The Republican President candidate Mitt Romney is quoted on an AviationWeek blog that he will restart the Raptor production if he is elected president of the United States of America.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...bbb840-e3ce-4c81-95e3-fe8e9720178a

It comes at a tremendous cost to restart the F-22 line. It will cost 900 million USD. Now how many is he likely to buy?

According to the DewLine blog it was believed 15 years ago that they would buy 339 jets when the Raptor flew for the first time. According to the same article it was originally envisioned 750 F-22 raptors.

As an aviation geek, I would love for a restart of the mighty F-22. If it is the best for the world economy and the U.S economy I do not actually know 

A totally bonkers idea. The F-22 is a great airplane but you will get a good portion of its performance out of the F-35 (particularly once it can carry 6 internal AMRAAM's) and it will have far fewer of the problems the F-22 had. To justify bringing the F-22 back you would need to remake it to have more in common with the F-35 I think so your maint. cost and time are not so high.

If the US decides to spend a lot of money on a new fighter I think you will see something of a cross between the F-35 and F-22 and it has to be good for the Navy and Air Force. You are not going to spend that kind of scratch to build another hundred or so F-22A's.

Nothing more than election talk.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 2): Nothing more than election talk.

Agreed. And no way he could get the support for this even if he tried after all the groundings/problems the F-22 has had in the last few years. I'm a huge fan of the F-22 and would love to see more of them, but that was just election talk, nothing more.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1): The F-22 is a great airplane but you will get a good portion of its performance out of the F-35 (particularly once it can carry 6 internal AMRAAM's)

The plan is eventually to carry 4 internal AIM-120's...that's it. There is not sufficient space to carry 6.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 4): The plan is eventually to carry 4 internal AIM-120's...that's it. There is not sufficient space to carry 6.

Wrong, F-35 has the internal space to carry 6. The Block 5 upgrade of the F-35 will include new rails to convert the 2 internal bomb pylons into twin launchers for AIM-120.

The reality of the F-22's production was that the USAF could not produce more using the current configuration. Basically the Raptors utilize an avionics architecture based on the i960MX processor that was never upgraded in the expectation that they would be replaced after 2010. So in 2003 they bought up all the remaining MX chips from Intel (before they closed their line) and used that stock to complete the current production flight of aircraft. The new avionics suite was to be based on the F-35's architecture, but that too was cut somewhere between 2004 and 2006. So in order to produce more F-22s the USAF would be on the hook to pay for a major avionics upgrade program. To get from increment 3.1 to 3.2 (which is just updating the current architecture) the USAF is looking at $8 billion dollars in development. Introducing a full fledged new avionics suite would be far more than that.

Finally I get the sense that the USAF brass would rather go with F-35s than F-22s. Raptors are horrendously expensive to operate and maintain. Starting up the production line would be extremely expensive as well; you could be looking at costs where you could buy 2.5 to 3 F-35s for each F-22.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5): Wrong, F-35 has the internal space to carry 6. The Block 5 upgrade of the F-35 will include new rails to convert the 2 internal bomb pylons into twin launchers for AIM-120.

First, there is NOTHING funded to get 6 AIM-120's inside the F-35.

Second, I can see where you're confused. There is technically space to do that and have six missiles internal. There is not sufficient clearance to actually fire them without hitting others on the way out. Just have a look at what I mean...

IF they offered the F-22 for export to allies... might make it worth it, but really, once the F-35 is in service in numbers, the hi-lo mix of F-22 to F-35 will be sufficient imo.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 2): Nothing more than election talk.

Who knows? IIRC Reagan campaigned on putting the B1 bomber into production after Carter had cancelled it, and that's what happened.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5): To get from increment 3.1 to 3.2 (which is just updating the current architecture) the USAF is looking at $8 billion dollars in development.

It'd be easier to just build a new chip foundry. Fabs of that generation cost $1B - $2B max and chances are good that the equipment is available used cheap, because there ain't much to do with obsolete chip making gear.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1): The F-22 is a great airplane but you will get a good portion of its performance out of the F-35 (particularly once it can carry 6 internal AMRAAM's) and it will have far fewer of the problems the F-22 had. To justify bringing the F-22 back you would need to remake it to have more in common with the F-35 I think so your maint. cost and time are not so high.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 4): The plan is eventually to carry 4 internal AIM-120's...that's it. There is not sufficient space to carry 6.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5): Wrong, F-35 has the internal space to carry 6. The Block 5 upgrade of the F-35 will include new rails to convert the 2 internal bomb pylons into twin launchers for AIM-120.

