F/A-18E vs. F-35C

[Stoney]

The thing about quantity over quality as an argument is that it relies on the originating force being okay with losing thousands and thousands to get 1 objective. Stalin had no qualms with this, for example. In WW2 spin it how you will, we had the same mentality. "Throw men and equipment at it and hope they job gets done before you run out" doesn't work in the modern world -- at least not with military endavours.

The focus has changed from replacing troops/men to RETAINING troops/men. This is smart as it banks on the combined education they gather as they serve, and reduces overhead/training for replacements to fill in for casualties.


Philosophically speaking, that is...

But what I'm talking about isn't a quantity versus quality issue.  I absolutely see the value in high-quality equipment.  But there's a certain limit.  In a high intensity conflict, we're going to lose aircraft, no matter how high quality they are, and some we'll lose because of the planes breaking, non-combat operational losses, etc.  I'm just not sure that the reduction in aircraft we can buy (because of their extreme price) is going to support our operational need.  I could be wrong.  I have no doubt that the F-22/F-35 would defeat these obsolescing enemy aircraft individually, but it takes more than single combats to win.  They have to be able to persist on the battlefield.

[edit]  I suppose ultimately, what I'm saying is this:  do we need the absolute highest technology available (F-22/F-35) with half the numbers, or a moderately high tech aircraft (say updated F-15/18) and keep the same numbers?  Maybe Eagle or Mace could answer that, as I'm drifting out of my wheel house on this part of the discussion.

[beau32]

Do those f-35s have their RAM on?  Seems like you can see a lot of rivets and seams.

Guess it isn't needed in basic flight-test.

They all have LO (Low Observiable) on them. AF-01, AF-02 and AF-04 are not up to the standard that AF-03, AF-06 and AF-07 are at. AF-01, AF-02 and AF-04 are Flight Science birds in which they test out how the aircraft handles, IE; Max speed, Max G, weapon Pylon testing, Wet runway testing, and so on. AF-03, AF-06, and AF-07 are mission systems birds in which they test all the mission systems like Radar, DAS, and how stealty the F-35 is.

Yes, LO is needed in basic flight-test.

[RTHolmes]

can a F18/15 carry a MW generator inboard with all its associated systems, as well as an inboard weapons bay, while supercruising with the dar profile of a F117?

"fighters" stopped being fighters decades ago when they turned into weapons platforms. BVR missiles were the start, and that was almost 50yrs ago. working tech we have now makes almost everything youre used to obsolete, and its only going to be a few more years before its operational.

this is the C21st gents, keep up!

[Tank-Ace]

Stoney, i think a big reason the F-22 will be effective is because its stealth. You can't hit what you can't see, and since we can shoot from beyond visual range, and shot from an aircraft thats really hard to detect on radar, they can't see us.

[Mace2004]

While I agree that the military deserves the absolute best, I feel that we have gone beyond what we truly need as a free society.

Not sure what you mean here. Building what most people consider to be "absolute best" has served the US very well for decades but have we really built the very best airplanes we can without regard to cost? No, not really, but you do reach a point of diminishing returns as every plane has tradeoffs in the name of cost. Also, just to keep things in perspective, while the F-35 will probably have an actual per unit flyaway cost of closer to $200M versus the F-18E/F's $55M is this increase really extraordinary? The F4 Phantom had a flyaway cost of about $2M in the mid-sixties but the F-14A which came out in the early 70's cost $35M.  In this case, the F-14 did absolutely everything better than the F4 even with the crappy TF-30 engines so was it worth 18 times the cost?  It and the F-15 were the premier air superiority fighters in the world for decades, far longer than any other fighter aircraft in history so yes, history has proven that they were worth the expense.  

It is meant that our country needs more bang for our bucks and we need to be cost effective.

Absolutely.  The switch from twin to single engine is part of the attempt to be cost effective as is the single seat, both are compromises.  I personally disagree with these decisions but there's no doubt they were intended to keep costs down.  The unfortunate result will be the loss of some aircraft to engine failures and less effectiveness in high task load environments.  It's unavoidable but I'm sure there's some number cruncher deep inside of the five sided windtunnel that has figured out that the loss of a few aircraft (and pilots) is cheaper than providing two engines and two aircrew.  It's just the cold hard facts of life.  

How much will we realistically spend per unit?  Is 300 million per unit a more realistic cost?

