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       4/21/2009 11:25:47 AM

Its at least 4 times as effective in a2a compared to any legacy fighter, 8 times more effective in a2g missions. Its SEAD capable right off the factory floor. Its going to require less support from tankers. There is no way you can compare it to an F-16 and state with any truth that the cost to operate is going to be more.

 

Sorry, but (apart from the SEAD thing I will grant you) those are just ridiculous assertions.  Completely.


 No they aren't ridiculous assertions. You may not like them, but they are in fact the truth. And that truth completely ends and case for more F-16s and canceling the F-35.


An F-16 Block 60 needs less tanker support -- not only does it have equally good unrefuelled range, it achieves it with less fuel to begin with.

Bull. An F-16 Block 60 is going to have to deal with Drag when carrying external stores.
 

Then this 4/8 times nonsense.  That is absolutely meaningless.   You might as well say "it's a super duper awesome fighter and the F-16 is not".

LOL it's not nonsense. If you cannot detect the F-35, if it's got a range and fuel advantage, a more powerful and comprehensive weapons and sensor suite. Its going to be able to do things an F-16 blk 60 can't. You are the one claiming the F-16 is a superduper fighter. I wonder can you explain that in the context of an F-16 vs F-35 debate. NO. Look at the kind of strike package you would need to put together when sending your F-16 into harms way compared to a 5th Gen stealth jet like the F-35. Do the math Phaid. Look at the difference in capability.
 

How is the F-35 going to be four times more effective at dropping SDBs on the Taliban or AQ or whoever we wind up going after on the HOA?  If we're so worried about "the wars we're fighting today" then that is a question you must be able to answer.

Because an F-35 is not only for Taliban. The F-35 can actually penetrate into places like Pakistan and Iran, unescorted, remain undetected and strike targets or shoot down jets as well. It will have higher sortie rates and simplified logistics compared to an F-16 because it's going to use PBL. 
 

And against a near-peer: how is it going to be four times more effective in SEAD when it has to carry HARMs externally?  How is it going to be four times more effective in AA when it has ZERO kinematic advantages and has to carry anything more than 2 AAMs externally?

External HARMS are not going to lessen effectiveness Phaid. Besides it can also deploy SDB and other air dropped ordinance internally which will allow it to get through SAM rings and go after nodes traditional SEAD aircraft cannot. Its also going to have a range advantage without carrying external takes that would betray its presence. It also has kinematic advantages due to hight thrust and clean configuration. 2 AAMs is not going to hinder the aircraft either. If you can show where that's been a problem when I know from seeing fighters take off on CAP with just 2 AMRAAMS on wingtips then I'll listen.

 

The simple fact is that if it wants to stay stealthy the F-35 carries less ordnance than the F-16 and costs more in fuel and maintenance to do it, and if it doesn't care about stealth the F-35 carries the same amount of ordnance as the F-16 and costs more in fuel and maintenance to do it.

Wrong again because you aren't considering the CONOPS and what it takes to put an F-35 vs an F-16 into hostile airspace. You are also not considering PBL. You have got no idea of the operational cost either because a, the F-35 is still in development and b, the report simply said it was an estimate.
 

What it comes down to is that a force of 2000 F-16s and 400 F-22s concentrates its capabilities where they are needed -- large numbers of cheap, and cheap to operate, fighters for "today's war" that can more than hold their own against a near peer, supplemented by a comparatively small number of expensive fighters for first-day-of-war and high-value targets.  Instead of a mostly-F-35 force that carries around all this stealth and weight whether it needs it or not and pays the price in reduced availability and greater cost regardless of its mission.
 
Sure, that force would work. Except that it would utterly shatter one of the USA's most powerful weapons which is the ability to build and work within the framework of coalitions. Additionally, the F-16s would cost more to operate overtime due to inferior logistics and the fact that they cannot operate under the same CONOPS as a stealthy 5th generation jet. YOu F-22 fans are like a cult! Anything for F-22's. The world doesn't work that way.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    From the article:   4/21/2009 11:32:53 AM
That isn't the article I meant to post. Oh, well, let's go with it:    from the article note the following... 

Based on different war fighting assumptions
, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.
Air force has been advised to change their analysis for political reasons. Obama wants to plan his procurement based upon "different war fighting assumptions", ie: one where he can cut the program for political reasons.  

First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.
 
Here they state that since they are not going to get the money so they have to change their minds.
 
