Budget Cuts : Raptor Or Jsf

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Ken, I am in total agreement. The F/A-22A is the end of the line.

[pluto77189]

Ken, I am in total agreement. The F/A-22A is the end of the line.

131639[/snapback]

 

 

This is how I see it: The F-22 is better than the F-35. The F-22 can do things that nothing else will be able to do for the next 15-20 years. We will probably have UCAVs in the next 15-20 years that can do the majority of the work that we "need" the F-35 for.

 

If we're going to spend BILLIONS on one last mean a$$ed manned fighter, we should be damned sure we spend it on the most capable one, not the most affordable one.

[Juan Sosa]

Indeed Ken, the F/A-22 should be the last of the manned fighters. The X-45 is already doing live drops of SBDs after a fully autonomous flight, and it is only the first generation of true UCAVs. The F-35 is going to be redundant as a bumbtruck soon after it enters service, and it's AtA capabilities leave much to be desired when compared to the F/A-22A.

 

The only reason I see for going on with the F-35 is to give the USMC an AV-8B replacement and the Navy a decent complement to the Super Bug. The USAF should drop the JSF and use that money to buy more F/A-22s and fund UCAV development.

 

Regards,

Juan

[Burncycle360]

The F-35 is going to be redundant as a bumbtruck soon after it enters service, and it's AtA capabilities leave much to be desired when compared to the F/A-22A.

 

And I guess I missed something when an airplane the size of an F-16, with one engine and payload of TWO jdam is suddenly referred to as a bomb truck...

 

times, they are a changing...

 

Yes though, it looks like manned (combat) aircraft are going the way of the dodo.

[lastdingo]

I say give up the JSF. It'll become more complicated and expensive until it's ready for production.

Buy 200 F-22 and let all other combat aircraft have decent AtA capability (helmet display, AIM-9X, AIM-120, active-phased array radar antenna, up-to-date RWR & datalink) in the next two decades.

 

The navy has recently developed the Super Hornet which should in 90% of all scenario be enough despite its limited air combat performance. In most scenarios, it would be supported by Raptors (like Korea, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, Mediterranean) and lots of other air superiority fighters.

 

 

The amphibious carriers are better used for heavy and medium helicopters than for gold-plated STOVL combat aircraft. They do very seldom operate without a CVBG in the vicinity anyway.

 

 

The British would adapt Typhoon or Rafale for their CVBG and the U.S. aviation industry could develop a non-gold-plated light multi-role combat aircraft free of USAF/RN/USN/USMC interference for the export market if that market is really so great. If it's not, then the export argument wouldn't be that big either.

 

And develop mission-specialized external pods that turn a good aircraft into a very good specialised aircraft. Something like AtG sensor pods with MTI/imaging radar and IIR identifier sensors or a Wild Weasel pod. Modern cockpits should be adaptable enough with their programmable computers and multi-purpose HDDs.

 

 

The primary reasons why I would give up the JSF are;

- development costs for Raptor already sunk

- Raptor's available sooner

- JSF will get more expensive than told to us today

- I don't rate stealth that highly for AtoG work. Warload is more important. Therefore, no need for the JSF concept.

 

And if you buy 200 F-22, do it within five years. Don't stretch it over decades.

[swerve]

Imagine its 2010 and Iran is a confirmed nuclear power, with a shiny new air force of Su-30s or Rafales or J-10s, and the United States decides to disarm Iran. Flying out of Diego Garcia, a few squadrons of F/A-22As could probably establish air supremacy over Iran so that the bombers can take out the targets.

 

Two points.

 

One, I think the agreement under which the base on Diego Garcia exists means you'd have to ask our permission, which wouldn't necessarily be granted.

 

Two, Diego Garcia is 4000 km from the nearest part of Iran, & 5500 km from the furthest reaches of the country. I think that's too far away. How many tankers does the USAF have? How many planes can simultaneously operate out of Diego Garcia? And wouldn't some of those tankers actually end up having to overfly the SE corner of Iran to enable F-22s to cover the main population centres?