Correct, the F-35 is not funded to carry 6 AMRAAMs. If it did, it could not perform the attack mission it is designed to do, as there would be no space left for advanced bombs.

I still think the F-35 is a dog we should not buy. Replacing its mission can be done by the current F/A-18E/F, F-16E/F, or the proposed F-15SE (which can have frontal stealth capabilities).

The F-35 is rapidly approaching the costs of the F-22A. An improved F-22B/C/D would be a good buy, and some models should be two seaters for training and/or a WSO. The F-22 should also be exported to our friends in Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, and the UK. The F-22s problems are known and will eventually be fixed, while not all of the F-35s problems are known yet. They won't so up until the F-35 gets to operational squadrons.

The F-35B/C mission can be replaced by Rafales and F/A-18E/Fs.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9): The F-22 should also be exported to our friends in Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, and the UK

After Israel tried to sell the Chinese AWACs aircraft with technology we shared with them ? They had to cancel that sale after pressure from the Clinton administration. Can they be trusted as much as say Britain or Australia? Also why does Israel need such technology when they already have a clear advantage militarily over everyone else. The next closest militarily to Israel in the Middle East are US allies (Saudi Arabia). There's no need for Israel to have the F-22.

Now Japan and Australia have a need for an aircraft like the F-22, they are at a huge numerical disadvantage to China. Exporting F-22s to Japan and Australia can be justified as a way to help buffer China's huge military expansion.

As for restarting the F-22 production, while I think it's a great idea, I also think the funds might be better spent in other areas such as increasing production of Virginia Class attack submarines, increasing F-35 production for the Air Force, Navy and Marines , an Ohio class SSBN/SSGN replacement, additional Zumwalt (DDG-1000) Destroyers, maintaining a fleet of 11 Carriers by increasing Ford Class production, America class amphibious assault ships, and restarting the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle production.

Also maintaining US combat forces levels in the Army and Marine Corps, especially by relocating more forces to the Pacific (particularly Western Australia and Hawaii).

[Edited 2012-09-12 08:54:20]

Quoting checksixx (Reply 6): First, there is NOTHING funded to get 6 AIM-120's inside the F-35. Second, I can see where you're confused. There is technically space to do that and have six missiles internal. There is not sufficient clearance to actually fire them without hitting others on the way out. Just have a look at what I mean...

Block 5 upgrade is funded and is part of the upgrade spiral for F-35. Block 5 includes new maritime radar modes (ISAR, Infrared Search and Track, EW upgrades and integration of six AIM-120D AMRAAM missiles. Not to mention that Block 5 is a critical upgrade for a number of foreign customers, such as Norway.

F-35's weapons bay volume is far larger than that of the F-22, which carries 6 internal AAMs. The main weapon station wide enough to hold two staggered AIM-120s. It is also more than long enough -- the AIM-120 is 3.66 m long, the F-35 bay is 4.2 m long.

Clearance is not a big issue. With pneumatic ejectors the missile will be released at the end of the stroke and by that time they will be past or very nearly past the level of the door mounted missile. The F-22's LAU-142 for example has a stroke of 9 inches and the missiles will have a vertical velocity of 27 fps by the time they are freed. The chances of them colliding with the rail missile is essentially zero even under extreme maneuvering.

However, fitting more AAMs in the F-35 will require a new ejector to be developed. There are currently two -- the LAU-120 for single stores up to 2500 lbs and the BRU-61 for 4 x SDBs -- and neither will accomodate an AMRAAM much less two.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8): It'd be easier to just build a new chip foundry. Fabs of that generation cost $1B - $2B max and chances are good that the equipment is available used cheap, because there ain't much to do with obsolete chip making gear.

However, the avionics will still be out of date, and integrating any new capabilities would be a total nightmare. Remember, there was talk of actually replacing F-22's avionics with systems developed from F-35 because F-35's avionics systems are inherently easily upgradable.

Basically to restart the aircraft it would cost $70 million per aircraft on top of $137 million that they already cost. That's when they have all the toolings and manufacturing knowledge preserved and ready to go. So you have a production run of $207 million dollar Raptor's; I would probably argue and many in the USAF and the Pentagon would agree that it would make more sense to buy more F-35's and fund various upgrades of that verses restarting F-22 production.