Clearly, the USAF is reacting to political realities in this piece. Their "unbiased" review had lead them to the conclusion that 187 was  not enough. "since then additional factors have arisen" "unfunded $13 Billion". They didn't get the money. No where does the USAF say that new factors have created a different threat matrix, requiring fewer air superiority aircraft. The piece demonstrates that this is political and the real requirement is for 243 aircraft (that is my story and I am sticking too it!). I'd say that their original assessment was the honest assessment and their new one is clearly not supported. It is life in the DOD procurement cycle.

On the F35, it does not exist yet and as such isn't a factor in this conversation. What might be in 5 years is a thin whisp of a hope compared to an open assembly line with certified aircraft running off of it. The cost of the F22 is getting lower with every unit produced. Phaid shows US clearly that the cost of the F35 is not yet known and like all new aircraft it has teething problems. Finally, the F35's budget will be cut significantly once the F22 is killed.

Bet on it.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
The other article (the one I meant to post):
 
ht***tp://lexingtoninstitute.org/1396.shtml
 
AIR FORCE PREPARED TO END F-22 AT 243 AIRCRAFT, NOT 187
Rebecca L. Grant, Ph.D.
Issue Brief
Apr 9, 2009

Print friendly page
Email this article

When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on April 6 that the Air Force advised him they wanted 187 F-22s, the reaction was shock.  That?s because evidence indicates the Air Force was ready and willing to cap off production after buying a total of 243 F-22s, not 187.  Do the simple math: just 187 F-22s to replace 522 F-15s now in the total inventory is not enough in a crisis.  A total buy of 243 F-22s is the minimum to fill out ten F-22 squadrons for overseas missions and homeland defense.

What happened to the 243 number?  Is the Obama Pentagon clamping down on the Services?  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen confirmed in December 2008 that he and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz were discussing 60 more, or 243 total F-22s.  On April 7, a reporter said to Gates: ?As recently as a few weeks ago, Air Force leadership was still publicly saying 260, 265. When did that change for them??  Here is Gates? verbatim reply: ?Well, you?ll have to ask them. (Chuckles.)?

Recall how things work in normal times.  The Pentagon budget is a $500 billion behemoth that relies on a formal process derived from the checks and balances in the Constitution.  The Services submit their budgets.  The Office of the Secretary of Defense makes adjustments, then sends the budget to the President, who sends it to Congress.  Key committees call generals, admirals and civilian officials to hearings where they swear under oath to give Congress their undiluted opinions.  

Here?s the dog that didn?t bark in the night.  Last summer, Schwartz said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed 381 F-22s were too many but 183 were too few.  He promised to ?delve deeply? into the analysis and return with a new number.  Schwartz had numerous opportunities to call a halt to the F-22 at 183 aircraft.  He did not.  Going forward, Congress appropriated partial money for the next 20 F-22s based on the long-standing requirement for the F-22 to replace F-15s.  Outgoing Bush Administration officials threw in procedural delays to prevent the Lockheed Martin ? Boeing ? Pratt & Whitney team from getting to work.  

Then came the election.  Many applauded President Obama?s decision to retain Bush?s Secretary of Defense to ensure wartime continuity.  What few bargained for was that the first three months of the Obama presidency would give Gates a chance to craft what Senator Carl Levin has called a ?novel? approach to the defense budget.  Gates kept Bush-Rumsfeld holdovers in crucial program analysis posts and formed a small team to cut the budget in secret, a technique he mastered as CIA director.  Next, in February 2009, Gates did what no previous Secretary of Defense had done.  He directed top uniformed officers to sign non-disclosure agreements pledging not to talk about the budget process ? even to other senior officers in their services.  Can you picture even a famous budget cutter like Caspar Weinberger or an experienced legislator like William Cohen making a demand like that?  

Schwartz never had a chance to present his analysis for 243 F-22s to Congress as promised.  To speak up given Gates? new restrictions might risk the tradition of civilian control begun by George Washington.  Air Combat Command, whose airmen fly and maintain F-22s and other fighters, is left to pick up the pieces after this shattering break in faith.  Is this what change in Washington means?  



 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 11:42:24 AM
Phaid also ignores the fact that right now. There are AV-8, F/A-18D, F/A-18C, F-16Cs and whatever NATO aircraft get committed to the GWOT in the CENTCOM AOR. All these aircraft require substantially different support and ogistics infrastructure to stay flying. The F-35 will consolidate all of that including training and tactics and also make for commonality with the allied air forces we fight with as well. It would save billions. Operating multiple platforms is vastly more expensive. So right then and there cost comparisons between F-35 and F-16 break down. With the F-35 you are also buying a jet that offers leap ahead capabilities vs late model Mig and Su upgrades or if all of the Sudden S-300's show up in some country like Iran. With the F-35 we are buying a cheaper more effective warplane capable of blasting Taliban and Migs that works with simplified logistics and with our allies. The F-16 is not competitive in this regard. And we don't forfeit the cost of developing the F-35 as well.

