The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1

Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.
Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.

Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut.

Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.

"It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow...

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT
DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 2:44:00 PM

  I will elaborate on it, the demand for x is shrinking is based on opinion. Assuming (x) is the F-22 and (y) is whatever money alloted for low intensity conflicts then eliminate (z) F-35 which is a waste of money for low intensity conflicts and you will have more than enough money for (x) and (y). In the unlikely event of full scale war enough of (x) will allow (a) F-16 to perform just as effective as (z) and have a lot money left over.

Thanks for elaborating but you are incorrect about almost all of it. The demand for x has most definitely shrank. But as you say, it's OPINION. But what about the facts? Why are air to air engagements becoming less common in the USAF? Why have air to air kills by USAF air superiority fighters gone down in the 21st century? Why are the numbers being asked for with regard to fighters on CAP configured for air combat getting lower? Why are the numbers of threat aircraft declining in countries we are most likely to get into conflict with? Why is it that I could use F-35 to conduct CAS/ISR/Strike/CAP/SEAD and first day of war penetrating stealth attack in EVERY combat theater while the F-22 has virtually no use in any currently active combat theater? The only potential combat theater is the Pacific/Eastern Europe and that is low probability. Even Iran/Syria would not require F-22's to take on. It's not an opinion, its FACT.

Why were F-15's withdrawn from CENTCOMS AOR? 

-DA 

  
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Scream all uyou want, poster.,   4/16/2009 2:44:53 PM
Its not my fault you put it in black and white. You have just destroyed yourself. I told you to be careful about over-reaching;. 
 
Surely you remember that discussion about the need for UCAS autonomy and your constant assertions that there were things in the works that we would see in five years and that you had seen some of these yourself?

I told you constantly not to assert what you could not prove and not to state what you could not prove.
 
Five years is what you said. 
 
I am not calling you a liar.
 
I just read back to you what you wrote.
 
Take a good long look at your own words in this thread and see that you did this to yourself. 
 
You have no one here to blame but yourself.
 
You said it. All I did was note it and read back.
 
Too  bad. 
 
 
Counter-thesis proved.
 
Herald
 

 
 
 
 
 
 


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 2:53:57 PM


First problem is that there isn't anyone who can predict what amount of coverage that will be required. So cutting yourself short is wrong. Second problem is that you failed to address the fact that the need for a single engine stealthy ground pounder is negated if your current fleet can survive with adequate protection. The aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete because it could do the same job more effectivley, the F-35 cannot comparably perform the Raptor's mission requirement. And please spare me the overused fallacy that the F-35 is an adequate AA platform, it is speculation based on available technologies and theoretical anamolies and holds no merit. I keep saying that Nimitz class carriers are adequate but Gates must believe they won't be able to defeat Somali pirates because he sure hasn't cancelled the Gerald Ford class yet.


Wrong. I have to do that everytime I make a training schedule. You have to make predictions because there are limited resources. Otherwise lets just build 1000 F-22's. Can do that. All of these numbers come from estimates based on mission requirements. Thats how professional military personnel do that. Its as old as Sun Tzu. With regard to the F-35 air to air capability. Read...

This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology,

 

The F-35's ability to win an air-to-air engagement is drawing increased attention as the U.S. military and industry's focus includes expanding the Joint Strike Fighter's customer base beyond the core purchasing nations.

For years, prime contractor Lockheed Martin seemed content to promote the F-35's "strike fighter" capabilities, if only to avoid competing against its other major fighter program, the F-22 Raptor. But with the F-22 not exportable, Lockheed Martin seems keen to talk up the F-35's air combat skills to bolster its chances for new foreign military sales -- namely, to Japan, Turkey and Greece.

The contractor tells Aviation Week that the JSF's combination of stealth, multisensor situational awareness, advanced pilot-machine interface and basic aeromechanical performance make it a credible fighter aircraft, too. That is key to several other customers, who cannot afford the so-called high-low fighter mix on which the U.S., U.K. and Italian air forces are planning.

But Lockheed Martin is focusing largely on the beyond-visual-range fight, with ranges greater than 18 naut. mi. that executives say will represent 62% of all aerial combat. Another 31% of engagements would fall into the 8-18-naut.-mi. transition range, and just 7% of fighting would be close-in combat where the airframe is stressed the most.

Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon's TAC Brawler simulation for air combat systems analysis, using what would be the "ideal" air combat configuration, taking the conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, the only model designed to perform full 9g maneuvers.

The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration -- also known as the 240-4 -- are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.

Yet, such performance numbers appear to leave the F-35 short of the kind of air-to-air capabilities provided by other combat aircraft, such as the Russian Su-30MKI or the European Typhoon. And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage -- meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals.

Nevertheless, Brawler modeling showed the F-35 could achieve a loss-exchange ratio better than 400% against its nearest "competitor," according to Lockheed Martin executives. They demur about naming the competitor, but their comparison charts indicate it is the Sukhoi Su-30 or Typhoon.

That engagement ratio comes from the combination of F-35 characteristics, executives argue, including stealth, the performance of the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar, sensor fusion using data links and the 360-deg. situational awareness afforded by the distributed aperture system of infrared and electro-optical sensors and electronic support measures.

In the meantime, and without discussing specific performance characteristics, Italian air force fighter pilots involved with the F-35 program tell Aviation Week that the aircraft's performance falls "between the F-16 and the F/A-18 in terms of flight envelope -- and is actually closer to the F/A-18, considering its high angle of attack and slow-speed maneuvering capabilities."

The F-35A, with an air-to-air mission takeoff weight of 49,540 lb., has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.85 and a wing loading of 110 lb. per sq. ft. -- not ideal for a dog-fighter. The F135 engine delivers 42,000 lb. thrust, and industry officials suggest that an F-35 entering an air-to-air engagement with 40% -- or more than 7,275 lb. -- of internal fuel will have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.09 and a wing loading of 83 lb. per sq. ft. Those figures describe an agile, albeit not top-end, fighter.

Still, one key feature, Lockheed Martin executives stress, is the very low observability designed into the JSF. Whereas the F-35 would carry its weapons internally, the Typhoon, Su-30, Saab Gripen or Dassault Rafale carry their missiles externally, thus increasing their radar signatures and degrading their on-paper air-to-air performance. The F-35 also accommodates more internal fuel, 8.3 tons, giving it greater endurance potential without external fuel tanks that would affect radar signatures.

Nevertheless, the F-35 may have notable weaknesses for pure air-to-air combat. For one, it is not designed to conduct engagements in a high-speed, high-altitude, sustained turning environment. Its high-speed cornering capability should help it to dodge an adversary's beyond-visual-range missiles, though, particularly if German and U.K. air-to-air simulations on the kill probability of modern medium-range air-to-air missiles are accurate.

Those figures are part of the rationale for countries pursuing the ramjet-powered MBDA Meteor missile to supplant Amraams. Yet even in the Amraam world, Typhoons may have an edge over the F-35, since they could launch the missile at higher speed. Sukhoi Su-30s and the future T-50 are also being designed to maximize air-to-air missile performance that way.

Finally, while Lockheed Martin touts F-35 stealth as an advantage, it has its drawbacks, as well. The aircraft's payload is limited as long as it wants to preserve its low-observable signature through internal carriage. That means having only four AIM-120s at its disposal. A study now underway could boost that total to six Amraams. Other weapons, including infrared-guided air-to-air missiles, would be carried externally, with plans for a "stealthy" JSF adaptation using a low-signature pylon design. Still, the radar signature would increase, as would drag, further reducing the F-35's potential.

It is not clear how critical such perceived shortcomings truly are. Some pilots argue that in a dogfight, the air-to-air missile has more to do with the engagement's outcome than does the aircraft.



...Air Combat is ore than just pure flight performance of the platform now. And that doesn't even factor in things at the systems level. 400% Mustang. Thats a lot of dead Migs and SUs.

-DA 

 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Scream all you want, poster.,   4/16/2009 3:04:09 PM
Follow up.
 
The Gates low intensity war fallacy is being argued as an excuse for not planning to meet a possible high intensity war surprise.
 
Shrug. That is apriori incompetent. You need to plan twenty years out for the future on best data.
 
Twenty years out is not four years and cross your fingers. 
 
The US planners knew what was coming in the middle of the twentieth Century and they tried to meet it They almost failed.
 
History repeats. Current US planners seem to know more than a certain poster who doesn't see that their private grumbling about Santyana is data driven and trend based.
 
I don't rely on those unnamed sources. I supplied my own analysis and drew the conclusions based on what I gave you here. I don't use the authority fallacy or the claim to secret knowledge. I give you what you can check.
 
