F-35 to do the job of the A-10?

[Wes]

I'm sure people b)(&*89ed when the A-10 and F-14 were being built.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

nope not really. You have to thinkabotu the time period. The only thing that pised people off about the tomcat was

1-price

2-Tf30 P412 engine.

The plane UNLIKE the hornet could outdo its predecesor the phantom in just about EVERTHING. Also the navy was faced with either the F11B or the F14...until admiral conoly had the balls to say the F11B was a POS and the F-14 was born. (F-111s cant do fleet defence...crap phantoms can do better!)

ONe more thing about yhow commonality makes the navy suffer...the navy always WANTS 2 engine planes...the JSF has one....considering how it has no provisions for a sidewiner( i also read in a book that the internal carriage cant accomodate them well either since it blocks the ir seekerhead) and how it does not have a gun...this makes it INFERIOR to the proposed and tested A-7F SUPERSONIC corsair!

Ive said it ebfore and said it again...planes which replace older planes shoujld be BETTER not have one feature that is better. The JSF is a sample plane to m whos main selling point is OoOoOoO stealth. oh yea nda you cant dogfitght with an AMRAAm. Sure chances arwe JSF pilots would never get into a knifefight since the CAp fihters would ahev eliminated the threatr but crap happens.

A-7-Axed A-7F supersonic corsair-F-18-JSF

holy crap the strike fighter pilots in the USN now will know how tomcat pilots feel!

and evben though peolpe might have bitched abou the tomcat and thunderbolt...to this day there is no plane that can full well replace them and OUTdo them in ALL categories....i gbuess those days were the days of the teen fighters...back when fighters could knowck the crap out of thei prededecessors/

[Coota0]

Having good rear visibility is another lesson that aircraft designers seem to forget between wars.

Can we assume that the VF-1 Valkyries have rearward looking cameras, then, because I think that those planes have crap as far as rearward vision goes too?

Weird, because the VF-0 has raised bubble canopy.

No, I think they just have crap for rear vivibility

[Coota0]

Anecdote time:

F-14 pilot (maybe the RIO) shotdown in Iraq. Iraqi's literally chasing him down in a truck, but an A-10 comes in and nigh-vaporizes the truck from behind with its cannon, yards away from the pilot, saving him so he could be rescued soon thereafter. Couldn't do that with a bomb, blast radius would have likely killed the F-14 pilot. Guns==real fast, real accurate. CAS is about operating CLOSE to friendlies. You can use a 4,000lb LGB when you're in the middle of nowhere, or hundreds of yards away from "the good guys". But not when you're talking about second-by-second changes in the situation. Only a gun can be aimed that fast, without having to worry about collateral damage, etc.

Heard that story too, I'm pretty sure it was the RIO.

[Druna Skass]

Was that ugly looking Boeing one any better than the F-35?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I think the X-32 was only faste thats it. Beats it in the ugly category though.

[David Hingtgen]

Heck no, F-32 was inferior in most all aspects. It would have been faster, since Boeing wanted to change it to a delta-winged design for the actual in-service model. (A "minor" change according to Boeing--yeah, and changing a 747 to a delta-wing would be another "minor" change for Boeing) And had it been selected, the Navy would have asked for a Super-Duper Stealth Hornet the next day. No way they'd allow that sailor-sucker on board.

Anyways---I'm betting (like 99% confident) F-117's are much stealthier than F-35's. Certainly has higher IR, and rear and frontal RCS. F-117's were designed for PURE stealth. It's payload is tiny, but it's very very good at what it does.

Ok, here's the scenario as I see it:

F-35's flat-out aren't designed nor intended for a dogfight, ever. No rear vision, no gun, no Sidewinders. So it's for BVR AMRAAM launching on day 1 of the war. Well, F-22's can do that a heck of a lot better. If we need air superiority, F-35's are not going to be the plane of choice. F-15/16/22 will do that.

So now we're on day two, where we load them up with external stuff and toss their stealth. Well, now they're like an F-16, but less agile and less able to defend themselves. Some more range and payload, if stuffed to the gills, but nothing worth writing home about compared the 1,000 F-16's we've already bought and paid for. But hey, we can launch them from carriers! Well, now we've got more Super Hornets than we know what to do with, with a pretty darn big payload, 2 engines, and notably more stealthy than any other fighter but the "stealth" fighters.

So what's the point of having them? They're multi-role, but they're not so great at either one. The F-15E works, because it's an AWESOME fighter, and an AWESOME bomber. The F-16 and F-18's are smaller, but equally good fighters with the latest electronics, and top-of-the-line fighters.

They could be used as a NEW role for a STOVL plane, to COMPLEMENT the Harrier. But it's not really good enough to replace anything in any role, and certainly not everything in every role. While the Super Hornet isn't the best choice for fleet defense or an interceptor, you can't deny that it's a very good strike fighter and dogfighter (though the range still sucks). But the F-35's got nothing notable.

Edited February 26, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[imode]

Gah, I had a nice reply, but I pressed backspace and lost it all.

Too lazy to retype the whole damn thing now. Maybe later.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

ahh JSF....I dub thee...the SUCK!

man the AF1117 would have been much better!(naval knighthwak with supersonic capability. gun and missles along with standard usual LGBs.)

[Anubis]

Damn, this is looking like one program they can excise. Supplementing the harriers is a good thing, but it needs a gun if it is going to replace them. Let the AF have F-22's, F-16's, and F-15E's. Call it good. The airframe of the F-16 is good. The jet may not be very maintenance friendly, but it does it's job. There's no denying that. Every jet has it's maintenance headaches. I've heard horror stories about F-14's though, so I guess I should have been thankful. This one seems like the costs and trade-offs do outweigh the real benefit. The F-22 on the other hand would be quite useful.

[That NOS Guy]

Let's face it the F-35 is going to be a hard lesson in modern air combat/warfare. I absolutely love pencil pushers giving generals and admirals nothing to work with then expecting mass force projection.

I still can't believe theres no gun on the bastard, that's the heart and soul of a combat plane.

And not to nitpick or anything but wasn't Saki against Wildcats on that day? I was over Gudalcanal, and the Hellcat wasn't in service at the beginning of that campaign.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I say CAN the JSf altogether, divert funds to the marines and NAvy to develop a advanced tactiacal strike fighter with emphasis on outdoing the tomcat and nuclear strike and bombing capability surpassing the intruder, making all Fa-18 F squadrons diverted to the FAGS(fighter attack guyscommunity aka F-18A/C pilots) and letting the airforce continue its block 60 upgrades to the F-16F and such!

badqass? and more capable US military? I say YES! oh yhea did i forget to mention advanced stealth self excorting CAS emphasis gun laden harrier replace,ent? o i just did!

[David Hingtgen]

Want a truly kick-a$$ and cheap to design multi-role plane? F-15E/ACTIVE. Hyper-agile high-speed strike fighter. No stealth, but rocks in all other categories. Or, taking advantage of their overall lower weight, F-15C/ACTIVE's fpr dedicated air-to-air. We're not getting enough F-22's to replace the -15, might as well upgrade the -15 fleet. The great thing about ACTIVE nozzles, is that you can retrofit it to any plane with F100, or F110 engines. Which is most fighters. And there's certainly no lack of F-18 stabs to convert to F-15 canards.

Harrier replacement? F-35 WITH A GUN. A big one. And maybe a bubble canopy. (C'mon, it can't be that hard to retrofit--the Sea Harrier had its seat raised a few inches and a bubble canopy added, to give much improved visibility over the first attack Harriers) It was subsequently adopted for the AV-8B, too.

Anything else, that delta-winged F/A-22 poposal. The F-16XL rocked, even if it wasn't chosen. Now imagine an F/A-22XL. Could even surpass a Strike Eagle.

Edited February 26, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[mikeszekely]

I'm not saying that the JSF should replace anything (least of all a dedicated FIGHTER) because god-forbid we end up having to fight an enemy with a Rafale or a Eurofighter. But as a front-line stealth attacker, which is obviously the direction that they want to take it, a cannon is useless. The whole point of this thread was the F-35's role as CAS, not air superiority.

Going up against Rafale's doesn't sound too farfetched to me. I mean, I know Iraq was fielding a few Dassault Mirages, and I think North Korea might have a few too. If France/Dassault is still being less than selective about who they sell fighters too, I could believe that the Rafale could end up in hostile hands.

Of course, the F-35 isn't supposed to go up against the Rafale. That's supposed to be the F/A-22's job. If I recall right, someone in this thread likened the F-35 to a more maneuverable F-117... and suprise, that's exactly what the F-35's primary mission is supposed to be! The standard load for an F-35 is two JDAM's and two AMRAAMs, although I heard that the Navy wants it to carry a GBU-31, and the Marines want it to carry a GBU-32. I assume F-35s carrying those will do so in place of some or all of their missiles.

The gun issue? Last time I checked, the F-35A (USAF version) will in fact carry an internal gun. A gun pack was developed to be carried by the F-35B (USMC version) and F-35C (Navy version) in place of one of the JDAMS. Maybe that's not the best setup for dogfighting, but I'm sure you'll all agree that it's better than no gun.

Oh, and as for the USMC and USAF using the F-35B for CAS, where stealth isn't as important, the F-35 was designed to carry some weapons externally. Oh, and again, the way I read the original post, the F-35 isn't going to replace the A-10. The way I read it, the A-10 is going to get a nice upgrade, and the F-35B will be used in tandem with the A-10 for CAS.

At the end of the day, I kinda like the F-35. Sure, it would have been a lot better if many different contracts went out to create specific planes for specific duties. But I definately think that Lockheed did the best they could with the limits imposed on them for the JSF design. Even if you don't like the F-35, I think we can agree that it's not Lockeed's fault, but the fault of the powers that be who wanted their specific requirements in a common, affordable design.

Oh, and David, what delta F/A-22 are you talking about? The X-44, or something else? And about those upgraded F-15s, I think we are supposed to keep a few of them around, for just the reason you named- only 339 F/A-22s to go around.

[mikeszekely]

I say CAN the JSf altogether, divert funds to the marines and NAvy to develop a advanced tactiacal strike fighter with emphasis on outdoing the tomcat and nuclear strike and bombing capability surpassing the intruder

Which would be great, except that it implies that the F-35 is supposed to replace the Tomcat. And that's just not the case. Success or failure of the F-35 is moot- the Navy went with the F/A-18E and F to replace the Tomcats. If they were really interested in having an ATF with emphasis on outdoing the Tomcat, they might have given more serious thought to Lockheed's AFX

[mikeszekely]

Original A-12 program became the SR-71, the most recscent A-12 was the Avenger, a Naval Aircraft program, NOT USAF, designed to be a stealth replacement for the A-6.

Originally the Navy wanted a non-stealth aircraft to replace both the F-14 and the A-6, but they gave that up and launched an ATA program, which resulted in the A-12 Avenger II. In a 1985-86 agreement, though, the USAF was going to buy a number of A-12s to replace the F-111 and F-15E, and in turn the Navy was going to buy a carrier version of the winning ATF to replace the F-14.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

had the NAvy had gone along with ASF-14 tomcat 21 or quickstrike...they would have a fighter that surpassed even the original tomcat..but also the A-6~! Not to mention relative upgrades to full quickstrike standard or tomcat 21 would have bneen a lot cheaper than buying a stup[id hornet.

IN terms of JSF it still doesnt boge well for me...sure when I first heard about it in high school I thoguht ti woudl be the take all names multitrole flick of the switch ass kicker..but now this is not so. It cant even outmanuever an F-16 and like I said stealth aint worth crap in a dogfight. Id actually feel pissed if I was flying the F-16F and got demoted to the JSF. Now if the JSF had a dedicated ACM suite and could outspeed and outturn the viper, then I would love the plane. But it cant and for that reason its stupid to be somewat a replacement. In terms of harrier I agree with David...a JSF bubble retrofit and gun with sidewinder provisions on external ports would be kick ass.

the F-15 ACTIV idea is actually cool. I love that design and it seems awesome. IN some ways I like the F-15 better than the raptor since its a classic plane and for its time had so much raw power and could run and gunw ith teh best of them til this day....also since its a lot more of a challenge to fly using conventional flight controls and not relying on stealth...so its not as easy which is awesome to me.

Another Idea I had was to take the Yf23 out of storage, and add provisions and retest it for qualifications as a next gen naval ATF. It doesnt have as much technological stuff compared to the raptor I believe so maybe it would be cheaper and it could certainly haul the stupid hornets ass AND possibly carry phoenix missles internally saving a shitload of drag. Not to mention it was naturalyl stealthy in radar and IR and highly manueverable and fast. Theres a reason its in storage right?

[ewilen]

Where are the data to support the claim that the JSF wouldn't do as well as an F-16 in a dogfight? I'm talking primarily maneuverability, but feel free to bring up the armament/avionics/etc. Consider that turning may become less important as helmet mounted sights and off-boresight missiles become prevalent.

Besides, the JSF's primary role is not interception or air superiority. The real question is, between now and the early part of the JSF's service, will we have sufficient aircraft in the interceptor and air superiority roles to meet our needs? I think we do, and if so, we don't need to sweat the JSF's air-air abilities much more than the A-10's or the B-52's. (I also think that the most important element of air supremacy for the foreseeable future will be suppression of enemy air defenses.)

I'm also wondering about the comparative ranges of the JSF and F-16 with equivalent strike payloads. Feel free to trade weaponry for external fuel tanks as needed on either platform.

[Druna Skass]

Want a truly kick-a$$ and cheap to design multi-role plane? F-15E/ACTIVE. Hyper-agile high-speed strike fighter. No stealth, but rocks in all other categories. Or, taking advantage of their overall lower weight, F-15C/ACTIVE's fpr dedicated air-to-air. We're not getting enough F-22's to replace the -15, might as well upgrade the -15 fleet. The great thing about ACTIVE nozzles, is that you can retrofit it to any plane with F100, or F110 engines. Which is most fighters. And there's certainly no lack of F-18 stabs to convert to F-15 canards.

Beautiful plane indeed. I've always wondered why they haven't decided to upgrade the F-15s as a stopgap untill the F/A-22 get into full production, and last I heard production was lagging.

[imode]

Gah, I come back only to find that Mikes and Ewilin have hit all my main points already!

One thing I do want to stress however, is that a lot of you complain about the JSF replacing the F-14, which was not the original intent. The replacement for the F-14 was the super hornet. The F-35 was made to compliment the hornet and replace the A-6 which, I think we can all agree, is far past its prime.

I also want to stress that the ability to launch from a carrier will probably start to play a major role. Looking at gulf war II, we saw exactly how many of our "allies" let us launch attacks from our airfields based in their countries. A few of them wouldn't even let our planes fly over their airspace. If the offending country has a coastline, we can park 4.5 acres of sovereign American territory right on their doorstep and strike them quickly and repeatedly.

I also don't see why an F-16 will completely totally out-maneuver the F-35 as some of you seem to claim. Even if it can, as some of you have mentioned, the F-35's primary air-to-air capabilities lie in BVR attacks, and thus don't require the maneuverability that a close-in fighter like the F-16 has.

IN some ways I like the F-15 better than the raptor since its a classic plane and for its time had so much raw power and could run and gunw ith teh best of them til this day....also since its a lot more of a challenge to fly using conventional flight controls and not relying on stealth...so its not as easy which is awesome to me.

I can see here you're already letting your nostalgia factor get in the way of better judgment. Your claim that they should "just build more F-117s!" probably illustrates this much better. While the F-117 is a great plane, it's got a couple things going against it. First of all, it's expensive. VERY expensive in fact. Not only is the plane expensive, taking care of a stealth aircraft with its fancy radar absorbing coat of paint also eats a lot of money as well. Now, if F-15's were so damn good, then maybe we should just buy two F-15's instead. Probably save us a few million too. But no, I don't see you saying "CAN THE F-117. IT IS THE SUCK". You realize that the two planes are built for two different purposes, and that regardless of cost, the F-117 is a good airplane that is perfect for what it does. You know you like the F-117, admit it. Oh, and by the way, last I checked, an F-117 didn't have any guns either.

Let's face it the F-35 is going to be a hard lesson in modern air combat/warfare. I absolutely love pencil pushers giving generals and admirals nothing to work with then expecting mass force projection.

Lessons have been learned, but not quite exactly the ones you are thinking of. We learned it in World War II when Germany began deploying jet-powered aircraft and primitive cruise-missiles out of nowhere. Just think, had the war started 5 years later, we may have seen Me-262's against Spitfires and Hurricanes. Years later, the same thing happens again. We think we're safe at 80,000 feet and then a missile launched from the ground shoots down a U-2. It's easy to say, "what we got now is good enough", but what happens when one day some nutjob invents a shoulder fired missile that can shoot down a B-52 50,000 feet up? The United States didn't become the world's only superpower by constantly relying on 30 year old designs and concepts. In order to stay ahead of the pack we'd had to make changes; to advance and take risks.

I like the F-35 and I'm really excited about it's potential (remember guys, 4 more years till deployment, lots of things can change). I'm not saying the F-35 is a panacea aircraft, but we should all wait and see its performance in actual combat before so quickly condemning it back to the drawing board.

[Anubis]

imode's points are quite good ones as well.

[ewilen]

The F-35 was made to compliment the hornet and replace the A-6[...]

Okay, I know that spelling flames are lame, but this sentence has me imagining the start of a typical day on the USS Ronald Reagan something like this:

F-35: "Good Morning, Mr. Hornet! My, don't you look Super today!"

F-18E: "Why, thank you. Here's a dollar, kid, go buy yourself some fuel."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compliment

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=complement

Kidding aside , nice post, imode.

[Angel's Fury]

Ewilen, mikeszekely, and imode made good points on the purpose and role of the F-35.

[imode]

The F-35 was made to compliment the hornet and replace the A-6[...]

Okay, I know that spelling flames are lame, but this sentence has me imagining the start of a typical day on the USS Ronald Reagan something like this:

F-35: "Good Morning, Mr. Hornet! My, don't you look Super today!"

F-18E: "Why, thank you. Here's a dollar, kid, go buy yourself some fuel."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compliment

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=complement

Kidding aside , nice post, imode.

Muahaha, you know, I had typed that correctly originally!

When I finally had the urge to retype it after the backspace fiasco, it was 1 in the morning.

[Coota0]

More F-117s aren't the answer. The F-117, carries two bombs, isn't manuverable at all ( about like an A-7) and it's aerodynamically ugly, it has no internal gun, and most importantly it does a different job than the F-35 will. F-117s sneak into a target, at night, past all defenses including fighters, and bomb 1 target with it's entire payload, the F-35 is supposed to be a back up (way back ) fighter, and a strike fighter, as well as close air support.

I keeps talking about making it better than the F-16 and F/A-18 son't just make it stealth. How would an F-117 be better than the F-35? The F-117 is a bomber with the speed and manuverability of an A-7, without the payload, it survives through stealth and only flies at night, it couldn't defend itself or anything else. Also how would it be made SVTOL? It doesn't carry a gun now where would it be places or what would be taken out to make room? How much heavier would it be to navalize the F-117?

The F-35 may not be the answer, but the F-117 isn't either.

Edited February 26, 2004 by Coota0

[ewilen]

The F-117, carries two bombs, isn't manuverable at all ( about like an A-7) and it's aerodynamically ugly, it has no internal gun, and most importantly it does a different job than the F-35 will.

I may be mistaken, but I believe the F-35 is intended to do the job of the F-117 as well as other stuff.

[David Hingtgen]

Yes, the F-35 is mainly a BVR fighter. That's my primary argument as to why it's pointless. We've got LOTS of those, and the Raptor's coming, and will be way better at it.

F-35 is supposed to be (nowadays) some sort of F-117/F-16/Harrier replacement. So how is a BVR AMRAAM-launcher a replacement for those? They don't do that, thus the F-35 isn't replacing them very well.

And on day 2 and later (99% of the time) when it's not stealthy and out bombing, it's not really any better than conventional aircraft. F-15E's can carry a heck of a lot more stuff, and we've already got "bought and paid for" tons of Falcons and Hornets.

Also, most F-35's are not STOVL. Our STOVL capabilities won't be increased much overall. Yes, if the USAF bought 1,000 with lift-fans things would be different, but they haven't. USAF ones aren't stovl. USN ones on a carrier are no different than a Hornet on a carrier except for the first day. USMC order is small.

Finally, the military has X amount of money. Instead of using a lot of it on F-35's, we could have just tripled the F/A-22 order, and have an ungodly powerful air superiority force. Then we could send in everything we ever wanted, after the first hour. Day 2? F/A-22's inherently carry more stuff, being bigger. And stay stealthy with an almost-decent internal bombload. Or, if you lose the stealth---they can carry more than the F-35. Bigger planes carry more stuff. Why spend billions developing what is basically a mini-F22, when you could just buy more F-22's?

As for the delta-winged F/A-22---the FB-22, and yes it's very similar to the X-44. But the X-44 is mainly a tailless manueverability experiment which looks like an FB-22. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...craft/fb-22.htm FB-22's lose vectoring (kinda pointless on a bomber, less stealthy and greater IR signature---better to remove it if not necessary), X-44's keep it.

Edited February 26, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[imode]

F-35 is supposed to be (nowadays) some sort of F-117/F-16/Harrier replacement. So how is a BVR AMRAAM-launcher a replacement for those? They don't do that, thus the F-35 isn't replacing them very well.

F-117 quick independent strike, first day bomber -> F-35 same role

F-16 maneuverable, close-in strike fighter -> F-35 maneuverable BVR strike fighter

Harrier VTOL strike fighter -> F-35 VTOL strike fighter

The air force version is not outfitted with STVOL primarily because they take off from mile long runways. No one really needs these capabilities except for the Marines. Now, the interesting thing I just read on Lockheed-Martin's webpage is that the F-35A (the air-force version) includes an internal gun. The USMC version can be equipped with an external gun, to which you'll probably say "external = not stealthy", but if the plane is using an external gun to perform CAS, that means you're already quite low to the ground, and at this point stealth will do you diddley.

And on day 2 and later (99% of the time) when it's not stealthy and out bombing, it's not really any better than conventional aircraft. F-15E's can carry a heck of a lot more stuff, and we've already got "bought and paid for" tons of Falcons and Hornets.

But it's cheap, and we're already replacing the F-15 with the F-22. Like the F-117 the F-22 is another expensive plane that illustrates the current downward spiral of America's military. To be sure, they are great planes (even though the Russians claim they have a Mig that can already beat it), but as you also said, the military can only spend X amount. If they continued to build only the F-22 we'd end up with a significantly smaller force in the air, not to mention the only branch of service benefitting from the increased F-22 production would be the Air Force.

[ewilen]

I must say after doing some reading, my enthusiasm for the JSF has waned considerably. But not in relation to the F-22--rather, the JSF program is looking bad to me as it increasingly comes to resemble the (costly, largely unneeded) F-22. Maybe I'm reading too much stuff by (and influenced by) Spinney and Riccioni.

Anyway, about the F-35 as an F-117 replacement. According to this page it can carry bombs internally, thus preserving stealthiness on Day 1 of a campaign. Furthermore, the size of the bomb bays enable it to carry larger weapons internally than the F-22.

Also (according to the same page) the external gun pod for the Navy/USMC versions is designed with stealth in mind and "should allow the aircraft to maintain low observability".

[hellohikaru]

I wonder how useful are the F-35s to allied airforces purchasing them as their next multirole fighter if the plan is to use it as a F-117 replacement.

[Opus]

I couldn't get much info about what's actually being done to the A-10 but I found some interesting links:

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/index.asp

http://www.airforcetimes.com/

Such as this article:

New programs, old standbys

The president’s 2005 budget proposal, delivered to Congress Feb. 2, gives many clues to what the Air Force of the future will look like. The document requests more than $13 billion to buy new aircraft and modify existing fleets.

That money includes $3.6 billion to buy 24 F/A-22 Raptors.

The Joint Strike Fighter program is slated to receive more than $2.5 billion to continue development.

Another $2.5 billion is allotted to purchase 14 C-17 airlifters, and the Air Force has requested close to $306 million to build three CV-22s, a variant of the tilt-rotor aircraft called the Osprey.

Though the F/A-22 and JSF are expected to replace existing fighter and attack platforms, Hornburg said the service should have a contingency plan in case programs are delayed or fail. If necessary, that plan could include buying more F-15s and F-16s, depending on the Air Force’s needs.

“We are beginning … to ask ourselves the question, what if some of our transformational acquisitions don’t arrive on time or for one reason or another simply don’t make it,” Hornburg said. “We’ve got to have a mitigating strategy.”

However, Hornburg cautioned that he did not foresee or predict problems with the programs. The Air Force wants the F/A-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter, he added, noting the service might buy the short-take-off-and-vertical-landing variant of the JSF in addition to the conventional variant to replace the A-10.

“But I have to start thinking about what we do if we don’t get them,” the general said. “I’m going to start thinking about that now, just as a hedge.” But at this point, Hornburg said, “I have no desire to buy more legacy airplanes. I have no plan to buy more F-15s or F-16s.”

Both the F/A-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter have run into difficulties in their development. The Raptor’s setbacks have included slow testing, overheating brakes and late aircraft deliveries from prime contractor Lockheed Martin. Most recently, program officials have battled with more than 2 million lines of software code to get the aircraft’s avionics back on track.

The Pentagon also acknowledged that the Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35, is about 1,000 pounds overweight — a problem faced by many aircraft and one that delayed the program a year. This revelation caused budgeters to move more than $5 billion from production to development accounts to cover the cost overrun, decreasing the number of aircraft the Air Force and Navy can buy in the short run.

Purchasing more legacy aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 has been a matter of heated debate within the military. In recent years, the Air Force has shied away from purchasing them because the service wanted to dedicate the funds to developing next-generation fighters like the Raptor and Joint Strike Fighter.

More than $2 billion has been earmarked for modifications to the B-2, B-1, B-52, F-117, C-5, C-17 and several other aircraft.

Major upgrades to the F-15s, F-16s and A-10s are included in the $2 billion to keep the aircraft relevant, Hornburg said.

The Air Force plans to upgrade F-15Cs with better computers and air-to-ground radars. The F-16 Block 50s, as well as a few Block 40s, also will receive new radars.

The A-10 Thunderbolt, the only Air Force platform dedicated to the close-air support mission, may get datalinks, new engines, new avionics, precision weapons and the next-generation targeting pods, Sniper XR.

“We can’t afford to do that on every existing A-10,” Hornburg said, noting that some Thunderbolts will have to be retired to form a small fleet of A-10s that can do more.

Hornburg said the Air Force is studying how many A-10s it should upgrade and how many it should retire. He expects the results of the analysis by August 2005, in time to create funding requests for the 2006 budget.

[mikeszekely]

I must say after doing some reading, my enthusiasm for the JSF has waned considerably. But not in relation to the F-22--rather, the JSF program is looking bad to me as it increasingly comes to resemble the (costly, largely unneeded) F-22. Maybe I'm reading too much stuff by (and influenced by) Spinney and Riccioni.

Anyway, about the F-35 as an F-117 replacement. According to this page it can carry bombs internally, thus preserving stealthiness on Day 1 of a campaign. Furthermore, the size of the bomb bays enable it to carry larger weapons internally than the F-22.

Also (according to the same page) the external gun pod for the Navy/USMC versions is designed with stealth in mind and "should allow the aircraft to maintain low observability".

While I can't deny that the F/A-22 is a rather expensive plane (with fewer and fewer to be ordered, each fighter gets more and more expensive), unnecessary? While we could probably upgrade a bunch of F-15s for the price of an F/A-22, it's better to have a few of the best than a lot of the second best. With upgrades, the F-15 is a very capable dogfighter, and for that reason, will probably remain in service along with the F/A-22. However, the F-15 is outmatched by some of the newer fighters, including the Eurofighter and the Rafale. And like I pointed out before, France/Dassault seems less selective about who they sell fighters too. It is not unreasonable to assume that US fighters could tangle with Rafale's. The F/A-22 is supposed to be able to take on all comers... if it couldn't, we'd be talking about the F/A-23 Black Widow II today.

As for the F-35, in terms of speed and agility, last I heard it DOES beat the F-16, but not by a whole lot. And since it will have a gun, it can carry fewer larger pieces of ordinance, and the STOVL version seems to work fine (not the mention that adding a fuel tank in the A and C where the lift fan is in a B gives the F-35 a high fuel/weight ratio), it will perform the roles it was designed to do. No, it won't be lightyears ahead of what it's replacing, but I do feel that the F-35 is at least a small improvement.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

thats actually not what I heard mike. It cant outspeed the falcon and certainly cant out turn it g for g not turn into it. I think the air force is doin the rigiht thing by getting F-16s and F-15s as interims till they can get newer planes. Those planes are awesome and very very capable yet. THe JSF on the other hand...Yes I did describe it like an F1117 and it can do a tad bit more....but it certainly cant defend itself well. You have to understand for a multirole plane like its hyped up to be I would expect it to be versatile in the same vein as theF-16 and the hornet. Did everyone forget that the F-16 can mount 6-8 AMRAAMs?! hell even now most of them either have 2 sidewinders, 2 AMRAAM, and bombload or 2AMRAAM, and bombload! the thing fits ona sidewinder point people! IN temrs of my comparison with teh F1117N it would have been supersonic and dogfight capable...but it wasnt that feasible hence it eas canned. Looked awesome though!

THe only thing the JSF has got ove rthe F-16 is stealth...I dont even think it can match its payload. THe JSF has stealth ove rthe reuglar hornet.

IN no way can the JSF replace the F14 i might have implied it bnit I did not mean it. Not evn close...

BUt Like I said when I think multirole I think bad ass can do it all . I think falcon or hornet. a plane that can DO BVR, kill up close, and bom,b and do it all over again. Can the JSF do this? it justifiyable that a plane that only has stealth and a lesser payload and not the air attack capability replace planes that only lack stealth and can do the job with bigger weapons and self excort themselves? I think not. I have alwyas thought this and still do...stealth is the main selling point ofg the amn thing. The marines version cna be weasily converted into a dedicated gun wielding CAS plane. but with the nacy and airforce that damn thing will never be able to do the multirole as well as the falcon orhoenet....only do it less with more evasion.

I think the A-7 is actually more manueverable than the F117. THe FB22 seems liek a great idea. I would afctulaly prefer more F-22s to JSFs. F-22 can do the mission better and can get back. The only dawback is price. NOW when I hear F-22 THAT to me is an ideal F-15/16 replacement. A fighter that can fight, self escort, outturn and outgun the F-16, and F-15, bonb with precision, use STEALTH and make it back home.

Capability should always be chosen over price which is why me david and a few others always bring up in other threads how the super hornet cant beat the F-14 and in this thread hwo the JSF can do SOME things but not the things its all hype dup to be.

bTW they never publicly stated this on TYV but the JSF from the start was to be 70% ground attack. It was never expected to be air superiority BUT why am i complaining? FOr a plane multirole replacing the hornet and falcon YOU need to retain the capabilitties of those 2 fighters into the successor! is this happeneing? hell no!

[David Hingtgen]

>>F-117 quick independent strike, first day bomber -> F-35 same role  

Isn't it supposed to be first day for AMRAAM's, then non-stealthy bomber later on?  Internal carriage seems to max out at 2x 2,000lbs.  Not much at all.  Same as F-117's usually carry. 

>>F-16 maneuverable, close-in strike fighter -> F-35 maneuverable BVR strike fighter

F-16 knife-fighting and max-range AMRAAM's are not the same role at all.  That's like saying F-5's and F-14's have the same role.  Not to mention that F-16's can carry Sidewinders, and more missiles period. 

>>>>Harrier VTOL strike fighter -> F-35 VTOL strike fighter

I'll give you that, as the Harrier is the ONLY thing the F-35 could replace.

>>>>The USMC version can be equipped with an external gun, to which you'll probably say "external = not stealthy", but if the plane is using an external gun to perform CAS, that means you're already quite low to the ground, and at this point stealth will do you diddley.

So why spend the money on F-35's, if all you really want is a VTOL gun for CAS?  Harriers are doing fine with that as is.  F-35 would be good as a "USMC F-117" though, if they use it in that role.

>>>>

And on day 2 and later (99% of the time) when it's not stealthy and out bombing, it's not really any better than conventional aircraft. F-15E's can carry a heck of a lot more stuff, and we've already got "bought and paid for" tons of Falcons and Hornets.

>>>But it's cheap, and we're already replacing the F-15 with the F-22.

We sure as heck aren't replacing F-15E's with F-22's. Strike Eagle will be around for a LONG time.

>>>If they continued to build only the F-22 we'd end up with a significantly smaller force in the air, not to mention the only branch of service benefitting from the increased F-22 production would be the Air Force.

Gotta disagree there. USAF F-15's pretty much single-handedly cleared the air in Desert Storm, to allow Navy and Marine strike planes to do their job. Bunch of F-22's would do the same.

It was easier just to add in my reply to the quote above.

Edited February 27, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hewy David...can teh strike eagle without the bomb pods and Lantinrs bolted on,,,dogfigtht just as well as the F-15C? I know its always touted as a dual role strike fighter but I also heard since it has permanenet CFTs, it cant go accelerate 90 degrees vetical.

I would hate ton think that the dogfighting ability of the strike eagle was like gone..

I do know the eagle itself is an energy fighter BU i just want to know fi the strike ewagle could still turn n burn with the best fo them n such.