The F-22 is basically a millstone around the USAF's neck, one we should count our graces that we in Canada avoided. Even comparatively minor upgrades to the avionics (like integrating the AIM-9X or JHMC) are costing billions. Its experiencing serious corrosion problems, its skin easily delaminates, and that doesn't even go into the whole oxygen problem. Flyaway cost through FMS for a final production F-22 would have been around $157.7 million (137.7 million +15% fms.) That's basically two F-35s for one F-22.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9): The F-22 should also be exported to our friends in Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, and the UK.

Fat chance. First off there is the legal challenge of overturning the Obey amendment. There is a lot of opposition against this, especially given the current austerity budgets. And yes, countries have tried. The Japanese basically tried every single lever they could pull, in Congress, through the Bush and Obama Administration(s) and the US Military's FMS program: it was an emphatic no from everyone. I'm sure the Israelis were just as active and they got nowhere, despite the large Israeli lobby.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11): F-35's weapons bay volume is far larger than that of the F-22, which carries 6 internal AAMs.

If you think that, then there is no point in continuing my postings. Its flat out wrong. But don't take it from me, I just worked with Raptor's in the Air Force. Take it from what you think you know from what you've read.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 12): If you think that, then there is no point in continuing my postings. Its flat out wrong. But don't take it from me, I just worked with Raptor's in the Air Force. Take it from what you think you know from what you've read.

F-35 in the A and C model have bays that are sized to hold a 2,000lb class weapon. I can concede that the F-35B probably won't get 6 internal AIM-120's, as the F-35B's bays are smaller in size. F-22 at best holds 2 1,000lbs JDAM's, and was designed around the AIM-120's size. As such, it is not a deep nor as long as F-35, while F-35's bays, while not as wide, are deeper and longer.

It wasn't so long ago that the F-22 was designed to fit only 4 AIM-120B's only. It was only until late in the development phase that they got 6 AIM-120's in F-22 and modified F-22 to carry bombs, but that was after the fact. They got 6 AIM-120's into F-22 through using the AIM-120C, which was smaller by virtue of its clipped fins, and through staggering the missiles.

A new launcher will be required for F-35 to carry 6 AIM-120's. But that's down the road.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8): IIRC Reagan campaigned on putting the B1 bomber into production after Carter had cancelled it, and that's what happened.

That was my thinking as well. The Air Force says they needed 350 or so to efficiently stop China.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9): An improved F-22B/C/D would be a good buy, and some models should be two seaters for training and/or a WSO.

This was my thinking as well. In 1993 they talked about replacing the F-14 tomcat with a carrier version of the F-22    I am sure that an improved F-22B/C could reduce some of the production costs and operating cost associated with the current F-22

If they roll a FB-22 into this reactivation, it would help cover the costs of a 2 seat F-22 and reactivating the line.


I think they need a F-22 lite. Same air frame, no stealth coating, cheaper guts, no thrust vectoring. Bring the price way down on par with 4+ gen fighters, but keep it capable of being upgraded to the full F-22A standard.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 12): If you think that, then there is no point in continuing my postings. Its flat out wrong. But don't take it from me, I just worked with Raptor's in the Air Force. Take it from what you think you know from what you've read.

Bill Sweetman hates the F-35 but put this up several years ago.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...04259d-8fca-4e42-8e17-44f5dca7edf4

I don't have inside program knowledge but it sure seems like the weapons should fit in the space depending on how you play with the space. Even if you can't it is not that big of a deal either way as it relates to the original question. An F-35 with 4 AMRAAM's is still potent enough to make restarting F-22 production a waste of money right now.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15): I think they need a F-22 lite. Same air frame, no stealth coating, cheaper guts, no thrust vectoring. Bring the price way down on par with 4+ gen fighters, but keep it capable of being upgraded to the full F-22A standard.

I am fairly sure this would be impractical and pointless. I am not sure how you make the guts cheaper. No thrust vectoring just means you have to rewrite the control laws for the avionics most likely which would cost you more than it would save. The coatings are really not the expensive part of the plane to begin with, they are just a pain in the ass to maintain.

If you were going to do anything with the F-22 what you do is re-skin it with the stuff they are using on the F-35 to save maint. cost.

So what else could they do with a F22B? Will F135 Engines fit? It seems like they have 20% more thrust - are they better on fuel?

Adapt F35 avionics?

In several articles it talks about how the last F22 off the line were much better built than the first with stealth coatings that much more durable as well.