-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    Rocky   4/21/2009 11:57:30 AM

Rocky, I appreciate the prior cite was errant.  Still, the new article indicates that the Bush Administration "threw in procedural delays to prevent" the acqusition of F-22 beyond 187.  If true, then apparently the Bush Administration saw a need to end F-22 production and Bush holdover Gates is simply continuing a process of program termination that began before President Obama moved into the White House.  Congress of course has entrenched district-level interests, given the distributed nature of F-22 manufacture and support, and may attempt to keep F-22 alive for political reasons.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 11:57:40 AM
Phaid,

If you think F-16 blk 60 is a good idea. Why not go with the current 187 F-22's, Upgrade the Golden Eagle fleet we will keep to Silent Eagle configuration, and purchase the F-35 as planned so as not to forfeit one of the greatest weapons we have which is our ability to form and fight within coalitions and allow us to have a predominantly 5th Gen fighter force the majority of which are capable of fighting low and high end of the spectrum of conflict?

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    VV   4/21/2009 12:20:22 PM

Rocky, I appreciate the prior cite was errant.  Still, the new article indicates that the Bush Administration "threw in procedural delays to prevent" the acqusition of F-22 beyond 187.  If true, then apparently the Bush Administration saw a need to end F-22 production and Bush holdover Gates is simply continuing a process of program termination that began before President Obama moved into the White House.  Congress of course has entrenched district-level interests, given the distributed nature of F-22 manufacture and support, and may attempt to keep F-22 alive for political reasons.


v^2



In the second post we note that Schwartz acknowledged to congress that 381 was going to be revised down. He was to have appeared again before Congress and make his case for 243. He publicly announced that 243 number before the election and that was his request until Gates/Obama sought to cut the program off at its last Congressional Funding. Schwartz's last analysis was for 243. I bungled my presentation but the data still supports my view that the decision to limit the procurement to 187 is not based upon threat assessments but politics. Obama had to cut major programs, a major campaign promise, and he struck this one. I aknowledge he is allowed to do that but I think it is a mistake.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    F35   4/21/2009 12:35:57 PM

Phaid also ignores the fact that right now. There are AV-8, F/A-18D, F/A-18C, F-16Cs and whatever NATO aircraft get committed to the GWOT in the CENTCOM AOR. All these aircraft require substantially different support and ogistics infrastructure to stay flying. The F-35 will consolidate all of that including training and tactics and also make for commonality with the allied air forces we fight with as well. It would save billions. Operating multiple platforms is vastly more expensive. So right then and there cost comparisons between F-35 and F-16 break down. With the F-35 you are also buying a jet that offers leap ahead capabilities vs late model Mig and Su upgrades or if all of the Sudden S-300's show up in some country like Iran. With the F-35 we are buying a cheaper more effective warplane capable of blasting Taliban and Migs that works with simplified logistics and with our allies. The F-16 is not competitive in this regard. And we don't forfeit the cost of developing the F-35 as well.  -DA 

Phaid does not ignore those facts as far as I can tell. He does point out the obvious point that the F35 is still an experimental aircraft that has major engineering challenges ahead of it. He has documented his assertions and he has offered a legitimate alternative proposal. Under Phaid's proposal we would have the 243 F22 air superiority fighters that our USAF assessment asks for plus an additional 157 aircraft to fulfill the role of stealthy penetration/strike aircraft. In addition to that we would use a mature F16 program to drop smart bombs over Pakistan and Afghanistan, or whatever sh*t hole we have to drop bombs on next.
OTOH, your proposal bets our future on an unproven airframe, the F35, and support from allies who may or may not stay with the program. You assume this will all work out and the F35 will arrive on USAF tarmacs on time and on budget. You also assume the program won't be cut. I would suggest these assumptions are in direct opposition of historical realities and experiences.
 
While I am not completely on board with Phaid's view of the F22/F16 future, I do believe it would be better to keep the F22 lines open for another 60 airframes while we get the potty trained, certified, and in the field.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    F35   4/21/2009 12:39:20 PM
While I am not completely on board with Phaid's view of the F22/F16 future, I do believe it would be better to keep the F22 lines open for another 60 airframes while we get the F-35 potty trained, certified, and in the field.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/21/2009 12:43:35 PM

Phaid,




If you think F-16 blk 60 is a good idea. Why not go with the current 187 F-22's, Upgrade the Golden Eagle fleet we will keep to Silent Eagle configuration, and purchase the F-35 as planned so as not to forfeit one of the greatest weapons we have which is our ability to form and fight within coalitions and allow us to have a predominantly 5th Gen fighter force the majority of which are capable of fighting low and high end of the spectrum of conflict?