Now you may disagree with me, (JFKY for example) but at least some of you who disagree, ask me to explain my conclusions and evidence. 
 
Its not the personal attack, the appeal to authority, the secret knowledge bluff, and the unsubstantiated "it isn't so" you use..
 
Whatever. This last sad behavior pattern cycle just shows that this discussion has become circular in that the poster with nothing left than "liar" and "prove that I'm a liar". has reached the end of his argument train, and has shown himself to have fauled at his thesis proof.
 
Again, its not my fault that he wrote what he wrote.
 
Its up to him to explain why he contradicted himself.
 
In the meantime, I'm going to have another cup of coffee and look at this pesky contraption again!

Herald
 
 

 
 
.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 3:06:00 PM

Its not my fault you put it in black and white. You have just destroyed yourself. I told you to be careful about over-reaching;. 

 

Surely you remember that discussion about the need for UCAS autonomy and your constant assertions that there were things in the works that we would see in five years and that you had seen some of these yourself?





I told you constantly not to assert what you could not prove and not to state what you could not prove.


 

Five years is what you said. 

 

I am not calling you a liar.


 

I just read back to you what you wrote.

 

Take a good long look at your own words in this thread and see that you did this to yourself. 

 

You have no one here to blame but yourself.

 

You said it. All I did was note it and read back.


 

Too  bad. 

 


 

Counter-thesis proved.

 

Herald


 

It's funny to watch you tantrum and squirm Herald now that I've shown proof that you lied. Get a little bit of integrity, lose the ego and join the rest of us and lets stop talking about boring things like how you lied and discuss fascinating things like F-35's and F-22's. Much more interesting and in fact on topic don't you think? Unless you want to draw more attention to yourself with what you said...

The poster said we would have great UCAV capabilities negating the need for manned aircraft such as the F-22 that he's seen demonstrated within five years.
 

...Of course, you could always true to prove that by copying my words. But we both know you can't and why...;)
Like I said, stop talking in riddles and using $5 dollar words and prove what you said. I didn't think so. You may go now.

BTW, here is the date and time you made the claim minus any proof: Herald12345    Now he contradicts himself.   
4/16/2009 1:32:50 PM 

 
-DA

 
 
 



 

 

 

 

 

 







 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/16/2009 4:42:47 PM
DA, the problem with your arguments--and Gates'--from what I can see is, they're assuming we will never fight another war where air superiority is needed.  Of course we don't need the F-22 for Syria and Iran--Syria's lucky if it can put a squadron in the air, and the backbone of the Iranian Air Force is still the F-4D/E and the F-14.
 
However, it would be a huge mistake to assume that every war will be like the last.  That is a lesson that none of the "best and the brightest" ever seem to grasp.  Everyone thought in 1939 that the bomber didn't need fighter escort.  Everyone thought in 1956 that the era of the dogfight was over.  Both were tragically wrong, as the survivors of Schweinfurt and Rolling Thunder can attest to.  While I can agree that the Fighter Mafia has had too much power over the past few years, to the exclusion of getting a new bomber and expanding the transport fleet (the B-52 can't fly forever and the C-5 is hurting), it would be stupid to go too far in the other direction.
 
Militaries should plan for the worst case scenario, not what we hope will happen.  Gates isn't doing that.  He's essentially hoping to God that the F-35 can somehow fill out the F-22's role when it clearly can't, and that the F-15s will magically stay in the air for another 10 years without any sort of real replacement.  Obama has an excuse--his foreign policy clearly shows he believes that rhetoric and hugs will issue in the new era of unicorn farts.  Gates obstensibly is smarter than that.
 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/16/2009 4:56:14 PM

Militaries should plan for the worst case scenario, not what we hope will happen.  Gates isn't doing that.  He's essentially hoping to God that the F-35 can somehow fill out the F-22's role when it clearly can't, and that the F-15s will magically stay in the air for another 10 years without any sort of real replacement.  Obama has an excuse--his foreign policy clearly shows he believes that rhetoric and hugs will issue in the new era of unicorn farts.  Gates obstensibly is smarter than that.

 

To be completely fair to Obama, the F-22 was not designed to deal with unicorn farts and there is ZERO evidence that the F-35 or the F-15 will not be able to handle any future encounter with said unicorn farts.
I do, however, have to wory about a unicorn fart gap, which ranks right after the mineshaft gap, which is creeping up on us.
 