The $200M figure I quote is based on studies of what the airplane will actually end up costing including amortized development costs and GFE.  The Pentagon's program manager claims a much smaller cost of (IIRC) of something like $120M (which I don't buy).  However, when you consider the difference in price between the F-4 and the airplanes that replaced it I think it's reasonable to consider a four time increase over the F-18E/F as realistic and acceptable.  Of course whether or not it's affordable given the debt being racked up right now is a different question.

At that point is it not better to simply continue a scaled development of the F-35 and bring back the F-22 at a much cheaper per unit cost?  I know the roles are different and the F-22 is not navalized (sp?) but at what point do we risk insolvency of the DoD budget to support the F-35 along with all the rest of the programs?

It's completely unrealistic to consider a navalized version of the F-22, it would be a completely different aircraft (even if it looks similar).  The Navy planned to build it's own version of the F-22 in the late 80's.  The F-22 came out of the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program when the YF-22 beat the YF-23.  One of the reasons the YF-22 won was that it was more adaptable to being built as a carrier fighter called the NATF (Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter).  I never saw the NATF concept itself but I did see its cockpit drawings while at VX-4 in 1990.  Interestingly enough, it had a wing-sweep control.    If you look at the YF-22 and YF-23 it's pretty obvious that the YF-22 airframe was much more suitable to a swing wing than the YF-23 due to the way the air intakes pass upwards through the mid-fuselage area.  Bottom line though is there would have to be major changes to the F-22 to navalize it and that program would also be as expensive as a totally new aircraft program.

[Mace2004]

can a F18/15 carry a MW generator inboard with all its associated systems, as well as an inboard weapons bay, while supercruising with the dar profile of a F117?

"fighters" stopped being fighters decades ago when they turned into weapons platforms. BVR missiles were the start, and that was almost 50yrs ago. working tech we have now makes almost everything youre used to obsolete, and its only going to be a few more years before its operational.

this is the C21st gents, keep up!

The F-35 can't carry any directed NRG weapons of the sort you're talking about either nor can it supercruise.  Yes, EMP generating bombs are possible (although almost as dangerous to our own aircraft as to the NME) but viable directed NRG weapons for aircraft are decades away and present tons of problems not the least of which is simple physics.  Also, "fighters" stopped being fighters decades ago?  Really?  Lots of folks thought missiles meant the end of "fighters" in the 50's and early 60's which led to removal of the guns and the end of ACM training as the services focused on faster and faster missile-armed interceptors.  The Navy's Ault Report proved the fallacy of that argument in the late 60's which led to the creation of TOPGUN and we've had real fighters ever since.

[Mace2004]

But what I'm talking about isn't a quantity versus quality issue.  I absolutely see the value in high-quality equipment.  But there's a certain limit.  In a high intensity conflict, we're going to lose aircraft, no matter how high quality they are, and some we'll lose because of the planes breaking, non-combat operational losses, etc.  I'm just not sure that the reduction in aircraft we can buy (because of their extreme price) is going to support our operational need.  I could be wrong.  I have no doubt that the F-22/F-35 would defeat these obsolescing enemy aircraft individually, but it takes more than single combats to win.  They have to be able to persist on the battlefield.

[edit]  I suppose ultimately, what I'm saying is this:  do we need the absolute highest technology available (F-22/F-35) with half the numbers, or a moderately high tech aircraft (say updated F-15/18) and keep the same numbers?  Maybe Eagle or Mace could answer that, as I'm drifting out of my wheel house on this part of the discussion.

Those are all good questions but here's one you didn't consider.  If you're limited in the number of aircraft you can put on a flight deck (and we are), quantity isn't an option, it's all about quality.

Also, for those arguing quantity vs quality it was supposed to have been Stalin that said "quantity has a quality of it's own."  He certainly had a valid point but there are limits to quantity as well.  Manpower to fly and maintain large numbers of airframes is a basic necessity and is even more expensive than the airframes themselves so thinking that building thousands vice hundreds of airframes is going to be cheaper is an incorrect assumption.

