishal" we are also looking to scale it more to US levels.....65-70,000+ tons with EMALS so that we can launch a true Naval Air Wing with a large section of aircrafts including AWACS and a fully equipped and weapon weighed FGFA with BrahMos which our current Naval Aviation wing cannot launch now with its Mig-29's. Thus prompting the need for a mini-BrahMos.
ReplyDeleteYou'd do better to partner with Brazil and bring forth the Sea Gripen, based on the Gripen E/F. Would be easier, cheaper and more practical than trying to modify Tejas for the role.
DeleteI can hear the chorus of "Why not Rafale", but given its operating costs and other factors it's worthy of note that no one outside of France (which is halving its production rate, which will drive purchase costs up) has actually signed an order for Rafales, and this includes India.
i don't know why i keep overlooking the Gripen. its a natural to fulfill a ton of missions cheaper than the common cast of characters. totally agree!
DeleteOn the Tejas front...it is a sideshow waiting to get scrapped. It cannot launch the 300KM current version of the BrahMos nor will have the ability to launch the 500KM extended version. It can launch the Mini-BrahMos (under development) but that defeats the entire purpose of having that deadly a missile in your Naval Armoury. The Carrier Vishal will definitely be a waste if it is stocked with Sea Gripens and Tejas. It has to be either the Sukhoi 30 or 50/FGFA for the air launched BrahMos to be a true Anti-Ship missile.
DeleteOn the production front you forget that the combined India and France tally for the Rafale will still top Grippen production numbers. The 126 aircraft is just an initial order. I am not aware about the Gripens fighting ability or the number of missiles/ordance it can carry or its endurance but our Air Force selectors did deem it prudent to dump the Gripen in Round 1 of the selection process itself along with the Mig-35 or some varient of the 29.
Infact, the Brazilians would do better to partner up with India incase they want an aircraft that can do more than "patrol" friendly skies with countries that are also friendly/semi friendly vs. a country that has China, Pakistan and Burma as neighbours.
In Belgium we were supposedly set on the F-35, and the former MinDef was a great fan. But right now reality's settling in and the French are launching a huge campaign to promote Rafale in its next iteration, which makes sense since our training is already done on French airbases on a mutualized plot of AlphaJets. It would thus make a great scale economy for us to delegate the whole training part to the Frenchs.
ReplyDeleteI recall an Idea that Tom Clancy proposed before he died of an F-22E. Essentially a F-22 Strike Raptor. There would be limited development costs if there are any at all considering the F-22 is already capable of strike missions. Also the only reason the US doesn't have more F-22s is because the program got cancelled in order to Pay for the F-35. Now this would not work for the Navy or Marines but for the air forces of the world the F-22 Strike Raptor would be a true alternative to the F-35. This would combine the best air to air platform in the world with the ability to bomb the enemy's sorry ass. prices when the F-22 was being built the fly away cost might have been expensive but remember that when the last F-22 was built there was only 186 others in existence the price would be high. As more would be built just for purchase from the US would make it cheaper for our allies to buy.
ReplyDeleteSide Note: Lockheed Martin is saying that the price for the A variant will drop by 30 million dollars in the next 4 years.
Any further F22 production would require signficant investment. Realistically a complete overhaul of its digital infrastructure. The i960 chips which formed the basis of its design are no longer available nor is the process upon which they were build and no reserves of that model of i960 are stockpiled because neither Lockheed nor the DoD would pay the miniscule costs to produce and stockpile them when given almost a decade of notice.
DeleteIn addition, none the tooling is apparently left for the F22 either.
@ats. The tooling for the F22 has been kept.
Deletehttp://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-to-preserve-f-22-tooling-for-future-use-345519/
that's good to hear, unfortunately, pretty much everything else in the F22 will have to be redone from scratch.
DeleteI'm stealing part of this from another one of my posts:
DeleteThere's virtually zero possibility of reviving the F-22. The line has been broken down and the tooling stored in another part of the country from the production facility. The supplier base has dispersed. De to its closed architecture the F-22 is harder to modify and integrate news systems int than other aircraft (one of the reasons why to this day the F-22 has no HMCS). This would be HIDEOUSLY expensive and years from now at the end of it you'd have an aircraft with obsolete technology.