Build another 200 for the Airforce - scrap the F35 and build another 1,000 or so F16's and restart A10 production while your at it for the Marines to replace the F-35B.

Then build 200 F22 for the Navy for Air Dominance (11 Carriers x12 = 132 plus 68 for training/deep maintenance) and keep the the Super Hornet line going with the AESA Radar new Cockpit and 20% more thrust, as a flying bomb truck with the way paved by the the F22C

The Navy doesn't need a single engine warplane.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18): Then build 200 F22 for the Navy for Air Dominance

Not that easy! It would essentially end up being a different jet once navalized for carrier operations.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 17): I am fairly sure this would be impractical and pointless.

I doubt the airframe is what makes the F-22 expensive. The F-22 has a lot of bells and whistles it could do without if being used as a secondary fighter or bomb truck.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19): I doubt the airframe is what makes the F-22 expensive. The F-22 has a lot of bells and whistles it could do without if being used as a secondary fighter or bomb truck.

Why not just build the F-35 if you want a bomb truck since it was designed to carry bombs?

Doing all the change work on the F-22 would drive the price up, not down.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18): The Navy doesn't need a single engine warplane.

You speak for the Navy now?

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 20): Doing all the change work on the F-22 would drive the price up, not down.

People like the F-22 mostly due to fanboism. Never-mind facts.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 18): So what else could they do with a F22B?

Nobody is ever going to know now. The JSF was a generally poor idea which should have been known after the F-111, but we're too far down that road now to turn back. The industry should be commended for the F-35 not being worse off than it is.

Sure, the smarter thing ten or fifteen years ago would have been further development of the F-22 followed by the FB-22, but that's all water under the bridge now.

Well the idea of the UK having the F-22 is a non starter, way too expensive and even if they were given away the operating costs would be too onerous.
The future fast jet fleet is settled on two types, Typhoon and F-35.

It's also notable how weirdos like Romney and Ryan have this blind spot with Israel's less than stellar record with sensitive US military technology and China.
It could be said that previous episodes with this are in the past, however that's never stopped people like them citing other nations 'issues' with the US from further back in the past, real or imagined.
Israel did these things because they felt they had immunity from criticism, much less the prospect of any action, from the US body politic. Why else would they apparently risk their absolutely vital equipping and funding from the US?
So the real fault lies on Capitol Hill.

I agree this is all just electioneering, file alongside Gingrich's 'put a base on the Moon by 2020'.
Isn't it a bit odd also to on the one hand go on about the deficit but also say you want the already massive US defence expenditure increased even more?

There was an FB22 idea but it was cancelled. I fail to see how a F35 would have more capacity than the F22 to carry ordnance, I just cant get around the physical difference.

The F22 is dead and will stay that way, we have to live with the compromised F35 as a compromise in its 3 different roles. The F35 program actually has overtaken the F22 program in cost per unit now   Great!

The F35 is a bad replacement of the combined F16 and F15 roles against gen5 enemies. The few F22s will not do any difference IMO.

I am sorry all F35 lovers, I just don't see it being the answer to all questions and the solution to all problems. And it will too get cut in numbers, ending up way short to deter an enemy in the future.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19): Not that easy! It would essentially end up being a different jet once navalized for carrier operations.

Depends on how hard you try. After the YF-17 lost to the YF-16, the Navy told the designers they had to make the F-18 landing gear fit through the same aperture as the YF-17, and they did.

Quoting sweair (Reply 24): The F22 is dead and will stay that way

Yes, despite this pleasant chat, that is true.

Quoting sweair (Reply 24): The few F22s will not do any difference IMO.

Interesting. In anyone else's air force, 185 Gen5 A/C would be seen as making a difference, so why not the USAF?

Quoting sweair (Reply 24): The F35 program actually has overtaken the F22 program in cost per unit now

Good news for you: above we read that you need to add $70M to the cost of each F22 if we restart the line.

Too bad we didn't do a round of flying prototypes for the F35 so we'd be sure we knew how to build them and so their costs wouldn't go crazy. Oops - we did do that, and the costs still went crazy!

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19): Quoting morrisond (Reply 18):Then build 200 F22 for the Navy for Air Dominance Not that easy! It would essentially end up being a different jet once navalized for carrier operations.

I believe it's universally understood that you can modify a carrier airplane and make it a good ground based plane, but you have to design an airplane from the ground up to make it a good carrier based plane.