[Bodhi]

Not sure what you mean here. Building what most people consider to be "absolute best" has served the US very well for decades but have we really built the very best airplanes we can without regard to cost? No, not really, but you do reach a point of diminishing returns as every plane has tradeoffs in the name of cost. Also, just to keep things in perspective, while the F-35 will probably have an actual per unit flyaway cost of closer to $200M versus the F-18E/F's $55M is this increase really extraordinary? The F4 Phantom had a flyaway cost of about $2M in the mid-sixties but the F-14A which came out in the early 70's cost $35M.  In this case, the F-14 did absolutely everything better than the F4 even with the crappy TF-30 engines so was it worth 18 times the cost?  It and the F-15 were the premier air superiority fighters in the world for decades, far longer than any other fighter aircraft in history so yes, history has proven that they were worth the expense.

What I was trying to allude to is that as a free society we have different costs and responsibilities that we have taken on that preclude us from having large numbers of and multiple systems of extremely expensive high tech and expensive weapon / observation / deterrent systems.  Comparing costs to the the past is difficult and in many ways a recipe for disaster when going forward.  In many ways, it is apples and oranges, sure it is based in dollars, but those dollars have very different values.  Here nor there.  We have to balance our systems costs and I think that as the future goes forward the costs are becoming prohibitive.  In many ways we have to

Absolutely.  The switch from twin to single engine is part of the attempt to be cost effective as is the single seat, both are compromises.  I personally disagree with these decisions but there's no doubt they were intended to keep costs down.  The unfortunate result will be the loss of some aircraft to engine failures and less effectiveness in high task load environments.  It's unavoidable but I'm sure there's some number cruncher deep inside of the five sided windtunnel that has figured out that the loss of a few aircraft (and pilots) is cheaper than providing two engines and two aircrew.  It's just the cold hard facts of life.  

Cost effective is fine, but at the cost of risk to the aircraft makes the switch too much of a worry.  I am very disturbed by the engine manufacturer's statements that the engine will not fail.  That is arrogant and irresponsible especially considering the tolerances and requirements of these engines.  As a member of the elite naval aviation community, you of all people understand the value we place upon survivability of our flight crews.  I simply can not see the use of a very complex single engine system as being able to guarantee the redundancy to protect the investment in aircrew as well as very expensive aircraft.  Taking the peacetime stats losses aside, imagine combat.  You have been there in aircraft, I have not.  What I do know about aircraft and especially jet engines and complex aircraft, they do not like damage.  The logical conclusion is that combat losses will be much higher owing to a single engine configuration.

The $200M figure I quote is based on studies of what the airplane will actually end up costing including amortized development costs and GFE.  The Pentagon's program manager claims a much smaller cost of (IIRC) of something like $120M (which I don't buy).  However, when you consider the difference in price between the F-4 and the airplanes that replaced it I think it's reasonable to consider a four time increase over the F-18E/F as realistic and acceptable.  Of course whether or not it's affordable given the debt being racked up right now is a different question.

I am of the same opinion and I used $300 million as a worst case scenario.  The original cost per aircraft was supposed to be much lower than they are talking now.  As cost of development and re-engineering goes up, the cost per unit goes up.  That is going to impact the bottom line sooner or later for many nations beyond our own, especially with the EU's debt crisis looming.  Several of those countries that are looking at major debt problems are also F-35 co-ventures.  If they fall out, that means we pay an even higher cost per unit.  Another though I am concerned about is life cycle cost of the airframe.  With tech like this, it likely to be much lower than the legacy fighters.  What do we do then, repeat this very cost intensive "arms race"?

It's completely unrealistic to consider a navalized version of the F-22, it would be a completely different aircraft (even if it looks similar).  The Navy planned to build it's own version of the F-22 in the late 80's.  The F-22 came out of the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program when the YF-22 beat the YF-23.  One of the reasons the YF-22 won was that it was more adaptable to being built as a carrier fighter called the NATF (Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter).  I never saw the NATF concept itself but I did see its cockpit drawings while at VX-4 in 1990.  Interestingly enough, it had a wing-sweep control.    If you look at the YF-22 and YF-23 it's pretty obvious that the YF-22 airframe was much more suitable to a swing wing than the YF-23 due to the way the air intakes pass upwards through the mid-fuselage area.  Bottom line though is there would have to be major changes to the F-22 to navalize it and that program would also be as expensive as a totally new aircraft program.

I am not suggesting the F-22 be navalized.  It was meant that I did not believe it was possible.  Interesting information though about the NATF.  So, what do we do?  I really do not have an answer, but I am concerned about our current direction.  What I do worry about is that too much is being hung on the F35 being the "future".  That attitude is likely to end up costing us through some concession in the long run.