-DA 

 What am I missing? With exception of the upgrade to Silent Eagle standard how is your proposal different than current DOD strategy and what does it have to do with F-16 blk 60? Sounds like will have a lot of F-15E type aircraft. Are you trying to supplement the blk 60 with better a better strike platform or enhance the F-15C's air superiority role or both?
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/21/2009 12:43:48 PM
An F-16 Block 60 needs less tanker support -- not only does it have equally good unrefuelled range, it achieves it with less fuel to begin with.

Bull. An F-16 Block 60 is going to have to deal with Drag when carrying external stores.
 
Yes, but even so, the F-16 is a vastly smaller and lighter airplane than the F-35 and doesn't burn as much gas.  It is at least as fuel efficient as the F-35 in a combat situation, and it is far more efficient in a clean configuration -- which means that for the vast majority of its flight hours (training) it will cost less to operate.

Then this 4/8 times nonsense.  That is absolutely meaningless.   You might as well say "it's a super duper awesome fighter and the F-16 is not".

LOL it's not nonsense. If you cannot detect the F-35, if it's got a range and fuel advantage, a more powerful and comprehensive weapons and sensor suite. Its going to be able to do things an F-16 blk 60 can't. You are the one claiming the F-16 is a superduper fighter. I wonder can you explain that in the context of an F-16 vs F-35 debate. NO. Look at the kind of strike package you would need to put together when sending your F-16 into harms way compared to a 5th Gen stealth jet like the F-35. Do the math Phaid. Look at the difference in capability.
 
The F-35 has NO range and fuel advantage.  It has a more powerful radar and it has stealth, sure.  I'm not debating that the F-35 does not have capabilities that the F-16 does not, I am saying that those capabilities come at too high a price to be affordable for the entire tactical fighter fleet.  They are not needed in those kinds of numbers.
 
How is the F-35 going to be four times more effective at dropping SDBs on the Taliban or AQ or whoever we wind up going after on the HOA?  If we're so worried about "the wars we're fighting today" then that is a question you must be able to answer.

Because an F-35 is not only for Taliban. The F-35 can actually penetrate into places like Pakistan and Iran, unescorted, remain undetected and strike targets or shoot down jets as well. It will have higher sortie rates and simplified logistics compared to an F-16 because it's going to use PBL. 
 
In other words, you have NO answer to that, because the F-35 is IN NO WAY superior for fighting "today's wars".  Zero.  None.

And against a near-peer: how is it going to be four times more effective in SEAD when it has to carry HARMs externally?  How is it going to be four times more effective in AA when it has ZERO kinematic advantages and has to carry anything more than 2 AAMs externally?

External HARMS are not going to lessen effectiveness Phaid. Besides it can also deploy SDB and other air dropped ordinance internally which will allow it to get through SAM rings and go after nodes traditional SEAD aircraft cannot. Its also going to have a range advantage without carrying external takes that would betray its presence. It also has kinematic advantages due to hight thrust and clean configuration. 2 AAMs is not going to hinder the aircraft either. If you can show where that's been a problem when I know from seeing fighters take off on CAP with just 2 AMRAAMS on wingtips then I'll listen.

It has no kinematic advantages; it is designed to be as maneuverable as the F-16 in its USAF configuration and is less so in the STOVL and CATOBAR configuration.  External HARMs are going to make it non stealthy.  And seeing aircraft take off with 2 AMRAAMs on CAP in a theater where there is zero enemy air activity doesn't illustrate anything.

The simple fact is that if it wants to stay stealthy the F-35 carries less ordnance than the F-16 and costs more in fuel and maintenance to do it, and if it doesn't care about stealth the F-35 carries the same amount of ordnance as the F-16 and costs more in fuel and maintenance to do it.

Wrong again because you aren't considering the CONOPS and what it takes to put an F-35 vs an F-16 into hostile airspace. You are also not considering PBL. You have got no idea of the operational cost either because a, the F-35 is still in development and b, the report simply said it was an estimate.
 
I am not considering PBL?  Lockheed and the USAF can implement performance-based logistics for any platform they want, it has absolutely nothing inherent to do with the airframe.  The Navy does it with the F/A-18 (program is called FIRST) and several countries are talking to Lockheed about doing it with the F-16.

