F-35 in trouble

[Dinner]

Several numbers are missing because they died in the project or prototype stage or were developed further. For example the F/A-18 is based on a similar plane named YF-17. A competitor for the F-22 was the YF-23 that didn't made it. Though I dunno where all the missing numbers up to the F-104 Starfighter went

The F series of planes replaced the P series planes used in WW2 so some of the early F series just had the P replaced with F. Example the F-104. In the 60's they just started over with the number system.

I have no idea how they came up with the F-117 name in the 80's though.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because the 187 F-22 and some 400+ F-15 we already have should be more then enough for all of our air superiority needs? It's a waste of money to buy more and even the Pentagon agrees.

So you'd stick with obsoleted planes simply because they are cheaper? Cost per F-22 goes down with each plane. You should replace all the F-15s with F-22, because the F-15s are getting up there in age.

[Lonestar]

A lot of the delays and cost over runs are due to spreading production out as widely as possible. Yes, this makes it harder to kill the project politically but it also means a lot of additional costs. Most private manufacturers try to keep costs low and suppliers right next to their factories so that just in time delivery is more possible and so key suppliers can meet with the manufacturer's people when ever a problem comes up. With military contracts though suppliers are deliberately spread out in all 50 states which makes things like just in time delivery or quick trouble shooting difficult to impossible.

In any event to call the F-35 a failure is pure hyperbole. That guy is just whining because one of his golden calves got gored and I'm glad it did because the F-22 really was a complete waste of money. It was originally thought up in the 1970's to fight the USSR but the USSR has been gone for 18 years. The F-22 is no longer needed and is just a waste of money robbing resources from items which are needed more. I mean we've had two wars going on for the better part of a decade now yet the 187 F-22s in service have yet to fly a single combat mission. That more then anything says how useless the F-22 really is.

(1)We don't have 187 F-22s in service.
(2)The F-22 didn't enter IOC until December of 2005...after both the Taliban and the Baathist regime fell. In other words, the kinds of targets it would have bombed(infastructure, air defenses) were gone by the time it entered service.
(2a)In addition to the fact that there has been a dearth of dangerous strike missions since the time it entered service, the F-15 fleet was grounded for a bit, meaning air defense role for the States fell to the F-22, so they wouldn't be going anywhere anyway.

[Lonestar]

I have no idea how they came up with the F-117 name in the 80's though.

During the '70s we gave captured Soviet airplanes "F-113/4/5" designations, so the soviets would think it was another captured warplane being tested out somewhere.

The F-14 was navy only and it was phased out 3-4 years ago, the F-15 performs with in 2%-3% of the F-22 and costs much less plus they've already been bought and paid for so they might as well stick around,

The last F-15 was bought for the USAF over a decade a go, and the flyaway costs for the latest models(for export) are almost the per-unit cost of the F-22.

As I noted in the previous post, the F-25 fleet is already showing serious material fatigue, and in any event you can only upgrade an airframe designed 30 years ago so far.

the F-16 is mainly a ground attack plane which can also dog fight while the F-22 is strictly an air superiority fighter

Bull****.

so they two are designed for completely different tasks (the F-35 is supposed to begin replacing the F-16 in 2011 but the F-16 will remain in service well into the 2020's), while the Marine Corp's F/A-18 is a short take off multiroll fighter-bomber mainly used on carriers (something the F-22 can't do). Besides the Marines just spent billions upgrading the F/A-18 fleet it has so they're good for another 20-30 years and have already been bought and paid for.

The Marines finished buying F/A-18C models in 2000. Do you think a 9 year gap qualifies as "just finished"?

I might add that the F/A-18C was intended to fill the same roles as an F-16, not an air superiority fighter like the F-15 or F-22. The USN is also facing a serious fighter gap, because it's been instructed to not buy any more F/A-18E/Fs in lieu of the F-35C...the prototype of which has not been built.

[Blaupanzer]

F-22s don't bomb targets. They are an air superiority weapon. Until the Taliban unleashes its air force, F-22s can only strafe targets at too high a speed to provide accuracy, or stay home. This is not bull****, Lonestar.

The folks advocating additional production are solely concerned about additional or continued Federal spending in their districts or states. They are not concerned about military applications or needs.

[Dinner]

So you'd stick with obsoleted planes simply because they are cheaper?

That's the whole point, the F-15 is not obsolete. It performs extremely well compared to the F-22 (with in a few percentage points) and the only thing it doesn't have is super sonic cruise but that is hardly a mission breaker. When even the Pentagon says a weapon system is a waste (and they almost never do) then you know it is a waste.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's the whole point, the F-15 is not obsolete. It performs extremely well compared to the F-22 (with in a few percentage points) and the only thing it doesn't have is super sonic cruise but that is hardly a mission breaker.

The definition of obsolete is when you have a plane that can do everything the F-15 can do, but better.

The problem is one of airframes. The planes are getting old, and the older the are, the more you are putting pilot's lives at risk flying them.

[DanS]

The F-35 probably should be canceled too.

But this sounds like a tempest in a teacup created by F-22 supporters.

[Lonestar]

F-22s don't bomb targets. They are an air superiority weapon. Until the Taliban unleashes its air force, F-22s can only strafe targets at too high a speed to provide accuracy, or stay home.

The folks advocating additional production are solely concerned about additional or continued Federal spending in their districts or states. They are not concerned about military applications or needs.

Beg your pardon, F-22s CAN bomb targets. In fact, their extremely high speed and ceiling makes them ideal for strike missions, since they can release the payload so far out.