As I recall, General Dynamics in the early years offered a navalized F-16 and it turned out to be so heavy and underperforming the Navy rejected it. France produced a navalized version of the Jaguar but its development coincided with development of the ground based model and I suspect some of what was learned building the carrier based prototype was utilized in the ground based model as well.

Technology being what it is today, I may be wrong about having to design a carrier based airplane from the ground up, but given the demands on a carrier based attack plane versus those on a ground placed attack bird, I doubt it.

You could just buy the chinese knock-off of the thing.  



And help pay the debt, lol.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 27): You could just buy the chinese knock-off of the thing.

Is that the J-20 second prototype or another jet? it looks more like a F-35 than the J-20 did. The photos are low quality, but I dont see the canards either. This looks more like an air superiority fighter than the J-20. Different markings too.


::edit::

It is a new Chinese stealth fighter! OMG!

[Edited 2012-09-15 18:25:15]

Quoting Oroka (Reply 28): Quoting Acheron (Reply 27): You could just buy the chinese knock-off of the thing. Is that the J-20 second prototype or another jet? it looks more like a F-35 than the J-20 did. The photos are low quality, but I dont see the canards either. This looks more like an air superiority fighter than the J-20. Different markings too. ::edit:: It is a new Chinese stealth fighter! OMG!

It's the same A/C as seen in earlier photo's... Nothing new to see here, please move along.  

Quoting mffoda (Reply 29): It's the same A/C as seen in earlier photo's... Nothing new to see here, please move along.

No its not, it is a smaller jet, here is a pic that surfaced today. The J-20 does not have stabilator or rudders.

It would be great to see more Raptors built. We could finally replace the final 3 Eagle Squadrons on Active duty - Origionally there were 5 squadrons left and for budget reasons, they prematurely shut down the guys here at Langley (71FS) and at Mountain Home (390FS). I have read these forums for years and don't post, mainly becuase most military stuff is sensitive or classified. But I can tell you that anyone who is read-in on both the F-22 and F-35 would NEVER agree that the F-35 can do the F-22 mission. There are too many limitations to the F-35 in the Air Dominance mission. It is the same as saying the F-16 could equally perform the F-15 Air Superiority mission. The F-15 has guys targeted and sorted well before the F-16 gets solid contacts.

Not meant as a flame to anyone, but the F-35 is no F-22. Then again, the F-35 has some unique mission profiles not able to be performed by the F-22.

If the F-35 is going to carry external oridinace after the first few days of the war, then why not buy a mix of F-35s and Block 60 Vipers. The Block 60 is basically an F-35 in F-16 clothing and much cheaper. Once LO is not needed, and the F-35 is hauling ordinance externally, why not a Block 60?

Back to the subject, the price of the F-22 has gone down with every airplane produced, the last one we brought to Langley (194) had a bill of just over $100 million. While, at the same time the F-35 price tag is going through the roof. Since production was cut to such a silly number, we could really use more....

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 31): If the F-35 is going to carry external oridinace after the first few days of the war, then why not buy a mix of F-35s and Block 60 Vipers. The Block 60 is basically an F-35 in F-16 clothing and much cheaper. Once LO is not needed, and the F-35 is hauling ordinance externally, why not a Block 60?

The Block 60 Viper is extremely expensive; 87 million dollars per copy back in 1998. With inflation, that rises to well over $117 million dollars a copy.

In addition, F-35's internal weapons capability is equal to that of a F-16 loaded wall to wall. Once stealth is no longer a primary issue, a F-35 can carry about three times (18,000lbs) the stores load of that of an F-16.
http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/f-35-and-current-weapons

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 32): The Block 60 Viper is extremely expensive; 87 million dollars per copy back in 1998. With inflation, that rises to well over $117 million dollars a copy. In addition, F-35's internal weapons capability is equal to that of a F-16 loaded wall to wall. Once stealth is no longer a primary issue, a F-35 can carry about three times (18,000lbs) the stores load of that of an F-16. http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlair...apons

The Block 60 was expensive because less than 100 were produced. The more you buy, the cheaper they get. Every Raptor, every jet we picked up from the factory had a cheaper price tag. However, with the R&D out of the way, it would have been able to get into the fleet faster than the F-35. Also, training (pilot and maintainer) would have faster/cheaper. Basically anyone who can fly a Viper, can fly a Block 60. It's the employment that changes slightly. Basically a TX course instead of a B course for the pilot and an FTD course for the maintainers.