What it comes down to is that a force of 2000 F-16s and 400 F-22s concentrates its capabilities where they are needed -- large numbers of cheap, and cheap to operate, fighters for "today's war" that can more than hold their own against a near peer, supplemented by a comparatively small number of expensive fighters for first-day-of-war and high-value targets.  Instead of a mostly-F-35 force that carries around all this stealth and weight whether it needs it or not and pays the price in reduced availability and greater cost regardless of its mission.
 
Sure, that force would work. Except that it would utterly shatter one of the USA's most powerful weapons which is the ability to build and work within the framework of coalitions. Additionally, the F-16s would cost more to operate overtime due to inferior logistics and the fact that they cannot operate under the same CONOPS as a stealthy 5th generation jet. YOu F-22 fans are like a cult! Anything for F-22's. The world doesn't work that way.
 
So we can't build coalitions today?  In GWOT theaters we work with Rafales, Mirages, Tornados, Harriers, Super Etendards, legacy Hornets, legacy Falcons, and suddenly that's going to stop unless we get the F-35?
 
As far as the CONOPS, I've shown numerous times how they would certainly be different for a F-22/F-16 fleet, but you keep getting back to the central contradiction in your position: you don't want to spend money for 60 more F-22s because they "are not needed", yet you want to spend a TRILLION dollars on an F-35 and the only justification you can come up for is the very scenarios where the F-22 is needed.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/21/2009 12:55:21 PM

Phaid,

If you think F-16 blk 60 is a good idea. Why not go with the current 187 F-22's, Upgrade the Golden Eagle fleet we will keep to Silent Eagle configuration, and purchase the F-35 as planned so as not to forfeit one of the greatest weapons we have which is our ability to form and fight within coalitions and allow us to have a predominantly 5th Gen fighter force the majority of which are capable of fighting low and high end of the spectrum of conflict?

Notwithstanding the fact that you can't upgrade the F-15Cs into F-15SEs (you'd have to completely rebuild the fuselage to retrofit the canted tails) I'm not sure what my liking the Block 60 has to do with the F-15SE.  As I've already stated, my contention is that a high-low mix is what is needed, where the dedicated air superiority aircraft are the high end.  The F-15SE (even new build ones) does not qualify as "the high end" in that scenario.
 
The argument that we can't form and fight within coalitions without the F-35 is bunk.  We do it just fine now, thanks, and it's only going to get easier as everyone is standardizing on compatible network protocols.
 
And again with that contradiction: if we're going to drop the F-22 because we don't need a small number of fighters that can fight on the high end of the spectrum, why then do we want to spend nearly as much per-aircraft in order to get a whole fleet of fighters that can fight on the high end of the spectrum?
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/21/2009 1:08:11 PM

Mobile missiles killed more Americans during GWI than any Iraqi a/c did and we couldn't shut them down even though we dominated the air.  Strictly operated in a clean configuration for low observability and range performance, F-35 should be able to stalk mobile missile launchers better than F-22 as currently kitted out, F-16, F-15E and F-18 any model in a high threat environment and at night or in adverse weather conditions.  That's just one case in favor of F-35.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 1:41:57 PM


An F-16 Block 60 needs less tanker support -- not only does it have equally good unrefuelled range, it achieves it with less fuel to begin with.

Bull. An F-16 Block 60 is going to have to deal with Drag when carrying external stores.

Yes, but even so, the F-16 is a vastly smaller and lighter airplane than the F-35 and doesn't burn as much gas.  It is at least as fuel efficient as the F-35 in a combat situation, and it is far more efficient in a clean configuration -- which means that for the vast majority of its flight hours (training) it will cost less to operate.
 


Again thats just not correct. You are getting lost at the platform level. The F-35 will have a much smaller maintenance footprint, PBL which F-16 doesn't have yet and the F-35 because it is a common airframe will simplify DoD logistics and training across the board for three services rather than your USAF centric proposal. An F-16 Blk 60 might burn slightly less gas, but that is only one aspect of it's cost. If I'm training my pilots as Red Flag to go after a target defended by heavy IADS. I have to send that F-16 as a part of a package so that it has a chance to survive and make the training realistic. The F-35 won't need as much. And are you quoting F-16 blk 60 range with CFT+external fuel? or internal + CFT only. I think you are adding the wing drop tanks.

 
 


Then this 4/8 times nonsense.  That is absolutely meaningless.   You might as well say "it's a super duper awesome fighter and the F-16 is not".