The tooling stored is to manufacture spare parts and for service life extension. . That article was written four years ago, when there was still a "warm" production line. Those costs assumed that new orders would come in before production ceased was broken down two years from then (now two years ago from our time) so that the supplier base could be retained. It still figured that there'd be two years to restart the line. In other words,if you made no changes and just started building F-22As identical to the last ones off the line, right about now. But, the line did close, the supply chain did break up, so you're looking at a lot more cost and taking a lot longer, to produce a fantastic, but 1990s technology, aircraft. you wouldn't get it much sooner than a new 6th gen. aircraft.
The biggest flaw I see in this fall back is the Harrier. The Attrition Rate on them and there issues of controlled flight as well as age mean I doubt there life expectancy can be expanded beyond 2030
ReplyDeleteHow are we going to say stealth is past its shelf life then say make the F-18 as stealth as possible?
ReplyDeleteby looking at what has happened the few times we've attempted it. the F-22. canceled well short of its intended production run because of cost. the B-2. canceled well short of its intended production run because of cost. F-35. SHOULD be canceled well short of its intended production run because of cost (and probably will be). stealth when done right...even partial stealth is tremendously expensive and not worth the cost for a widely used airplane. for unique missions, then perhaps it works. as a workhorse fighter or bomber? the results would say no.
Deletethe Russians have gone for partial stealth as is the US Navy with the Super Hornet. the Chinese have money to burn and a desire to match the US. does that mean that the Chinese approach is fiscally responsible? unknown. we don't know enough. the J-20 and J-31 could simply be tech demonstrators. they could produce a couple of thousand simply to match our numbers. again we don't know. what we do know is that radars, anti-air missiles and systems around the globe are being developed to counter stealth.
quite honestly in my opinion stealth is a developmental black hole. higher, and faster is once again ascendant as the main factors in aerial warfare...at least until energy weapons get perfected.
If the US threatens to cancel then I see another option possibly opening up for the Air Force. What I call the STF--stripped tactical fighter. No expensive and hard to maintain stealth coatings and simpler non-stealth access doors. An APG-79 AESA radar from the Super-hornet which is alreadly functional. This takes away all the expensive, controversial items except the engine. But even I have to admit that engine often have a rough start, and shouldn't take long to fix. Now taking off this stuff might not actually reduce the cost of making the fighter but it also makes a great excuse for Lockheed to simply cut the price down to 80 million (still high, but manageable) while Lockheed does what it should have done all along and eat the development cost overruns.
ReplyDeleteThe navy of course goes super-hornet versions.
The USMC should ask themselves why they really need VSTOL. If it is just so they can launch off smaller carriers, then they should simply take the LHA, add an angled deck for landing and ski-ramp and stick also with the F-18 as will our allies. The Russians, India, and China are all using conventional planes without catapults. The US Navy launches very heavily loaded Hornets, and even bigger aircraft. Neither the AV-8 nor the F35B are that heavily loaded wth ordinance. Simply put a lighter load on a hornet and launch it with a ski-jump. Done.
Ok, I not it is not that simple, but think on this: For the price of 50 F35B's (5 billion), you could have 20 F18s (at $70mill each) and an LHA (3.4 billion) with a modified deck (say 200 million)--the carrier and the planes all in one package. OR for the price of the 370 F35B (37 billion) the brass plans, you could have 370 Hornets and 3 new LHA's or 300 hornets and a new Ford Class Nuclear aircraft carrier...a USMC nuclear carrier all it's own.
No admittedly I might be off give or take some but you get the drift. CTOL cheap, VTOL, not.
Now a new Harrier with AESA radar might be nice but since the production line is closed, the unit cost would increase to where it might cost as much as a Super-hornet....but then again, even at super-hornet cost, still cheaper than 100 mil each. And don't anyone talk about the projected price---we are BUYING THEM at $142 for the initial batch and are projected at 108 for the next...my 100 million price is CHEAPER than what we are paying for the F35B. And nobody is talking about attrition: training accidents, mid-air collisions, weather related, maintenance, etc. We lose planes all the time without seeing a day of combat. A difference of $30-50 million more each lost plane adds up to be a lot over the same time we will supposedly be seeing the unit price drop on the -35.