Thought for food.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 5:00:53 PM

DA, the problem with your arguments--and Gates'--from what I can see is, they're assuming we will never fight another war where air superiority is needed.  Of course we don't need the F-22 for Syria and Iran--Syria's lucky if it can put a squadron in the air, and the backbone of the Iranian Air Force is still the F-4D/E and the F-14.

 STOP! That's not what Gates or I am saying. We are saying, IF another war happens whether its the PRC or Somali "Bandits", the forces WE HAVE and WILL GET(F-35) are capable of dealing with. You have got to understand my position first.

However, it would be a huge mistake to assume that every war will be like the last.  That is a lesson that none of the "best and the brightest" ever seem to grasp.  Everyone thought in 1939 that the bomber didn't need fighter escort.  Everyone thought in 1956 that the era of the dogfight was over.  Both were tragically wrong, as the survivors of Schweinfurt and Rolling Thunder can attest to.  While I can agree that the Fighter Mafia has had too much power over the past few years, to the exclusion of getting a new bomber and expanding the transport fleet (the B-52 can't fly forever and the C-5 is hurting), it would be stupid to go too far in the other direction.

 6 and 12 years respectively. So sometime in 2015 and 2021, the Russians and PRC will have 5th Gen IOC. Meanwhile, they are stuck with FLANKER and FULCRUM(1980s) technology. This isn't an assumption, this is fact. With regard to ground based IADS, the F-35 is more than a match for it.

Militaries should plan for the worst case scenario, not what we hope will happen.  Gates isn't doing that.  He's essentially hoping to God that the F-35 can somehow fill out the F-22's role when it clearly can't, and that the F-15s will magically stay in the air for another 10 years without any sort of real replacement.  Obama has an excuse--his foreign policy clearly shows he believes that rhetoric and hugs will issue in the new era of unicorn farts.  Gates obstensibly is smarter than that.

How can you say that in good faith? He explained the threats. We are superior and are in good position to stay that way and have MORE NUMBERS. We are in the process of developing 6th Generation technologies RIGHT NOW. At what point is Gates or I saying we need the F-35 to fulfill the F-22's role? Also, by what magic are you referring to with regard to the F-15. The USAF has acknowledged that it has sufficient F-15s in good enough condition to meet requirements through 2025.

You are quite literally creating your own argument and not even discussing the same topics. If you are saying 187 F-22s aren't enough, thats different. If you are saying F-15's cannot defeat today or tomorrows air threats, thats different. If you are saying the F-35 would be incapable of defending itself or providing good enough air to air performance to be a viable air superiority platform when configured in that role as designed, that's different. Those are things we could actually debate. But what you and others are doing is saying, "What if in the future, Russia, China and Iran all get together and design and field 1000 Mig-41s by 2015, what are we going to do" without respect to the fact that it is not likely or even possible realistically. You are creating a "bogey man".

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/16/2009 5:26:26 PM






First problem is that there isn't anyone who can predict what amount of coverage that will be required. So cutting yourself short is wrong. Second problem is that you failed to address the fact that the need for a single engine stealthy ground pounder is negated if your current fleet can survive with adequate protection. The aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete because it could do the same job more effectivley, the F-35 cannot comparably perform the Raptor's mission requirement. And please spare me the overused fallacy that the F-35 is an adequate AA platform, it is speculation based on available technologies and theoretical anamolies and holds no merit. I keep saying that Nimitz class carriers are adequate but Gates must believe they won't be able to defeat Somali pirates because he sure hasn't cancelled the Gerald Ford class yet.








Wrong. I have to do that everytime I make a training schedule. You have to make predictions because there are limited resources. Otherwise lets just build 1000 F-22's. Can do that. All of these numbers come from estimates based on mission requirements. Thats how professional military personnel do that. Its as old as Sun Tzu. With regard to the F-35 air to air capability. Read...






This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology,

 


The F-35's ability to win an air-to-air engagement is drawing increased attention as the U.S. military and industry's focus includes expanding the Joint Strike Fighter's customer base beyond the core purchasing nations.


For years, prime contractor Lockheed Martin seemed content to promote the F-35's "strike fighter" capabilities, if only to avoid competing against its other major fighter program, the F-22 Raptor. But with the F-22 not exportable, Lockheed Martin seems keen to talk up the F-35's air combat skills to bolster its chances for new foreign military sales -- namely, to Japan, Turkey and Greece.