LOL it's not nonsense. If you cannot detect the F-35, if it's got a range and fuel advantage, a more powerful and comprehensive weapons and sensor suite. Its going to be able to do things an F-16 blk 60 can't. You are the one claiming the F-16 is a superduper fighter. I wonder can you explain that in the context of an F-16 vs F-35 debate. NO. Look at the kind of strike package you would need to put together when sending your F-16 into harms way compared to a 5th Gen stealth jet like the F-35. Do the math Phaid. Look at the difference in capability.

 


The F-35 has NO range and fuel advantage.  It has a more powerful radar and it has stealth, sure.  I'm not debating that the F-35 does not have capabilities that the F-16 does not, I am saying that those capabilities come at too high a price to be affordable for the entire tactical fighter fleet.  They are not needed in those kinds of numbers.
 

Sure it does. It can carry weapons cleanly configured into hostile airspace. F-16 cannot do that. The F-16E needs to carry external tanks to get the range the F-35 does while carrying weapons because it has to power through drag.

 


How is the F-35 going to be four times more effective at dropping SDBs on the Taliban or AQ or whoever we wind up going after on the HOA?  If we're so worried about "the wars we're fighting today" then that is a question you must be able to answer.
Because an F-35 is not only for Taliban. The F-35 can actually penetrate into places like Pakistan and Iran, unescorted, remain undetected and strike targets or shoot down jets as well. It will have higher sortie rates and simplified logistics compared to an F-16 because it's going to use PBL. 

In other words, you have NO answer to that, because the F-35 is IN NO WAY superior for fighting "today's wars".  Zero.  None.


WRONG. It will offer the interoperability with allied air forces and common logistics. More over it can overfly airspace that F-16s cant. Its sensors will give it advantages in the ISR domain you will not get with an F-16. And that same plane can operate against any threat independent of the huge supporting cast F-16s need. Again, look at Osirak, look as El Dorado Canyon, look at Operation Enduring Freedoms early days. Look at the strikes in Pakistan today. The LO features of the F-35 will give advantages the F-16 pilot can only dream of.



And against a near-peer: how is it going to be four times more effective in SEAD when it has to carry HARMs externally?  How is it going to be four times more effective in AA when it has ZERO kinematic advantages and has to carry anything more than 2 AAMs externally?
External HARMS are not going to lessen effectiveness Phaid. Besides it can also deploy SDB and other air dropped ordinance internally which will allow it to get through SAM rings and go after nodes traditional SEAD aircraft cannot. Its also going to have a range advantage without carrying external takes that would betray its presence. It also has kinematic advantages due to hight thrust and clean configuration. 2 AAMs is not going to hinder the aircraft either. If you can show where that's been a problem when I know from seeing fighters take off on CAP with just 2 AMRAAMS on wingtips then I'll listen.

It has no kinematic advantages; it is designed to be as maneuverable as the F-16 in its USAF configuration and is less so in the STOVL and CATOBAR configuration.  External HARMs are going to make it non stealthy.  And seeing aircraft take off with 2 AMRAAMs on CAP in a theater where there is zero enemy air activity doesn't illustrate anything.

Wrong. You are looking at top end speed where most aircraft never go. The F-35 will out accelerate 4th Gens because again, its CLEAN with huge amounts of thrust. 9G vs 7G is nothing more than an academic issue now. Modern AAM's eliminate the necessity of maneuvers like that in well over 70% or more of air combat scenarios. Look at the data Phaid since the 1980s. BVR weapons made up 60% of the kills or more IIRC and at no time was a 9G turn crucial to success of a mission. External HARMS will also not make it non stealthy. They will increase the probability of detection. But it will still be a hell of a lot harder to detect compared to a HARM armed F-16CJ. Also, unlike that F-16CJ, the F-35 can use cheaper weapons like JDAMS or it can use JSOW and kill with near impunity INSIDE the SAM threat bubble for an F-16. And you are wrong about ZERO enemy air activity. The Iranians used UAVs long before this ever made the news...
 

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. fighter jets in Iraq have shot down an unmanned Iranian spy drone aircraft, the U.S. military said Monday.

The Iranian aircraft had been flying in Iraqi airspace for 70 minutes before being shot down 60 miles northeast of Baghdad last month, the military said.

"This was not an accident on the part of the Iranians," the U.S. military said in a statement. "The [drone] was in Iraqi airspace for nearly one hour and 10 minutes and well inside Iraqi territory before it was engaged."

Two F-16 fighter jets followed the drone for about an hour before shooting it down, a Pentagon official said.

The drone had no weapons and was strictly a spy aircraft, the official told CNN.