This stripped tactical fighter idea wouldn't be worth it. You are saying that it would ruffly cost 80 million well by the time you could actually get that design into production that would be about what the cost of the F-35 which is predicted to have a flay away cost of 85 million by 2018
DeleteSource: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-deal-targets-unit-cost-below-100-million
DeleteBriefly, it's STOVL, not VSTOL. VTO is for air shows, weight discipline in the design and for the extremely rare case where you'd need an emergency deck launch for a point defense intercept (it cancarry AIM-120s as well as AIM-9s, you know).
DeleteWhat STOVL gets you is basing flexibility, far more rapid response time, more time on station (because you don't have to fly from a distant base), much less reliance on not always available tankers and the ability to operate in weather and surface conditions, such as icing, that prevent the use of other assets.
This has been proven time and again in the Falklands (ashore and afloat) with Sea Harrier FRS.1 and RAF GR.3, Belize with GR.1s, Gulf War I with AV-8Bs and Night Attack AV-8Bs, Gulf War II and Afghanistan with AV-8Bs (Night Attack and AV-8B+s) plus GR.7s and .9s, and Libya
it HAS NOT been proven with a stealth airplane that carries more internal fuel than a Harrier weighs empty. it hasn't been proved with having to maintain stealth coatings in an expeditionary environment. that's the rub. the concept has merit. the plane that is to carry that banner into the future does not.
DeleteIf you're responding to me, I'm simply talking about the benefits of STOVL, and THAT has been proven time and again. For evaluating that aspect, stealth is irrelevant. A stealth aircraft coming from multi-hundreds of miles away is not as responsive as an aircraft coming from 25-50 miles away. A stealthy CTOL will still have more problems with icy runways (assuming you have such runway available) and crosswinds than a STOVL aircraft.
DeleteRegarding stealth in an expeditionary environment, your point is well taken. There is starting to be talk that the coatings on the F-35 may be subject to degradation by ultraviolet rays. Much was made of the fact that if the F-35Bs had actually been able to appear in the UK as scheduled, there was no need for Lockheed to have to send over special hangars for them. That was true, because the plan was to keep them in the special hangars we had over there f r B-2s (which can't sit out in the sun for too long).
Then again, the job of Marine Air is to support troops on the ground. Given the amount of ordnance they normally plan to carry under the wings when doing the Marine mission, stealth may not be that important to them. One might opine that had the Marines not been directed to join the JSF program, the aircraft they would have come up with may not have been so stealthy.
That said, with its need for specially prepared mats and surfaces for landing, The F-35B may not have as much basing flexibility as the Harrier does. This is not a problem with STOVL, but with this particular implementation of it.
And if you weren't responding to my post, ...never mind!
I very much want you to be right about the likely cancellation of the F35, but sadly I think its far beyond the point of no return.
ReplyDeleteThe embarrassment to my government ( Dutch) would also make buying an American replacement very hard opening the door for the aircraft they should have chosen with the limited ambitions our nation has: Saab Grippen. On the other hand it would almost certainly make several Dutch companies like Fokker Aerospace go belly up since our government is known for not taking its responsibilities towards messes they co-created.
As far as the Brit carriers are concerned, I do not trust the numbers provided by BAE for installing a catapult or two.. they have much to big a horse in the F35 race.
The marines should do an other extensive overhaul on the Harriers enhancing capabilities and extending the life. Has been done, can be done again I am sure.
Advanced superhornets and catapult carriers would be fine for the UK.
ReplyDeleteIts the likes of Italy and Spain and Japan and Australia who don't have the catapult option that will be really stuffed.
Not insurmountable problems, buy you can bet France will be there to highlight every case where the US has screwed over a customer.
Brits could convert their ships to STOBAR rather than CATOBAR.
ReplyDeleteThey could get Rafales ( I remember they proposed rafale STOBAR when brits looked on F35 alternatives), or modified F18 ( lightened )
Just read that :
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/great-britain-almost-got-to-keep-its-harriers-99d9261c2092
Who knows the future ??
Sorry for big space...
DeleteAnd I don't know why it is unthinkable to build new vastly upgraded AV8B... it's not like they lost the shemes..