The contractor tells Aviation Week that the JSF's combination of stealth, multisensor situational awareness, advanced pilot-machine interface and basic aeromechanical performance make it a credible fighter aircraft, too. That is key to several other customers, who cannot afford the so-called high-low fighter mix on which the U.S., U.K. and Italian air forces are planning.


But Lockheed Martin is focusing largely on the beyond-visual-range fight, with ranges greater than 18 naut. mi. that executives say will represent 62% of all aerial combat. Another 31% of engagements would fall into the 8-18-naut.-mi. transition range, and just 7% of fighting would be close-in combat where the airframe is stressed the most.


Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon's TAC Brawler simulation for air combat systems analysis, using what would be the "ideal" air combat configuration, taking the conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, the only model designed to perform full 9g maneuvers.


The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration -- also known as the 240-4 -- are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.


Yet, such performance numbers appear to leave the F-35 short of the kind of air-to-air capabilities provided by other combat aircraft, such as the Russian Su-30MKI or the European Typhoon. And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage -- meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals.


Nevertheless, Brawler modeling showed the F-35 could achieve a loss-exchange ratio better than 400% against its nearest "competitor," according to Lockheed Martin executives. They demur about naming the competitor, but their comparison charts indicate it is the Sukhoi Su-30 or Typhoon.


That engagement ratio comes from the combination of F-35 characteristics, executives argue, including stealth, the performance of the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar, sensor fusion using data links and the 360-deg. situational awareness afforded by the distributed aperture system of infrared and electro-optical sensors and electronic support measures.


In the meantime, and without discussing specific performance characteristics, Italian air force fighter pilots involved with the F-35 program tell Aviation Week that the aircraft's performance falls "between the F-16 and the F/A-18 in terms of flight envelope -- and is actually closer to the F/A-18, considering its high angle of attack and slow-speed maneuvering capabilities."


The F-35A, with an air-to-air mission takeoff weight of 49,540 lb., has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.85 and a wing loading of 110 lb. per sq. ft. -- not ideal for a dog-fighter. The F135 engine delivers 42,000 lb. thrust, and industry officials suggest that an F-35 entering an air-to-air engagement with 40% -- or more than 7,275 lb. -- of internal fuel will have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.09 and a wing loading of 83 lb. per sq. ft. Those figures describe an agile, albeit not top-end, fighter.


Still, one key feature, Lockheed Martin executives stress, is the very low observability designed into the JSF. Whereas the F-35 would carry its weapons internally, the Typhoon, Su-30, Saab Gripen or Dassault Rafale carry their missiles externally, thus increasing their radar signatures and degrading their on-paper air-to-air performance. The F-35 also accommodates more internal fuel, 8.3 tons, giving it greater endurance potential without external fuel tanks that would affect radar signatures.


Nevertheless, the F-35 may have notable weaknesses for pure air-to-air combat. For one, it is not designed to conduct engagements in a high-speed, high-altitude, sustained turning environment. Its high-speed cornering capability should help it to dodge an adversary's beyond-visual-range missiles, though, particularly if German and U.K. air-to-air simulations on the kill probability of modern medium-range air-to-air missiles are accurate.


Those figures are part of the rationale for countries pursuing the ramjet-powered MBDA Meteor missile to supplant Amraams. Yet even in the Amraam world, Typhoons may have an edge over the F-35, since they could launch the missile at higher speed. Sukhoi Su-30s and the future T-50 are also being designed to maximize air-to-air missile performance that way.


Finally, while Lockheed Martin touts F-35 stealth as an advantage, it has its drawbacks, as well. The aircraft's payload is limited as long as it wants to preserve its low-observable signature through internal carriage. That means having only four AIM-120s at its disposal. A study now underway could boost that total to six Amraams. Other weapons, including infrared-guided air-to-air missiles, would be carried externally, with plans for a "stealthy" JSF adaptation using a low-signature pylon design. Still, the radar signature would increase, as would drag, further reducing the F-35's potential.



It is not clear how critical such perceived shortcomings truly are. Some pilots argue that in a dogfight, the air-to-air missile has more to do with the engagement's outcome than does the aircraft.











...Air Combat is ore than just pure flight performance of the platform now. And that doesn't even factor in things at the systems level. 400% Mustang. Thats a lot of dead Migs and SUs.