[Guest Lurch]

Flying out of Diego Garcia, a few squadrons of F/A-22As could probably establish air supremacy over Iran so that the bombers can take out the targets.

131626[/snapback]

 

Leaving trivial sovereignty and range issues aside , if the USAF and USN hadn't taken out all the places the enemy fighters could come from (and a good few of them on the ground) with the first salvo of Tomahawks, JASSM and CALCM, something would have gone terribly wrong. Still, everyone knows the B-2 is completely invisible to all enemy sensors - so what's the problem?

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...an/airfield.htm

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Of course, approval for use of Diego Garcia has to be granted by the UK government. That is not unique to the F/A-22A.

 

The F/A-22A will certainly need extensive tanker support to fly the mission that I suggested. It probably has longer range than an F/A-35A so that would be an advantage.

[thomas.tmcc]

hi lastdingo would the usa want to refund the money us brits put into the jsf program for us to modify a navalised typhoon or even rafale ?? .

 

 

 

I say give up the JSF. It'll become more complicated and expensive until it's ready for production.

Buy 200 F-22 and let all other combat aircraft have decent AtA capability (helmet display, AIM-9X, AIM-120, active-phased array radar antenna, up-to-date RWR & datalink) in the next two decades.

 

The navy has recently developed the Super Hornet which should in 90% of all scenario be enough despite its limited air combat performance. In most scenarios, it would be supported by Raptors (like Korea, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, Mediterranean) and lots of other air superiority fighters.

The amphibious carriers are better used for heavy and medium helicopters than for gold-plated STOVL combat aircraft. They do very seldom operate without a CVBG in the vicinity anyway.

The British would adapt Typhoon or Rafale for their CVBG and the U.S. aviation industry could develop a non-gold-plated light multi-role combat aircraft free of USAF/RN/USN/USMC interference for the export market if that market is really so great. If it's not, then the export argument wouldn't be that big either.

 

And develop mission-specialized external pods that turn a good aircraft into a very good specialised aircraft. Something like AtG sensor pods with MTI/imaging radar and IIR identifier sensors or a Wild Weasel pod. Modern cockpits should be adaptable enough with their programmable computers and multi-purpose HDDs.

The primary reasons why I would give up the JSF are;

- development costs for Raptor already sunk

- Raptor's available sooner

- JSF will get more expensive than told to us today

- I don't rate stealth that highly for AtoG work. Warload is more important. Therefore, no need for the JSF concept.

 

And if you buy 200 F-22, do it within five years. Don't stretch it over decades.

131715[/snapback]

[lastdingo]

I strongly doubt that the savings from cancelling a 250,000,000,000 USD program (plus expectable cost increases) are too small to make a compensation agreement a too expensive affair.

Basically, they could give you Brits two new CVNs with full aviation complement as compensation and it would still be dirt cheap in comparison to the savings.

 

@Lurch; there's only one nation in the world that considers "sovereignity issues" as "trivial". And that nation does not have this opinion with its own "sovereignity issues" or what it believes to be such.

So no, there's nothing trivial in that.

[Sparviero]

How long are we talking about having the pilot stuffed in the cockpit and what sort of optempo are these guys expected to keep up for how long?

 

Anyways I do not see the US doing anything to Iran unless it knows the location of every possible nuclear war head and can neutralize them many times over. Along with securing the nuclear power plants before the Iranians did anything rash. Best to lay bets on support of moderates and give them time.

[thomas.tmcc]

@ lastdingo why would the royal navy even want two nuclear powered aircraft carriers is the USA going to give them two of your latest CVNs or two of the old rust buckets that are in storage awaiting sellers like the brazil who already knocked them back in favour of the french ?,the royal navy dont nuclear powered aircraft carriers the carriers they are planning are convential fuel ,anyway how much does it cost to run a CVN ? also most of the equipment that is included with a CVN is not compatable with british equipment ,for instance remeber the ex-usn F-4J`S the RAF got in the 1980`s the RAF had to totally buy us equipment for those aircraft ,what about all those taxpayers in each country other than the USA & UK who have paid for development of the JSF if the USA cancelled the program i would want that money back as the DOD say it will go ahead .

