JSF under attack

[Ender]

What galls me is that one thing I read said that it was going to have stealth technology and we where going to sell these internationally.

To the best of my knowledge, stealth is our one and only total trump card. Other countries have nuclear weapons and reactors, CWIS systems etc. We are the only ones with stealth. And we are just going to sell it like that?

[Ender]

Also, I'm not a big fan of this being a single engine fighter. Redundancy is key.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I like how a lot of people think the ~$40 million price tag is going to stay that. How quickly did the F-22 (none of this bullshit /A, the whole point is to win back the skies against evil Flanlker) balloon from $90 milllion to 250+?

[Howedar]

Well, a lot of that is the same development cost amortized over a smaller build.

[phongn]

Well, a lot of that is the same development cost amortized over a smaller build.

Yes. Fly-away cost is not $250 million.

[Ma Deuce]

What galls me is that one thing I read said that it was going to have stealth technology and we where going to sell these internationally.

To the best of my knowledge, stealth is our one and only total trump card. Other countries have nuclear weapons and reactors, CWIS systems etc. We are the only ones with stealth. And we are just going to sell it like that?

Well, other countries have been working on aircraft that have stealth features and RAM coating(the Russian Su-47 Berkut comes to mind), but no one else has any true Low Observatable aircraft (the only "true" LO aircraft in service are the F-117 and B-2, the F-22 is not, despite it's "stealth" features. The F-22's competitor, the YF-23, was actually stealthier, but the YF-22 won out because it had much better handling and manuverability). As for exporting stealth aircraft, the US once offered to export the F-117 to Britain, but they wern't interested. In one of his last acts as President, Clinton promised Israel if they so desired, they would be the first in line recieve F-22s when they became available for export (:banghead:), and it looks like the IDF is indeed interested in acquiring some.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Well, a lot of that is the same development cost amortized over a smaller build.

Yes. Fly-away cost is not $250 million.

Still, I doubt its still 90 million, and there's no way JSF will stay 40 million, especially if you don't use the fly away cost.

The F-22's competitor, the YF-23, was actually stealthier, but the YF-22 won out because it had much better handling and manuverability).

I heard the biggest reason the F-22 one was the YF-23 was too much of a technological leap.

As for exporting stealth aircraft, the US once offered to export the F-117 to Britain, but they wern't interested. In one of his last acts as President, Clinton promised Israel if they so desired, they would be the first in line recieve F-22s when they became available for export (:banghead:), and it looks like the IDF is indeed interested in acquiring some.

Talk about overkill.

[Rubberanvil]

The F-22's competitor, the YF-23, was actually stealthier, but the YF-22 won out because it had much better handling and manuverability).

I heard the biggest reason the F-22 one was the YF-23 was too much of a technological leap.

Politics played a very big part in the decision(sp) as well.

[Ma Deuce]

The F-22's competitor, the YF-23, was actually stealthier, but the YF-22 won out because it had much better handling and manuverability).

I heard the biggest reason the F-22 one was the YF-23 was too much of a technological leap.

Politics played a very big part in the decision(sp) as well.

In any case, both aircraft met all the USAF's requirements, but the F-22 was indeed more maneuverable than the YF-23. For example, the YF-23 did not have thrust vectoring like the F-22, and it's F-117-style tail surfaces, while quite stealthy, did not offer the same degree of control and agility as the F-22's more conventional arrangement.

[darthdavid]

I think the yf-23 looked much cooler, but teh raptor is still l33t.

[darthdavid]

Oh and the JSF is kinda stoopid. We've got helecopters for the close in stuff, we've got the YF-22 and numerous other aircraft for Anti-Air and we've got arse loads of various other insundry aircraft for other purposes. So it's basically useless bloated crap.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Oh and the JSF is kinda stoopid. We've got helecopters for the close in stuff,

Wrong. The F-35 has way better performance of course then choppers that fly at a few hundred kilometers at a few hundred feet. The F-35 can get into an area faster farther away and get out faster All choppers have for self defense is typically a few Stingers, even for A-t-G the F-35 would still probably have AMRAAMs. And the F-35 is going to carry a wide variety of weapons-a helocopter basically has ATGMs and rockets in most cases.

we've got the YF-22 and numerous other aircraft for Anti-Air and we've got arse loads of various other insundry aircraft for other purposes. So it's basically useless bloated crap.

Only ~280 IIRC F-22s are going to be built, something else is needed. As for all those other aircraft, almost all are 20+ years old and will be 30+ by the time the F-35 actually arrives, never mind when it is scheduled to be replaced.

[Vympel]

What is this 'fly-away' cost? Development money is still money. It still comes out of your pocket. As far as I'm concerned, it's $250 million per. And rising.

On, and the original F/A-22 cost given was $35 million.

[Tsyroc]

I think the yf-23 looked much cooler, but teh raptor is still l33t.

Didn't the YF-23 have a higher "dry" top speed than the YF-22.


Plus I think they should have left the YF-22's name as Lightning II instead of going with the JP bandwagon raptor name, even if it's appropriate for a fighter aircraft.

[The Kernel]

What is this 'fly-away' cost? Development money is still money. It still comes out of your pocket. As far as I'm concerned, it's $250 million per. And rising.

On, and the original F/A-22 cost given was $35 million.

It makes sense to break down how much we spent on F-22 development and seperate that from the actual material cost of building an F-22. The "fly-away" cost is just that; the cost of the aircraft once you factor out R&D. You have to factor out R&D since those are sunk costs that have already been encured by the armed forces, and regardless of how many F-22's we order, those costs will still exist.

[Chardok]

Pfft. I kep SAYING we should've picked boeing, goddammit, but does the government listen to me? NO! everyone knows that the boeing plane would have been underweight and on budget with no glitches. I can't prove this because it didn't really happen, so I can say things like that with impunity.