As for the load-out. The F-35A in an LO configuaration will be 2x2xGun (AIM-120, Bomb, 25MM), where the F-16 is 2x2x2xGun (AIM-120, AIM-9, Bomb, 20MM). The Viper has mission flexibility for mixed loads too, ie 2 GBU-38 and 2 GBU-12 and mixing the air to air load to either 4 of either or 3 of one and one of the other. Typical night emplyment would be 4 AMRAAMs or 3 AMRAAMs and one heater. Don't discount the extra two missiles. In a turning fight, having the heaters is huge!

Granted, the F-35 does carry more weapons with pylons on the jet than a Viper, but then the LO advantage is gone and why not employ a Mud Hen with it's crew of 2 and plethera of air to ground options?

The thing that is NOT discussed when the F-35 is brought up is it's employment capabilities because that is close-hold. However, as operators, we aren't too excited about it. It is not as maneuverable as current aircraft, is slow and doesn't have much of a high show. Also, while it does have a poop-ton of internal fuel, that giant 40K thrust engine eats it at a higher rate than you would think.

I am NOT saying the F-35 is a bad aircraft. It has some great capability, but it's not the end all - be all (no single jet is). I think a mix of new 4th and 5th Gen fighters would be best from a cost, training, risk and emplyment standpoint. I would love to see a CAF made up of more Raptors, Lightnings, Strike Eagles, Block 60 Vipers and of course, re-engined A-10s. That also protects the CAF incase of a major problem with one platform, ie, the Raptor stand-down for O2 problems.

[Edited 2012-09-26 07:32:07]

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33): However, with the R&D out of the way, it would have been able to get into the fleet faster than the F-35.

Assuming F-16 production can ramp up that fast... FYI, long term lead items need to be ordered now otherwise the line is going to be shuttered in 2 years.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33): As for the load-out. The F-35A in an LO configuaration will be 2x2xGun (AIM-120, Bomb, 25MM), where the F-16 is 2x2x2xGun (AIM-120, AIM-9, Bomb, 20MM).

F-16, even with the conformal fuel tank, will need external fuel tanks to achieve the maximum range. F-35 will achieve its maximum range on internal fuel alone, and for a slight range penalty, be loaded up with 18,000lb of nothing but weapons. With F-16, there is a trade off between range and fuel.
http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/f-35-and-current-weapons

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33): Granted, the F-35 does carry more weapons with pylons on the jet than a Viper, but then the LO advantage is gone and why not employ a Mud Hen with it's crew of 2 and plethera of air to ground options?

Because you will only need 1 platform to do the jobs two platforms used to do; F-35 can kick down the door when loaded for low observability, and when the airspace opens up and we have achieved air superiority over the opponent, we can have the same aircraft be loaded with external weapons.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 33): . It is not as maneuverable as current aircraft, is slow and doesn't have much of a high show.

The minimum KPP of the F-35 in terms of maneuverability is F-16-like, with the best case goal being F/A-18 like. They are more than achieving the best case goal of F/A-18-like maneuverability:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...-Revealing-F-A-18-Like-Performance

Quote: Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.

And it should be noted of the US fighters, the F/A-18 is the most maneuverable fighter in the US inventory.

F-35 also will out-accelerate any fighter in the US inventory, except for the F-22 and a clean F-16 Block 50. F-35 is designed for the transonic regime while practically every other fighter designed (except for F-22) is designed for operating at subsonic speeds. They only visit the supersonic performance range and only briefly.
http://www.livescience.com/3032-figh...et-controversial-future-fleet.html

Quote: In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

Quote: While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it's entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). "I don't see how that gets you an advantage" Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with existing designs. Comparisons to the F-22 Raptor are unfair as "supersonically, the Raptor is in a class by itself. It lives there," Beesley explained. "In many ways the Raptor is the first true supersonic fighter," Beesley added, referring to that aircrafts' much publicized and unique supersonic cruise capability.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):

Again, all the references you provided are open source. Real-world is a bit different. No one in the CAF is jumping for joy for the F-35, especially the Viper drivers. The hornet is definitely NOT the most maneuverable. The hornet has advantages at low altitude and in slower flight in that it can point it's nose with authority, but lacks power to regain airspeed once in the slow fight. The Super Hornet is similar. The all-out best BFM machine we have is either a big mouth Block 30 or a Block 50/52 Viper. The Raptor is right up there too, but we don't have the helmet or 9x which are BFM essential today.