 

 

I strongly doubt that the savings from cancelling a 250,000,000,000 USD program (plus expectable cost increases) are too small to make a compensation agreement a too expensive affair.

Basically, they could give you Brits two new CVNs with full aviation complement as compensation and it would still be dirt cheap in comparison to the savings.

 

@Lurch; there's only one nation in the world that considers "sovereignity issues" as "trivial". And that nation does not have this opinion with its own "sovereignity issues" or what it believes to be such.

So no, there's nothing trivial in that.

131880[/snapback]

[lastdingo]

My point was the relation in size between the US and the British share of JSF, not what exactly the US could offer the UK as compensation for the end of the program.

[EchoFiveMike]

The only reason I see for going on with the F-35 is to give the USMC an AV-8B replacement and the Navy a decent complement to the Super Bug. The USAF should drop the JSF and use that money to buy more F/A-22s and fund UCAV development

 

But UCAV's are the way of the future, so WTF does the USMC need an AV-8 replacement for? The only folks fighting the UAV's are the pilots, who see their(expensive playboy lifestyle) jobs being condemned to irrelevance. UAV's can and should be flown by technician enlisted guys, overseen by an officer who is actually filling a leadership role. Consider the massive ongoing cost savings when you downsize several thousand pilot slots. S/F...Ken M

[seahawk]

Indeed Ken, the F/A-22 should be the last of the manned fighters. The X-45 is already doing live drops of SBDs after a fully autonomous flight, and it is only the first generation of true UCAVs.  The F-35 is going to be redundant as a bumbtruck soon after it enters service, and it's AtA capabilities leave much to be desired when compared to the F/A-22A.

 

Regards,

Juan

131712[/snapback]

 

That is so true. Looking at the UACVs one most noticce that there is one thing they can do well even today. And that is hitting fixed targets with bombs. And that is what the F-35s main role would be.

They however can not and are still far from acheiving this, compete with a manned fighter in air to air combat. So even if you would have a alrge strike force of stealthy UACVs, you would still need an equally stealthy fighter to protect your UACVs from enemy fighters. Especially as the first generation of UACVs will be sitting ducks, once detected. F-35 won´t cut it in that role.

 

Other roles of the F-35 can be taken over by new eapons fired from conventional plattforms. Extended range JSOWs, cruise missiles, modern ARMs will be good enough to handle most air defenses, especially if cruise missiles and the F-22 have softened up the defenses. The Navy could do ok with a pure F-18 E/F fleet with much modernised weapons. The need of the VTOL variant for the Marines are is senseless anyway. The Navy could add a UACV for stealth deep penetration attacks.

 

So a future US air fleet could be :

 

- 270-360 F-22A

- 400-500 UACVs

- 600-800 F-16s

- 800 F-18s + 300 Marines

- 250 Naval UACVs

[InfantryGrunt]

Two points.

 

One, I think the agreement under which the base on Diego Garcia exists means you'd have to ask our permission, which wouldn't necessarily be granted.

 

Two, Diego Garcia is 4000 km from the nearest part of Iran, & 5500 km from the furthest reaches of the country. I think that's too far away. How many tankers does the USAF have? How many planes can simultaneously operate out of Diego Garcia? And wouldn't some of those tankers actually end up having to overfly the SE corner of Iran to enable F-22s to cover the main population centres?

131800[/snapback]

 

Just one point, why wouldn't you fly out of Iraq? I honestly cant see there not being any US presence there in that kind of time frame

[thomas.tmcc]

Hi yeah fair enough ,but saying that how much wealth does the USA and the UK have ,Then compare how much does the UK spend on defence about £25 billion and the USA ? about four times that ! for a country the size of the UK we are a small country and of the USA which accumulates about a quarter of the worlds wealth ,you can`t really compare the two point taken mate ?,also for the UK to navalise the typhoon the wing would need to be redesigned due to the composites in it ,same for the F-22 .

 

 

 

 

 

My point was the relation in size between the US and the British share of JSF, not what exactly the US could offer the UK as compensation for the end of the program.