Vympel, I know we've discussed this before, but that lift fan frightens the hell out of me, and I think that thing is going to be a BIG problem later on. Mark my words, that lift fan, as complicated as it is will end up keeping that STOVL variant on the ground for the first year or more of it's service life. We can only hope that those grounding will result in a kickass bird ala the Blackhawk (Remember how much THAT thing was grounded?) and I betcha that that monster is part of the reason we running into these overruns. Of course, that's blind, stinking conjecture at this point, but still...





Shoulda picked Boeing, shoulda picked boeing *Plugs ears* LAA LAA LAA!!!

[PainRack]

Okay, if not the F-35, assuming the US political situation allows for imports of foreign, even Russian models, is there even any other aircraft on the table that even remotely matches what the F-35 can offer?

After all, its multi-role ability, night nav, range, speed and maneveurability, so far as I know, matches any current or new fighter model coming out of Europe and Russia.

[Vympel]

Okay, if not the F-35, assuming the US political situation allows for imports of foreign, even Russian models, is there even any other aircraft on the table that even remotely matches what the F-35 can offer?

After all, its multi-role ability.

Standard night nav, range, speed and maneveurability, so far as I know, matches any current or new fighter model coming out of Europe and Russia.

You're answering your own question, really. "Matches" is exactly the word- it's about the same, performance wise, as the Eurocanards, by some estimates. It's advantage is some degree of stealth if it's not carrying any ordnance on its hardpoints. But let's make it absolutely clear: the F-35 is *not* an air superiority heavy fighter like the F-15, Su-27 series, or F-22.I'll summarize some points from an article I posted a while ago:

Against the F-35 JSF, the Sukhoi has:

- thrust advantage, of prime importance in the kinematics game that is BVR combat

- 10 tonnes of internal, drag free fuel; meaning the Sukhoi pilot will, unless operating at extreme range (where external fuel tanks can be used), be able to convert more fuel into energy

- the Sukhoi will therefore, given a proper pilot, enter a WVR fight with more energy than an F-35. With thrust-vectoring thrown into the mix, and assuming equal WVR missiles and helmet mounted sights, the F-35 is not coming out smelling like roses

- the Sukhoi has the advantage in both thrust-to-weight ratio and wing-loading, making the JSF double inferior. With its canards and TVC nozzles, it will generally be able to obtain a firing solution quicker

- Exact quote: "Because the JSF is designed within the kinematic performance class of the F/A-18 and F-16 [obviously, hence it's export popularity so early in the program- Vym] it is right in the middle of the performance envelope of aircraft the Sukhoi was designed to kill"

- BVR, the Sukhoi will again kinematic advantage, which may be exploitable on the outer edges of engagement radii, gainign seperation out of the missile launching envelope of JSF faster- as a heavy fighter, it has the extra thrust/fuel to play games the JSF can't

- A clean JSF will have the advantage of a low forward quarter radar signature, which will significantly degrade the Sukhois massive power/aperture radar advantage (and the author is talking the N011M 'Bars' PESA radar here), but, even if it detects the Sukhoi first, it will have lots of trouble effecting an intercept- it's not a hot supersonic performer, so it'll use generous amounts of afterburner.

- in that case, the JSF exposes itself both to detection and tracking by the ever-improving IRST technology (Russia has a competent infrared systems industry, with companies unveiling thermal imagers competetive with European technology- single chip TIs in 320x256 res, suitable for missile seekers and IRSTs), with the threat missiles being long-burn heatseeking missiles like the R-27ET, or in the future, R-77T and missiles imaging infared seekers similar to that used on ASRAAM.

- also, in the side/aft sectors, the JSF is not nearly as stealthy, and so may be vulnerable to to an active or semiactive radar homer. It's radar emissions might also make it vulnerable to a passive kill by R-27P or R-77P radiation seeking AAMs. True, the JSF radar employs LPI technology (low probability of intercept), but missile shots require higher update rates than other modes, and so favor the ARM. Midcourse guidance on the R-77 series may also make temporary loss of the JSFs radar emissions not that big a deal. Russian AAM doctrine is firing pairs of missiles: 1 radar seeker, 1 heat seeker (R-27R/R-27T currently). Defense against one does not guarantee defense against the other.

Keep in mind these arguments are made with regards to post-2010 technology/environment- with a view to asking what a future Su-27 will be equipped with- I can say with confidence that all of these are definite future additions, if they're not already there (the N011M is already there, the R-27P is already there, the R-77T is in development, the imaging infrared technology is coming, and they've had excellent WVR weapons since the 1980s. New engines are also coming- the AL-41F1 140kN engine, a derivative of the 175kN AL-41F desinged to fit in the Su-27 engine bays, and post-2010 the first Russian AESA radars will be ready, having been in development for the new fighter program.

Yes, that is another thing- what about about the PAK FA? The Russian in service date of 2012 is extremely optimisitc, yes, and it'll probably come out sometime after, but it *will* come out. What then? Goodbye huge Flanker RCS (which researchers have already reduced by half with application of RAM- another thing to think about), but no need to say goodbye to the rest, seeing as how it's going to be a Flanker sized aircraft.

[The Yosemite Bear]

you know I saw this and I thought that someone was invading Japan....

great let's see the land of capitalism and overly complex military hardware is being invaded by China. Oh, cool we get to see mecha get smacked down in Real life!

[Vympel]

JSF costs balloon again

The program cost has jumped from $199 billion to $244 billion. Oh, and it's now a 12-year, not 11-year, program.

And the per-unit cost is a SCREAM- $37 million each. Yeah. Right. Maybe they should look at how much an F-16C Block 60 costs.