As a 20 Air Force guy that is still serving, I base these comments on experience and discussions with bros who are in the other communities.

Again, the F-35 has a place, but is not the end-all, be-all. It is primarily a bomber and heaven forbid it has to perform a primary air to air role.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 35): Again, the F-35 has a place, but is not the end-all, be-all. It is primarily a bomber and heaven forbid it has to perform a primary air to air role.

This is based on your experience flying the F35? REAL F35 pilots say otherwise.....

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 36): REAL F35 pilots say otherwise.....

Would you expect them to say anything else? Do you honestly expect any F-35 pilot to say something negative about the plane? Think about the PR effects of such a statement. I don't think the pilots are lying or anything, but you must admit they are biased and will probably only talk about what is GREAT about the aircraft. Clearly, nobody has taken other high performance aircraft in mind such as EF2000, Rafale, Su-30 etc.. and rightfully so since these pilots haven't had the chance to fly those aircraft. It would be silly for them to say "F-35 is more maneuverable than Su-30" when they can't justify the argument with experience.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 37): Would you expect them to say anything else? Do you honestly expect any F-35 pilot to say something negative about the plane? Think about the PR effects of such a statement. I don't think the pilots are lying or anything, but you must admit they are biased and will probably only talk about what is GREAT about the aircraft. Clearly, nobody has taken other high performance aircraft in mind such as EF2000, Rafale, Su-30 etc.. and rightfully so since these pilots haven't had the chance to fly those aircraft. It would be silly for them to say "F-35 is more maneuverable than Su-30" when they can't justify the argument with experience.

I'd take the statement of a F-35 pilot 1000x over someone on the internet who thinks they know something, anything, about the program. Obviously pilots aren't going to publicly talk about the negatives of the aircraft for security reasons.

Quote: Think about the PR effects of such a statement. I don't think the pilots are lying or anything, but you must admit they are biased and will probably only talk about what is GREAT about the aircraft.

Ya, its their jobs. I'd like to know which a.neters are involved with the JSF program, let alone military aviation. Seems to be a lot of "experts" on the net giving their opinions based on nothing. Thankfully, they don't dictate military programs or purchases.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 35): Again, all the references you provided are open source. Real-world is a bit different. No one in the CAF is jumping for joy for the F-35, especially the Viper drivers. The hornet is definitely NOT the most maneuverable. The hornet has advantages at low altitude and in slower flight in that it can point it's nose with authority, but lacks power to regain airspeed once in the slow fight. The Super Hornet is similar. The all-out best BFM machine we have is either a big mouth Block 30 or a Block 50/52 Viper. The Raptor is right up there too, but we don't have the helmet or 9x which are BFM essential today.

Considering that the USAF, the USMC, and the USN, in the Joint Strike Fighter Operational Requirements Document has instead placed F-16-like performance as the minimum required, and F/A-18 like performance as the objective, all three services will disagree with your assertion that the F-16 is more maneuverable.

All I was trying to inject is a little real-world input into the dicussion. No I haven't flown it and don't want to. I come from an Eagle and Raptor background, with 20 years of service. Again, am NOT saying the F-35 is a bad platform. What I AM saying is that the F-35 is not the second coming. Having flown against Viper and Hornets (both legacy and Super), I can tell you the Viper is a much better BFM foe, except for the slower fight (below 330KIAS) and at lower altitudes (Below 15-18K) where the hornet can point its nose better, but struggles to regain energy.

My coments on the jet come from briefings and discussions with dudes who fly it. It IS an increible senor platform though.

This tread reminds me of the reasons over the years that I read posts (normally the airliner forum) and don't comment. I respect all of your opinions and although I have tried to shed some light on why more Raptors (OP) would be great and a mix of Lightings (we call it the pig or fat jet) and new build Strike Eagles and Vipers would be a great CAF mix. Again, based on my EXPERIENCE and discussions with bros who fly the F-35 and briefings on the jet (remember, we have to come up with a plan to integrate them into the AOB and battlespace).

Cheers,
Waco

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 40): All I was trying to inject is a little real-world input into the dicussion

Please keep posting and don't let the snarky comments from the uninformed wannabees dissuade you. Your posts are more more informative and relevant than anything else here.

I tried to educate a few folks on some of the C-17 vs A400M threads about basic airlift realities. I wasn't that successful.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 40): What I AM saying is that the F-35 is not the second coming.