The U.S. military has taken ownership of the drone, which the Pentagon official said is in "pretty good shape."

Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, declined to comment on the allegation and most major state-run media outlets in Iran did not carry news of any incident involving an Iranian drone.

The Bush administration regularly accused Iran of meddling in Iraq and arming fighters, and in 2002 President George W. Bush put Iran in his "axis of evil."

Since President Barack Obama took office he has appeared more conciliatory towards Iran although the country continues to cause U.S. concern over its nuclear ambitions and its role in Iraq. 



 
...So you are wrong there too. 
 
 

The simple fact is that if it wants to stay stealthy the F-35 carries less ordnance than the F-16 and costs more in fuel and maintenance to do it, and if it doesn't care about stealth the F-35 carries the same amount of ordnance as the F-16 and costs more in fuel and maintenance to do it.
Wrong again because you aren't considering the CONOPS and what it takes to put an F-35 vs an F-16 into hostile airspace. You are also not considering PBL. You have got no idea of the operational cost either because a, the F-35 is still in development and b, the report simply said it was an estimate.
I am not considering PBL?  Lockheed and the USAF can implement performance-based logistics for any platform they want, it has absolutely nothing inherent to do with the airframe.  The Navy does it with the F/A-18 (program is called FIRST) and several countries are talking to Lockheed about doing it with the F-16.

Can and will are two different things. It doesn't exist for F-16. It does for F-35.




What it comes down to is that a force of 2000 F-16s and 400 F-22s concentrates its capabilities where they are needed -- large numbers of cheap, and cheap to operate, fighters for "today's war" that can more than hold their own against a near peer, supplemented by a comparatively small number of expensive fighters for first-day-of-war and high-value targets.  Instead of a mostly-F-35 force that carries around all this stealth and weight whether it needs it or not and pays the price in reduced availability and greater cost regardless of its mission.
Sure, that force would work. Except that it would utterly shatter one of the USA's most powerful weapons which is the ability to build and work within the framework of coalitions. Additionally, the F-16s would cost more to operate overtime due to inferior logistics and the fact that they cannot operate under the same CONOPS as a stealthy 5th generation jet. YOu F-22 fans are like a cult! Anything for F-22's. The world doesn't work that way.

So we can't build coalitions today?  In GWOT theaters we work with Rafales, Mirages, Tornados, Harriers, Super Etendards, legacy Hornets, legacy Falcons, and suddenly that's going to stop unless we get the F-35?


Did you miss the UK reaction to the issue of not getting F-35 source code? This aircraft is a key component of almost a dozen nations defense plans. SOme of them have considerable investment in the development. If you cancel a perfectly viable replacement for they aging aircraft just so the USAF can buy 400 unneeded F-22's, you will damage relationships and possibly push nations who are firmly in the DoD orbit away and into the influence of other parties who would love to offer alternatives. 




As far as the CONOPS, I've shown numerous times how they would certainly be different for a F-22/F-16 fleet, but you keep getting back to the central contradiction in your position: you don't want to spend money for 60 more F-22s because they "are not needed", yet you want to spend a TRILLION dollars on an F-35 and the only justification you can come up for is the very scenarios where the F-22 is needed.

No, my justification is 60 F-22s isn't going to matter squat compared to 2443 F-35's. Those F-22's will spend the next 30 years looking for work while some other crucial defense program we need gets cut and has tangible obvious affects on our capability.
 

PHAID, the budget is going to shrink. Buying more F-22's means buying less of something else. F-35 is not an option for cancelation and has received additional funding. No F-35 nations has chosen F-16E over F-35. The demand for F-35 dwarfs the future for F-16s. What program other than F-35 are you going to cut to fund the minimum 40 billion necessary to buy 213 additional Raptors at 150 mil each and upgrade 2000 USAF F-16C's to F-16E standard? You cannot do this without cutting the F-35 and the F-35 is essentially sacrosanct at this point. Its not going to be cut.
 
 
-DA






 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Why is that?   4/21/2009 1:43:39 PM

Strictly operated in a clean configuration for low observability and range performance, F-35 should be able to stalk mobile missile launchers better than F-22 as currently kitted out That's just one case in favor of F-35.

v^2

Please explain why the F-22 isn't the perfect penetration interdictor. The only limitation it has over the F35 in this role is that it can not carry an 2000lb bomb internally. Not strictly required for the mobile missile launcher mission you suggest.  Note:
 
 ht**tp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-weapons.htm 

The F-22 can carry the 1,000-pound class JDAM weapon. For the F-22, the JDAM tail guidance kit fits on the Mk. 83 1,000-pound-class conventional bomb. Weight of the Mk. 83 bomb and tail guidance kit is approximately 1,015 pounds The combination of the stealthy F-22 and the precision capability of the GBU-32 allows the F-22 pilot to drop the weapon from altitudes of approximately 40,000 feet to a range of approximately 15 miles.

