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 

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.

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.

 

To WHOM it may apply.

It is an invalid criticism of the joint strike fighter that its internal air to air armament is less than that of aircraft that carry weapons externally. That comparison completely ignores certain facts. Historically, recent history that is, suggest that carrying more than 2-4 air to air missiles during air combat is redundant. Having spent the last couple of hours after work looking through documented instances of air combat. It seems that 2-4 missiles is more than enough. I also think back to times I've seen actual F-16s, F-18s and other aircraft configured for air combat during both peace and war time, they are almost never carrying more than a pair or two of air to air missiles. They are however almost always carrying external fuel tanks. This leads into my other point. The joint strike fighter when not carrying external weapons will have a much cleaner aerodynamic profile in addition to its stealth features. This means that not only will threat aircraft be less likely to detect it, it would also have an advantage due to its clean configuration and high thrust. In conclusion, it will get the initiative over its opponents both before and after detection. The latter of which in all likelihood being the detonation of an air missile. One cannot underestimate the value of surprise. To make an analogy, lone snipers have decimated much larger enemy units in spite of the fact that they are not as heavily armed. But in the joint strike fighter's case, if it does need to be more heavily armed, it can carry external weapons.

-DA 

 

DA,

 

You still have not addressed my question as to why we would need to spend a trillion dollars on a program that's mission could be performed by existing aircraft with sufficient F-22 support, especially in the low level conflicts you base your arguments on. Please explain to me where we stand once the F-22 line is closed and the unlikely and rare(sarcasm) event that a major weapons program is cancelled(F-35). Zumwalt, Seawolf(after 3 boats), FCS, Crusader, Sgt York, B1(until Reagan came along) just a few that haven't made it.

Alert the Media:  Immediate Press Release- DA announce air superiority fighter planes need only carry 2 or 4 air to air missiles and that carrying more is "redundant".

 

First you entire line of argument was the 178 F-15Cs the USAF is going to keep around was enough to supplement the F-22 (both of which normally carry 8 missiles in the air superiority role) and now the past few days you are asserting that the F-35 can supplement the F-22 in the air superiority role.

 

The article you yourself cited went out of it's way to point out that on multiple levels the F-35 is not a fighter, much less an air superiority aircraft.

 

Furthermore, you stated that you saw no need to compare the F-22 and F-35.  If you are going to assert that the F-35 can supplement the F-22 in the air superiority role than you must be able to compare the ability of each and know with some level of certainty how many F-35s are needed to do the air superiority job of one F-22.  At that point you can conclude which platform is more cost effective.

 

Let us stipulate that one day the F-35 can carry more than 2 air to air missiles internally.  Today it carries two.  As of now there is no program for it to carry more than two.

 

So one day in the future it carries 4 or 6 missiles.  Exactly how effective might it be then compared to a F-22 and which aircraft is more cost effective to purchase in the air superiority role?

 

The F-35 is a stealthy strike fighter.  It's not, nor is it ever going to be, an air superiority fighter due to limitations inherent in it's design.  The ability to shoot down enemy aircraft does not an air superiority fighter make.