I don't think anyone is. Like already mentioned, if the USAF, USMC and US Navy thought that the F35 would be a poor performer then they wouldn't buy it, along with other international customers. I believe that later generations of fighters will be focused more on EW, Stealth and Avionics rather than who can turn the sharpest at certain conditions. Countries don't buy fighters (primarily) to wow crowds at airshows through fancy tumbling acts.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 38): Ya, its their jobs. I'd like to know which a.neters are involved with the JSF program, let alone military aviation. Seems to be a lot of "experts" on the net giving their opinions based on nothing. Thankfully, they don't dictate military programs or purchases.

You;'d be including yourself in that population ?

Once again, military programs and purchases, approvals and budgeting, are the purview of the civilian world, not the unis. For example, check the axe Harpo et al is taking to DND's budget ...

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 43): You;'d be including yourself in that population ?

Somewhat.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 43): Once again, military programs and purchases, approvals and budgeting, are the purview of the civilian world, not the unis.

That's all fine and dandy, but I was hinting more towards your average citizen in the population, not a politician. Its not like there are national votes on military purchases, that would just be foolish. Canada would probably end up with a bastardized Arrow made in Quebec because Canadians are generally dumb and pick the shiniest thing.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44): Canada would probably end up with a bastardized Arrow made in Quebec because Canadians are generally dumb and pick the shiniest thing.

Like the F-35, one might suppose.  

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 42):

The fact that the USAF, USMC and USN are buying the F-35 is not entirely their choice. There is a TON of politics involved in all of this. In the USAF, for example, where a Block 60 Viper or new Mudhens would be better financially and operationally in addition to the F-35 purchase it would NEVER happen because USAF leaders know the minute they acknowledge that we could use some more 4th Gen fighters, our Congress and WH would come back with the arguement that why have a 5th Gen fighter at all then. Of the three services, the Marines are the ones who are most in need of a new airplane. The Harrier has never been all that (high Pk for IR SAMS because of the central exhaust/IR source) and are a major pain for maintainers but they serve a unique USMC mission and they are now very long in the tooth and need to be retired/replaced. Hell, the Brits don't even fly them anymore. The Navy could always buy more Super Hornets and we could get Vipers and Mudhens (if you take the politics out), so its our Marines that are most in need of the F-35 and thats why they will be the first service to achieve IOC with them.

Remeber, we don't ALWAYs buy what's best, we buy what we are told to buy. The idea that one airplane can doo it all for all services has been tried before, The F-4 Phantom comes to mind. After that, SECDAF directed the USN and USAF to buy the F-111. The Navy realized the F-111 could not do it's mission and the F-14 was born, but not before a bunch of money was wasted on the Navy version of the F-111 (B Model).

The F-35 brings an incredible sensor suite to the fight as well as LO technology. Those are it's strengths. Also, for the foriegn buyers, its the only game in town. There are no other 5th Gen fighters available on the market.

That said, the LO advantage the F-35 brings also comes at a price. First, the LO technology on current 5th gen fighters has a shelf life. Eventually radars will be desined to detect them. That would be why the F-117 was retired. It was no longer relevant in the fight. It wasn't an SA-20 that brought the 117 down in Allied Force (1999), it was a SAM that has been around for a Loooooong time. Also, the LO is VERY maintenance intensive. Its not like the old days of removing a panel, fix the problem and installing the panel. Removing and installing panels on stealth aircraft add a lot of time to the maintenance process. The F-35 and F-22 have more maintenance man hours per flight hour than the Super Hornet, Viper or Eagle.

Having a current, approprietly sized 5th Gen fleet is important, but so is maintaining a larger fleet of updated 4th gen fighters that achieve sortie rates unavailable to the the 5th Gen jets.

I don't dislike the F-35 (wouldn't want to fly it), it will fill a mission requirement but it is no F-22. Like I said before, I would rather fly a Viper than an F-35.

Quoting wacopolumbo (Reply 46): There are no other 5th Gen fighters available on the market.

No other 5th gen fighters that would be POLITICALLY available to F-35 buyers  

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 47): No other 5th gen fighters that would be POLITICALLY available to F-35 buyers

There is no other commercially ready 5th generation fighter. The other ones are in prototype stage at this point and much further away from actual full service than the F-35.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 45): Like the F-35, one might suppose.

Not really, the F-35 was chosen by the Military, not a civy.