The GBU-32 is only carried in the F-22's main weapons bay. A typical combat load consists of two GBU-32. One GBU-32 is carried inboard in each side of the main weapons bay. When loaded with GBU-32, there is still sufficient room in the F-22's main weapons bay to carry two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles (one in each side of the bay, in addition to the two AIM-9 Sidewinders in the side weapons bays), which means that even on a mission to attack ground targets, the F-22 retains significant air-to-air combat capability.

Each 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 will be loaded from the opposite side of the F-22 (the JDAM in the left side of the weapons bay is loaded from the right and visa versa), in order to clear the open main weapons bay doors. The current MJ-1 load vehicle (called a jammer) is used to load the GBU-32 into the F-22. The GBU-32 is carried on the Air Force's standard BRU-46/A bomb rack (which is built by EDO). The weapon is carried on the inboard side of the bay with an adjacent AIM-120C missile staggered on the outboard side. This is so tail fins on the bomb and the missile's wings do not interfere with each other when the weapons are either released or launched.

The GBU-32 gets target information from the aircraft prior to release via a Miltary Standard (Mil Std) 1760 data bus. JDAM can be dropped by an aircraft from up to 15 miles from the target. In addition to its own inertial guidance system, the weapon receives in-flight position updates from the 24-satellite GPS satellite constellation which help guide the bomb to the target. The GPS constellation provides 24-hour navigation information to military and civilian users. The GBU-32's autonomous operation allows the carrying aircraft to release the weapon and leave the area, thus avoiding an enemy's integrated air defense (surface-to-air missiles, antiaircraft artillery ("triple A"), and radars) system, but still delivering the weapon to the target.

GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb

The F-22A has the capability to carry a variety of conventional and Long Range Stand-Off Weapons (LRSOW) for air-to-ground ordnance delivery. When performing air-to-ground missions, the F-22A can internally carry two Global Positioning System-aided 250-pound GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb in place of two AIM-120s and two AIM-9 missiles. The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) (Guided Bomb Unit [GBU]-39/B) is designed to provide the F-22A with multiple targeting capabilities. Langley munitions crews loaded the new GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb onto an operational F-22A Raptor 15 July 2006. The fit test, conducted by members of the 27th Aircraft Maintenance Unit and observed by experts from Lockheed, Boeing, Edwards AFB, Calif., and Eglin AFB, Fla., was the first time the new weapon had been loaded into a combat-ready Raptor.

Weighing in at 250 pounds and a diameter of only six inches, the advantage of the GBU-39 is the amount that can be loaded into an F-22. It increases the target capabilities of the F-22 by 400 percent. Instead of two JDAMs, it will carry eight SDBs internally.

The Air Combat Command commander declared initial operational capability for the Guided Bomb Unit-39/B Small Diameter Bomb 02 October 2006 and the weapon made its combat debut just three days later. Boeing, the GBU-39B manufacturer, describes the bomb as "the next generation of low-cost and low-collateral damage precision strike weapons for ... employment from fighters, bombers and unmanned aerial vehicles." The F-15E Strike Eagle was initially the only aircraft equipped to carry the SDB. However, future potential platforms include the F-16 Fighting Falcon, B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. The SDB have high precision capabilities. They are lightweight and small which means increased aircraft payload. The bomb, a mere 250 pounds, has a smaller lethality radius, but its advanced technology makes the small blast a benefit, not a liability.

Its small size enables aircraft to carry more weapons, allowing commanders "to service more targets on a single pass." Its mounting carriage, the BRU-61/A, fits four bombs on one weapon pylon. It is also a versatile weapon. The SDB range is more than 50 nautical miles when launched at 40,000 feet at Mach .95. This enables an aircraft to launch SDBs to multiple targets, while beyond the range of many anti-aircraft systems. Additionally, it is an all-weather weapon, effective day or night and can be fired at targets in front of, to the sides, and behind the employing aircraft. It is effective on stationary targets within 1.2 meters. Typical targets include hardened aircraft bunkers, early-warning radar, stationary SCUD missile launchers, stationary artillery and more,

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Air to Air, Air to Ground. This is nothing to sniff at as a interdictor in high threat environments...   4/21/2009 1:51:35 PM
 
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