-DA 






 

 




 
Every stitch of text downplays the F-35's ability in AA with the exception of the summary you highlighted that was quoted from a Lockheed exec. Basically the article reaffirms my theory that as an  air superiority fighter it is no better than the aircraft it is replacing unless your a Lockheed employee making a push for international contracts. So explain to me again why this program is worth  investing a trillion dollars in.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 5:29:53 PM
Sentinel,

It took 15 years to go from this...

FIRST FLIGHT                                         IOC 
 
TEST PLATFORM                    OPERATIONAL WEAPON


The Russians were here(SEE BELOW) on 29 Sept 2002...


Assuming they had no problems with money or stability of industry that would mean that is they advanced at the same rate we do, which we know they don't, then they would be able to deploy an operational weapons sometime around 2017. Gates is saying a bit sooner at 2015 which makes some sense to me because they aren't necessarily making a derivative of THAT specific platform. But it gives a relative idea of where they might be in relation to us and 5th Gen jets. Just to give an idea of how far behind, they are buying UAVs from Israel for lack of the ability to deploy. They are without question behind. The Chinese can barely copy and technology for a modern jet engine. So without significant break through they are looking into the 2020 decade. 

So we are looking at a ~1000 plane head start in 5th Gen jets by the time the first threat 5 Gens even go operational. With regard to legacy platforms 4th Gen and prior, the F-15 has a demonstrated better than 100 to 0 kill ratio. The F-22 in simulation almost doubles that. Suppose that the PRC really got good and reduced our kill ratio by 75%. Thats still a 25 to 1 kill ratio assuming they get an Eagle unlike everyone else who have never been able. How many Flankers and J-10s would they need to kill off an F-15 FW fighting the way we do? They would get mauled. Most of the fighting, 0ver 60% is going to be BVR where they are at severe disadvantage even without the F-22 stealth. We have a proven highly lethal BVR weapon and doctrine as well. This is not an area where we have a deficiency. 

-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 5:53:27 PM
Mustang,

You are contradicting yourself. LM which also sells the F-22, tells you the F-35 offers 400% more lethality over platforms like Typhoon and Su-30. You don't accept that. So why do you accept that their other product(F-22) would offer even greater capability?

Knowing that the simulation shows an F-35 is 400% more effective than planes like Typhoon, F-15 and Su-30, what would it's kill ratio be in theory?

Assuming you get the right answer, what exactly are you worried about. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/16/2009 6:19:47 PM
DA,
 
I was already anticipating that you would make reference to Lockheed and the F-22. I believe factual knowledge based on real world experience that F-22 pilots have enjoyed. Granted it is simulated combat but the data supports the claims. The 4:1 theoretical kill ratio is based on the F-35's LO capability which it sacrifices with external stores. Sorry i'll take the 200:1 advantage that the Raptor enjoys. Supporting one platform based on real performance and discrediting another based soley on theory whether or not they are both products of LM is not a contradiction in my book.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 7:36:27 PM

DA,

 

I was already anticipating that you would make reference to Lockheed and the F-22. I believe factual knowledge based on real world experience that F-22 pilots have enjoyed. Granted it is simulated combat but the data supports the claims. The 4:1 theoretical kill ratio is based on the F-35's LO capability which it sacrifices with external stores. Sorry i'll take the 200:1 advantage that the Raptor enjoys. Supporting one platform based on real performance and discrediting another based soley on theory whether or not they are both products of LM is not a contradiction in my book.


Another error. The F-35 simulation accounts for that. You are going to say that, 4 air to air missiles aren't enough...ect. Thats a tired old argument that's been disproven over and over and over. No offense but your opinion is based on a flawed understanding. The 400% improvement of the F-35 is not meant to say that it will get 4:1 against any particular platform. it means that the F-35 will offer a 400% improvements COMPARED to it's nearest competitor. IOW, if Tyhoon or F-15 can get 10 to 1, F-35 will get 40 to 1. Not F-35 kills F-15 4 to 1. That makes most threats almost completely ineffective against it at the systems level. ie if I deployed an F-35A squadron to battle,  unless I'm out numbered by extreme margins or out foxed, I'm good to go in air to air scenarios.

-DA 

 


 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/16/2009 9:25:49 PM
On the contrary, DA.  Where I think you and Gates are making a huge mistake is assuming that nothing will change in the next 15 years. 
 