If I remember correctly there was a new build proposal for Harriers that was similar to the hornet to super hornet leap. Same basic aircraft just upsized some. It was killed off when the JSF program came in promising the moon to everyone though. If they had taken that path and made a super harrier, maybe we would be looking at an advanced super harrier waiting in the wings as a back up like the advanced super hornet is now. An upgrade of the harrier, even if you have to restart production, still makes sense, even if it doubles the price tag from the last ones produced, your still under $100mil, still smaller and still lighter. If the f-35 finally falls, new builds of proven systems is the only way to go until gen 6 comes on board, and that will take at least a couple decades given our track record.
DeleteThe War is boring post seems to overlook a few things:
Delete1. When it became apparent that the SDSR was going to kill an aircraft program or two, it was in RAF's interest for harrier to go instead of Tornado, even though Harrier had just gone though billions of $ of upgrades/updates, had been cleared for new weapons/sensors and had funding established for maintenance for years to come. Harriers only carried one crew member and half of them were RN. Tornado had two and both were RAF. More pilot slots retained with Tornado.
W/O Harrier, RN totally dependent on RAF for cover and fixed wing support for years to come. And if the F-35B should founder...
IMHO it's wishful thinking that RAF would support return of Harrier at expense of Tornado
As I said long time ago in the ELP blog, the Brits can operate Super Hornets and Growlers in the Queen Elizabeth, as it is now, they don't need catapult, just cable arrestors. Boeing alredy did the smilated test for the Indian carriers and they realized they can teke off from the Ski Jump with a lot of ordinance, imagine if they were using the EPE engines. I even made a graphic.
ReplyDeletehttp://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1141/1050/original.jpg?w=600&h
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2Cl3TnRyM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-_OWMDN64M
The Marines could use "Super Harriers" combined with long endurance drones launched from USNavy carriers or allied bases.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.usni.org/2014/12/09/navy-test-aerial-refueling-x-47b-2015#more-10301
USAF: F-16XL type would have been ideal stopgap design - bridging to around 2030 - if it had been aggressively developed starting around 2009 (when it should have been realized that the F-35 Program was simply unsustainable, fundamentally flawed as a business model from inception and flat out not prudent nor strategic in the austere budget environs ahead).
ReplyDeleteMore realistic if initiating an accelerated Plan B stopgap strategy starting in FY15? Consider a "High-Low" mix of F-15SA+, plus Gripen E. USAF F-15SA+ could include enhanced GE-132 power w/TVC nozzle, reduced to 29k lbf for added durability and lowered operational/maintenance costs. Also included: APG-82, MAWS, sleek CFT mod and improved next-gen weapon systems seeing accelerated development to offset the loss of VLO from F-35. Tell Boeing if they are competitive enough with the weapon sys cost quote, they could get a license-production contract for some of the Gripen E as well.
USN: F-18 ASH + future ground-based UCAV as interim strat.
USMC: A-29(M) Super Tucano modified for amphib deck stobar ops + F-18E/F + ground-based next-gen armed-recon UCAV.
Seems like a joke
ReplyDeletehttp://cdn3.videos.bloomberg.com/m/NjIzOTU4Nw/uBqQQCGqmzKIIw52XksOYtrFDHLE.LjgFh66hF3Q8P0yYjcy/1f109c59-6e46-4527-8873-6ec0cbdbf5bb_240.mp4
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow are they going to use them in the next big campaing? Are they going to send a rapid engineering task force to build shelters before they deploy the USAF abroad?
Deletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Multiple_F-15E_parked_during_Operation_Desert_Shield.jpg
Surely it should be possible to build new F22's despite the production line being shut down with the following changes:
ReplyDeleteignore all stealth coatings as the shaping alone should bring significant reductions in rcs compared to an F15.
Take the most advanced version of avionics straight out of the latest F15 or F18 to minimize and development costs.
Use this as a stop gap to recapitalize the fleet before taking an evolutionary upgrade path a la SU-27.
That would cost as much as putting regular F-22s in production and much, much more in development costs. You can't just drop new avionics in the F-22 the way you could with previous aircraft. Look at all the trouble they've been having trying to find a way for Raptors to get two way communications with anything except other Raptorss except via nonsecure voice. The coatings are part of the structure of the a/c itself so there's redesign work there. Frankly it would take as long to field this as it would to just go 6th gen.
Delete