Like the F-15E, the F-22 is a air superiority that can perform strike missons. Hell, the F-15C can perform bombing missions, the Saudis train it for that all the time.

That's the whole point, the F-15 is not obsolete. It performs extremely well compared to the F-22 (with in a few percentage points) and the only thing it doesn't have is super sonic cruise but that is hardly a mission breaker. When even the Pentagon says a weapon system is a waste (and they almost never do) then you know it is a waste.

Does not, unless you think 8 F-15s getting their ass kicked to one F-22 in Red Flag constitutes "within a few percentage points".

Or said F-15s getting their asses handed to them by Indian Su-30 fighters during exercises with the Indians?

[Dinner]

(1)We don't have 187 F-22s in service.

OK, 141 built as of last May with a total order of 187 planes.

(2)The F-22 didn't enter IOC until December of 2005...after both the Taliban and the Baathist regime fell. In other words, the kinds of targets it would have bombed(infastructure, air defenses) were gone by the time it entered service.

If our goal is to bomb things then we have several planes which will do it much better then the F-22. The F-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter not a fighter-bomber. Sure, you can strap on some laser guided bombs but why? That job can be done cheaper and better by other aircraft.

(2a)In addition to the fact that there has been a dearth of dangerous strike missions since the time it entered service, the F-15 fleet was grounded for a bit, meaning air defense role for the States fell to the F-22, so they wouldn't be going anywhere anyway.

And for that role there will already be 187 F-22. We don't need more, the Pentagon says we don't need more. The only reason some Congressmen are trying to force the military to take planes it doesn't want is because they see it as a make jobs program. We'll skip over the fact that just three months ago Republicans were claiming that government spending doesn't create jobs (but now suddenly IT DOES! ) and instead let's just ask ourselves why would we buy planes the military says it doesn't want or need.

[Dinner]

The F-35 probably should be canceled too.

But this sounds like a tempest in a teacup created by F-22 supporters.

The Navy, Marine Corp, the Royal Navy, and the militaries of seven other countries have already bought F-35s. It's not going to be canceled especially since it is supposed to become the backbone of the Navy's carrier flight groups.

[DaShi]

I demand an F-22 for every family. It's our constitutional right!

[Dinner]

Does not, unless you think 8 F-15s getting their ass kicked to one F-22 in Red Flag constitutes "within a few percentage points".

Or said F-15s getting their asses handed to them by Indian Su-30 fighters during exercises with the Indians?

You know neither of those training excersizes were a real test of abilities. For instance the Indian one simulated an enemy sneak attack so duh the guys sneaking in got the drop but that has nothing to do with how planes perform in a fair fight. True the F-22 is better but not much better and certainly the extreme costs of the F-22 must be factored in.

[Lonestar]

If our goal is to bomb things then we have several planes which will do it much better then the F-22. The F-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter not a fighter-bomber. Sure, you can strap on some laser guided bombs but why? That job can be done cheaper and better by other aircraft.

Cheaper? Almost certainly.

Better? That is a lot more questionable. While the trend for US Conflicts has been air superiority, it hasn't always been so. The US was able to maintain superiority during Gulfwar 1 mostly thanks to the Teen series acquired during the Regan years(not surprisingly, the only aircraft lost to enemy aircraft was a F/A-18). OEF, and a lesser degree OIF, were initiated against countries whose air defenses were negligable. F-22 would be better suited for strike missions against 1991 Iraqi air defenses than what we have now.

And for that role there will already be 187 F-22. We don't need more, the Pentagon says we don't need more.

No, the OSD says we don't need more. There are no studies out there that countradict previous USAF force level requirements. Everyone is just assuming that Gates is right with this because he's so much better than Rummie.

The only reason some Congressmen are trying to force the military to take planes it doesn't want is because they see it as a make jobs program. We'll skip over the fact that just three months ago Republicans were claiming that government spending doesn't create jobs (but now suddenly IT DOES! ) and instead let's just ask ourselves why would we buy planes the military says it doesn't want

Again, OSD says that, not the uniform heads. In fact, we had a Chief of Staff of the Air Force get fired because he was publically disagreeing with Gates over F-22 numbers. Gates(and you) are assuming that all future wars are going to be exactly like they are now: counterinsurgencies.


If we degrade our assets to the point where we have slightly superior equipment but superior training, we may find ourselves in a situation like Vietnam, where we lose a thousand aircraft over the skies, 76 to enemy aircraft. A small number of F-22s(allowing for attrition and accepting that all the aircraft cannot be deployed to the theater at once) would be hard pressed to defend legacy aircraft(F-16s, etc) and interdict enemy strike fighters(Su-30 family, PAK-FAs) being used against US troops.

The Navy, Marine Corp, the Royal Navy, and the militaries of seven other countries have already bought F-35s. It's not going to be canceled especially since it is supposed to become the backbone of the Navy's carrier flight groups.

The F-35C prototype hasn't even been built yet. The backbone of carrier fleets are going to be F/A-18Es for years to come.

In fact, if I were king, I would retire a carrier without a replacement and buy another 400 F/A-18s so we have carrier wings of 90+ again.

[Lonestar]

You know neither of those training excersizes were a real test of abilities. For instance the Indian one simulated an enemy sneak attack so duh the guys sneaking in got the drop but that has nothing to do with how planes perform in a fair fight. True the F-22 is better but not much better and certainly the extreme costs of the F-22 must be factored in.

Red Flag is the most realistic air exercise held anywhere in the world. In fact, those Indian fighter aircraft weren't allowed to show the true extent of their abilities because the sales contract with the Russians stipulated that the Indians couldn't show what their avionics could do during foriegn exercises.