As I pointed out before, it's great and wonderful that we're working on 6th gen fighters.  Where are they? Are they ready for production in two years?  If so, I'll agree with the decision to cap the F-22.  If not, then we need something to bridge the gap.  The F-15 won't cut it.  By 2025, it'll be a 55 year old design.  55 years ago, the F-86 was frontline equipment, and technology moves faster today than it did in the 1950s. 
 
Okay, China and Russia are five years from their 5th gen fighters.  Great.  Wouldn't it be awesome to have a fleet of F-22s ready to confront such a threat, rather than relying on 4th generation fighters and the F-35--which won't be able to achieve the level of air superiority as the F-22--to pick up the slack?
 
Face it, this is a political decision made without the input of the people who will be risking their ass if Gates and you are wrong.  Nothing good ever came out of political decisions made on weapons systems.  Again, if the government was making cuts across the board, I might feel better about this.  But they're not.  Obama's spending like money can be pulled off the cherry trees in Washington, yet he wants to cut necessary defense programs.  That should raise a very big "why?"  I mean, if he's going to run up a $9 trillion deficit and devote several billion to Hamas, then he should be able to get up off a few bil to keep the F-22 in low-scale production. 
 
I keep bringing up Barney Frank's snarky comment about the military not needing "fancy toys."  The Democrats have had the military in the crosshairs since last November.  This is just the start.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 11:04:23 PM

On the contrary, DA.  Where I think you and Gates are making a huge mistake is assuming that nothing will change in the next 15 years. 

 You can think that but then you will be wrong. Rather, try to understand what I'm saying. FORGET ABOUT HOW COOL THE F-22 is. Its just a tool in a tool box full of them. I'm not trying to patronize you and I offer an apology in advance. 

As I pointed out before, it's great and wonderful that we're working on 6th gen fighters.  Where are they? Are they ready for production in two years?  If so, I'll agree with the decision to cap the F-22.  If not, then we need something to bridge the gap.  The F-15 won't cut it.  By 2025, it'll be a 55 year old design.  55 years ago, the F-86 was frontline equipment, and technology moves faster today than it did in the 1950s. 

 That comment above is not logical. Why would we have or need a 6th Gen platform 6 years after the F-22 went IOC? WE DONT HAVE A FREAKIN GAP. We have an access abundance of air power. Also, you stating the F-15 wont cut it is plain wrong. New builds and upgrades are still being produced! An F-15 of 2009 is not the F-15 of the early 1980s. They are radically different and with next decades upgrades will be even more advanced. That plane has an enormous amount of growth potential due to size. You cannot compare it to an F-86. It's almost like you are being purposely blind to advances in technology. 

Ask yourself why if the F-15 wont be viable in 15 years, why are top rates high quality airforces like S Korea, Singapore and Israel buying and upgrading them? Why would Boeing roll out the F-15SE is the design was obsolete? You aren't making sense.

Okay, China and Russia are five years from their 5th gen fighters.  Great.  Wouldn't it be awesome to have a fleet of F-22s ready to confront such a threat, rather than relying on 4th generation fighters and the F-35--which won't be able to achieve the level of air superiority as the F-22--to pick up the slack?

 OK, I really must be in an alternate universe. WE HAVE F-22's. WE DON'T NEED F-35's to be F-22's. Just like we dont need F-16's to be F-15s. Sure roles overlap in some areas. But they are designed and procured based on different requirements. 

Face it, this is a political decision made without the input of the people who will be risking their ass if Gates and you are wrong.  Nothing good ever came out of political decisions made on weapons systems.  Again, if the government was making cuts across the board, I might feel better about this.  But they're not.  Obama's spending like money can be pulled off the cherry trees in Washington, yet he wants to cut necessary defense programs.  That should raise a very big "why?"  I mean, if he's going to run up a $9 trillion deficit and devote several billion to Hamas, then he should be able to get up off a few bil to keep the F-22 in low-scale production. 
I keep bringing up Barney Frank's snarky comment about the military not needing "fancy toys."  The Democrats have had the military in the crosshairs since last November.  This is just the start.

I know now why I get paid what I do. Sentinel, I'm not saying there isn't a counter argument to Gates and myself that has to be considered. But this circular error filled argument that the people on the site regurgitate over and over isn't it. Do you see the ease with which I'm able to factually counter all of this point by point?

-DA


 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy