The F-22 and F-35 were supposed to work together in a high-low mix, right? You send in the higher quality, higher cost (therefore lower quantity) F-22 first to go for enemy fighters, air defenses, possibly airfields and possibly C4ISR. Once the more enemy has lost most of its ability to impede your air assets, you send in the cheaper F-35. Have I got this right so far?
While the F-35 is on average cheaper, it really isn’t by much. It seems like it would be possible to adapt the F-22 to be carrier launched.
So, it’s not really a high-low mix anymore, it’s a high-high mix in terms of cost and a high-low mix in terms of quality.
So, would going all F-22 and adapting it to carrier operations make sense?
What went wrong with the F-35? Did no one at any point say: “Wait a minute, this thing is supposed to be significantly cheaper than the F-22, if it’s in the same neighborhood cost-wise, there isn’t much point in having it.”?
Is the F-35 superior to the F-22 in some respects, aside from being carrier-launchable?
Interesting question. I have my own opinions on the topic, but not a whole lot factual to contribute so I will refrain from WAGs for now.
I do know that the F-35 originated with programs (the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter and Joint Advanced Strike Technology programs) intending to come up with a cheap and versatile fighter, something like an updated F-16 but with a VTOL variant. Obviously the program grew far beyond that, while all the supposed savings from sharing development costs and components have evaporated.
Side question: have any other gigantic joint procurement programs gone well? I have a vague notion that the F-4 Phantom also ended up as an expensive and compromised design, trying to be both a fighter and a bomber, as well as carrier and land-based. Though in the end it seems to have served its purpose well enough.
The Marines are probably the biggest winners, in all of this. The F-35B is far more capable than the Harrier II, and probably superior to any Harrier III that might have been developed.
Is that worth the cost born by the entire program? That’s a matter for debate. Perhaps, in the long run, F-35B equipped light carriers can be deployed around the globe as an option between a missile cruiser or two and a full carrier battle group. On a strategic scale that could be cheaper and more versatile.
The cost was always going to be similar in the long run because the cost of running the whole aviation arm of Lockheed is rammed down into the contract.
Mainly, stretching the delivery schedule to reduce the government’s cash flow requirements, forcing fewer aircraft to take the allocation of the program’s various fixed costs, and eliminating the economies of scale. That always happens too.
Re-designing/modifying a land based aircraft to be carrier based is VERY complicated. It’s possible to launch some types from carriers under certain conditions, but landing one? Nuh uh.
I was under the impression that the design compromises came from first designing what amounts to the finest STOVL stealth strike fighter that anyone could conceive of, and then modifying that design to make land and carrier based versions.
On the improved capabilities of a F-35B equipped LCA:
The article then goes on to propose several ways to expand the capability of the F-35B. In short, it proposes aerial tanker and airborne radar variants of the V-22 Osprey, as well as other upgrades for the F-35B weapon systems and LHA carriers. Basically, enough to make LHA mini carrier groups capable of fighting independently and on the front lines.
I find the ideas somewhat compelling, since a couple dozen F-35Bs could make a big difference in some small scale regional conflicts (think the air campaign against Libya) where it just isn’t worth deploying a whole carrier battle group. On the other hand, it’s essentially proposing several more procurement programs to fill the gaps in several previous gigantic clusterfuck procurements (F-35 itself, plus the V-22, and the new LHA…)
What the hell, I’ll procrastinate more on this subject. Have a couple of recent articles:
The USMC is developing “distributed STOVL operations” as a strategy to use the F-35B. Basically, it sounds like they want to take advantage of the flexibility of a STOVL aircraft, and operate it from unimproved airstrips. Practically anywhere that you can deliver a truck or helicopter load of munitions and fuel with a straightish length of road can be an airbase. That’s possible but far less interesting with the Harrier II , where such operations could be halted by any tinpot dictator with a few rusty 3rd gen Soviet fighters.
There is more grousing with the continued high price of the engines for the latest batch of F-35s. “When asked about the challenges of lacking leverage on F-35 engine costs, Gen Bogdan has repeatedly lamented that a sole-source environment limits the ways a programme manager can “motivate” a supplier to drive costs out of a programme.” Which illuminates a number of ways that the F-35 program’s costs are ballooning. It seems to me that in previous decades, there were at least one or two competitors. The only competition Lockheed Martin faces is with some of the smaller air forces that have considered dropping out of the JSF program and instead purchase upgraded 4th gen fighters.
There was a competing engine (the F136) being developed for years, made by GE/Rolls-Royce. It was on a later development schedule, so had some improvements over the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, along with providing some competition and insurance against major design flaws. The air force wanted to use the F136 money on other parts of the JSF program–General Bogdan was instrumental in getting the funding for it cancelled by Congress.
Now of course, there’s no WAY anybody could have predicted that flaws and weight problems would crop up on the F135, and it’s just SO unfortunate that there’s no competition, so how can he, as head of the F-35 program, be expected to stick to costs requirements when the engines just keep getting more expensive?
It is my understanding that for a pure air superiority role the F-35 is ten times stealthier than the F-22, or at least that is what an USAF general implied in a 60 minutes segment recently when he repeated that the F-35 is radar invisible for 10 times the distance of anything else in the world.
That was likely hyperbole and it is quite unlikely that the F35 would be superior un pure air superiority than the F22. If that’s the case, then there shouldn’t be an F-22 since it’s supposed to be an air superiority fighter.
“From the front quarter the Raptor’s 0.0001 square meter Radar Cross Section (RCS) and the Lightning II’s 0.001 square metres make them difficult targets.”
Note the extra 0 in the F-22 RCS.
ACHTUNG PDF!
“According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 sqm, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015 sqm, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22.”
Perhaps the F-35 is 10 times stealthier than the F-22 in non-frontal aspect but so far, I’ve encountered nothing that suggested it and it would be quite strange for the F-22 to go from being 10 times stealthier than the F-35 to 10 times less stealthy when viewed from equivalent angles.
That PDF does mention that the coating on the F-35 is less maintenance-intensive than that on the F-22 but A) that seems like a minor consideration in aircraft that cost more than 100M$ B) the F-22 is apparently getting that coating (http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Coatings+Applied+to+F22/article21321.htm) C) If I understand correctly, shaping matters a lot more than coating when it comes to stealth
Not having vectored thrust or supercruise the F-35 can’t be classed as a 5th generation aircraft. As a stealth fighter designed to see first/shoot first from long range it can only carry two air to air missiles. The tactic is to fire them and run because the F-35 can’t dogfight with 4th generation vectored thrust fighters at close range. The Navy for some insane little boy reason wants to operate 11 carriers, hard to see funding for that many F-35s that will offer little improvement over the already outclassed Superhornet.
Look at all the money we piss away on sexy exotic weapons we then use to attack the weakest countries on earth. Shame on us.
So far, that’s true. But keep in mind that there are only about 200 F-22s, and roughly half that many F-35s have been ordered. There’s a phenomenon in manufacturing known as the learning curve, where cost drops by a fairly predictable rate as production doubles.
So if widget #1 costs $100, and widget #2 costs $90, in all likelihood #4 will cost 10% less, #8 another 10% less, etc. There’s little question that with a few thousand F-35s to be built, the cost you cited above is going to come down considerably over time.
Also, there’s little question that the F-35 is going to be cheaper to operate - it has half the engines of an F-22. Also, the F-35 has a huge advantage in sensors and air to ground capabilities, certainly as large an advantage as the F-22 has in air to air capabilities over the F-35.
No, it is not. Not even close. The main challenge of the F-35 program is that it isn’t three variants of one airplane, like how a 737-900 and 737-800 aren’t all that different. The F-35 variants really should be considered different aircraft, with three different test programs. Making an F-22 into a naval aircraft would be a new airplane.
Sure, lots of people thought it, but it would mean that the Air Force would buy more F-22s, and the Navy and Marines would be stuck with F-18s for the next 20 years. Plus the Marines would have no VTOL aircraft by the end of this decade, making large-deck amphibious ships pretty much a waste of a big ship since it’s main purpose is to have strike aircraft alongside Marines on the same boat.
Plus, people also remembered that the F-22 development program was also a disaster. It’s mind boggling how people have forgotten that. The damn plane had a software crash the first time it flew across the international date line.
The one size fits all philosophy of the F35 strikes me as idiotic. Air superiority requires something like the F22. Ground support something like the A10. STOVL is a really keen idea, but the Harrier is now obsolete. Is there really a STOVL need that justifies its cost? Is the F18A obsolete? Is the F35 carrier version really a lot better than the F18A? Spending a trillion dollars on the F35 program seems to me to be a waste of roughly a trillion dollars. Not as bad as another idiotic war in Iraq, but right up there.
You’re not missing anything, OP. The F-35 is a golden piece of shit that is made of mildewed, fermented stacks of C-notes. Hundreds of 'em. Seriously, even apart from everything else that is wrong with it, who even builds single-engined jets any more ?!
Obviously. But by the time this became apparent there were already orders being placed, Lockheed-Martin subsidiaries hashing stuff out and rolling out the latest prototypes… incoming JOBS and VOTES, in so many words. Past a certain point it becomes impossible to stop a military procurement program, no matter how thoroughly 'tarded. See the M2 Bradley’s development cycle for details, and possibly crippling depression.
Perhaps more to the point : STOVL is a keen idea when you’re strapped for quality airfields. The US has air-conditioned airbases all over the globe. They can borrow, beg or steal more from NATO. What’s the point ?
And, OK, sure, STOVL also means more, cheaper aircraft-carrying boats. But, again, you lot have already got like 80% of *all *full-sized aircraft carriers on the bloody planet, and that’s not counting helo carriers. Maybe plan on using those ?
Snark aside, I also realize than in a conflict with another 1st world power those huge carriers are so many artificial reefs because subs and cruise missiles. I’m still far from convinced “Sucky planes wot can take off a barge !” is the answer here, as opposed to more hunter subs and anti-missile tech. Then again, I still don’t have a Pentagon accreditation, so what do I know ?
That is just a ridiculous conclusion on the F-35. It really isn’t even worth responding to.
But I will point out that there are a handful of advanced single engine fighter aircraft in production, including the Gripen, JF-17, and J-10. Also it must be stated that U.S. military Engine technology is far ahead of any competitor.
And if you want to get rid of big deck amphibs and STOVLs, then you’re basically gutting the entire Marine Corps’ concept of operations - you know, no biggie. Something that is very easily proposed by anyone with no “Pentagon accreditation.”