132047[/snapback]

[Juan Sosa]

But UCAV's are the way of the future, so WTF does the USMC need an AV-8 replacement for?  The only folks fighting the UAV's are the pilots, who see their(expensive playboy lifestyle) jobs being condemned to irrelevance.  UAV's can and should be flown by technician enlisted guys, overseen by an officer who is actually filling a leadership role.  Consider the massive ongoing cost savings when you downsize several thousand pilot slots.  S/F...Ken M

132049[/snapback]

 

Ken, IMO in the short term (10-15 years) UCAVs will be able to replace manned fighters in strikes against fixed targets. It will probably be quite a while before we see then doing anything like CAS. Since the USMC likes to talk about how great their aviators are at CAS, and how that mission is essentially their only reason to exist, then a manned replacement for the Harrier/F/A-18A fleets would be in order. If you beleive CAS is a waste of time, then that is another matter entirely.

 

I completely agree about UAVs being operated by enlisted men. However, unlike the Predator you won't be seeing UCAV's being flown much with a joystick.

 

Regards,

Juan

[Miner]

An aviation group I am a member of had a talk/display of a model plane ( or whatever) which crossed the Atlantic. Developed for the Oz met for more weather detail, basically expendible especially when you think of the cost of sending a P3 SW of Perth.

 

Look at 2010

 

Think of a bigger one, not with a rotax which cost money but something like the Suziki engines you see on the aviation groups

 

Now think of Sidewinder (development cost paid for) or JDAM (development cost paid for) it can carry

 

Now think of a 1944 V1 cost of GBP100 in 1944 (USD500?)

 

Now think of what something costs in WalMart and remember that is probably factoryX20

 

So how many can you get for one F22/F35/Eurofighter/Gripen/Rafale/Su3x, Production cost only

 

Who will go that way?

[swerve]

How long are we talking about having the pilot stuffed in the cockpit and what sort of optempo are these guys expected to keep up for how long?

 

Oh, about 12 hours minimum. In a single-seat fighter. For each hour 1 F-22 could spend over Iran, I think there'd be a minimum 20 hours on the ground or in transit. And because of the fleet of tankers in the air, the Iranians would know exactly when each wave was coming.

[Jeff]

is the USA going to give them two of your latest CVNs or two of the old rust buckets that are in storage awaiting sellers like the brazil who already knocked them back in favour of the french ?,

132040[/snapback]

 

Were they knocked back because of condition or because they are so big they recquire 5,000 sailors to run? I can't figure a retired French CV being in any better shape than a retired US CV and most nations don't recquire a supercarrier nor can they put that many sailors on one platform very easily. My guess is even a Forrestal would be way too much for most nations' needs.

[thomas.tmcc]

Hi it was a bit of both from what i can remember .

 

 

Were they knocked back because of condition or because they are so big they recquire 5,000 sailors to run? I can't figure a retired French CV being in any better shape than a retired US CV and most nations don't recquire a supercarrier nor can they put that many sailors on one platform very easily. My guess is even a Forrestal would be way too much for most nations' needs.

132184[/snapback]

[pluto77189]

And I guess I missed something when an airplane the size of an F-16, with one engine and payload of TWO jdam is suddenly referred to as a bomb truck...

 

times, they are a changing...

 

Yes though, it looks like manned (combat) aircraft are going the way of the dodo.

131714[/snapback]

 

 

Well, that's th epoint. It will be used as a bomb truck. External stores will be used, bringing the payload up to at least that of an F-16, while removing all the expensive and complicated stealth features that were put into it.

[Burncycle360]

Well, that's th epoint. It will be used as a bomb truck. External stores will be used, bringing the payload up to at least that of an F-16, while removing all the expensive and complicated stealth features that were put into it.

 

Well, I don't consider an F-16 a bomb truck either, but that doesn't really matter

Edited January 10, 2005 by Burncycle360

[Jeff]

Hi it was a bit of both from what i can remember .

132184[/snapback]

 

Thanks, I'm sure they had more than a few miles on them as well.