[Rich52]

Its not just about quality. Its about sortie rate, survivability, reliability and precision of strike packages. The F-35C is going to have an extremely high sortie rate due to the reliability of its systems and ease of maintanance. Even the stealth coatings can be touched up with a paint brush now. The idea of sending a naval strike group in is to club the enemys vital sustems, the destruction of which will give us the air. Over the combat zone. Leaderships targets, air defence, communications, airfields, bridges...ect. It will resemble clubbing a baby seal more then it will dualing pistols at dawn. Or WW2 type air battles that last years. The opening days of a war with the US will see the enemy struck with thousands of precision munitions that will measure accuracy within feet. Thats the kind of war the F-35 is designed for.

[JunkyII]

Mace you can probably answer this for me(a bit unrelated). While at KAF you see and hear a lot of planes taking off and coming in for landing.

I couldn't help but notice one thing, the difference in noise when an F16 or F18 is taking off/landing compared to a Raphael....The US planes were much louder, why is that?

I almost thought it could be the euros trying to save fuel...

[RTHolmes]

The F-35 can't carry any directed NRG weapons of the sort you're talking about either nor can it supercruise.

yes I should have said at supersonic speeds, not supercruise. but why cant the 35 be a platform for DEW? power isnt a problem (I would be amazed if the PTO shaft wasnt built into the design just as much for a generator as it was for the STOVL fan) and there are already lasers which have been succesfully tested for this role. certainly theres stuff to iron out, but all the pieces are there and Lockheed, Raytheon and others are putting alot of effort into making it work. I'd guess more like a decade than decades, which means at this rate it could enter service at the same time as the lightning ...


edit: I was being a little facetious about fighters, but the reality is that they are bomb trucks. It would interesting to see an inventory of what has been released in anger from hardpoints on NATO "fighters" over the last 30yrs, I doubt A2A weapons would even be 1% of it.

[icepac]

In other news, the only plane with directed energy weapons is now grounded.

[Seanaldinho]

Here in Boise all the Bone-Heads that bought property off the end of an existing airport runway are now screaming how the increased noise of the F-35 will ruin their property value and quality of living. When I was a kid we lived a few miles from Williams Field Apache Junction Arizona. Back then the T-38's et al could freely fly over and sonic boom us without fear of public out cry. We all understood why they were training. As a kid i loved it. Made me dream of "The Right Stuff" guys we had been watching on TV & everyone was intrigued by what those brave men were accomplishing. We actually saw the X-15 fly over more than once. Good memories! Now people just yawn and gripe about selfish, inconsequential, Me Me BS!

We already went through that down here. After a few years of nagging and complaining (and several court trips) the AFB agreed to "only use the runway in question when necessary". Waste of money and time. The AFB has been there much longer then their houses and they should have known and accepted the potential for noise. Several billboards around the area have a picture of an F-35 and "The Sound of Freedom" or "Freedom Has A Ring To It". I cant emphasize how much I appreciate the people that support the military around here.

[JunkyII]

In other news, the only plane with directed energy weapons is now grounded.

Your talking about the 747 with a laser for shooting down missles?

I saw the reason for having it in the first place but on the modern battlefield it isn't really needed.

[bozon]

Quality vs. quantity:
Quality stops gaining you an advantage once "superiority" is achieved. If you can defeat your opponent in every engagement you cannot defeat it more with a better fighter. If you have more fighters, you can defeat it in more engagements.

So it all depends on who is your opponent. Does the US have an opponent that can match it current fighters in quality or quantity? China may be the only country that can pose a threat to the US on a large scale and the advantage is still decisively on the US side. Everything else will not even require the full deployment of the current US fighters.

Quality gains meaning again when your fighter adds something new to the table, beyond improved performance. Stealth can be such a thing. In small scale conflicts, like Iraq or Afghanistan scales, the air superiority is complete and there is no danger of running out of planes due to AA losses. However, it is vital not to loose planes at all, not because it weakens you militarily, but because of the moral hit to your side. For example, the US could keep taking a few hundred dead per year without suffering any setbacks to its infantry capabilities. The public opinion on the other hand will shift again the continued operation - as it has with Iraq and Afghanistan. If stealth and increased reliability can prevent even a few losses that are negligible to the force, but significant to the moral, then it may be worth the added costs.