Posted on 02/04/2010 5:54:00 PM PST by Kaslin
Defense: The administration decision to scrap a proven aircraft in favor of a supposedly cheaper, more flexible replacement is proving to be an expensive mistake. We may wind up defenseless and broke.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that was supposed to be America's frontline fighter for the foreseeable future is in big trouble. Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the general in charge of the program this week amid concerns of spiraling costs and program delays.
Gates also announced he is withholding $614 million in fees from the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin. Daniel J. Crowley, one of Lockheed Martin's project managers, has acknowledged that the program is running at least six months behind schedule.
Gates was questioned about the program at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. He said he was unaware of a report by a special Pentagon assessment team in late 2008 that found development of the plane could be delayed by 2 1/2 years with $16.6 billion in cost overruns. Judging by his decisions, he is not unaware that the F-35 program, designed to fill the needs of all three services, is in trouble.
After hearing Gates' testimony, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said: "I'm still concerned about whether the services will get the (Joint Strike Fighters) when they need them."
He's right to be concerned: Further program delays will drive up per-unit costs, the wings are literally falling off our F-15s and F-16s, and the administration has killed further production of the F-22 Raptor. With what will we fight?
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
There is no rational way you can conclude this from my comments.
BS. The Frog autorotates like crap as it has a low inertia head unlike a Huey. Show me the stats on 46 accidents not involving really stupid pilot errors prior to the crashes.
was MORE dangerous
You have to be a pretty weak tit to think the 46 was dangerous to fly.
Actually the Raptor is the best ground attack IADS penetrator apart from the B2. Due to its all aspect stealth (unlike that of the F35 which is neither all aspect, plus it is only geared towards X band radar), advanced kinematics (which enables supercruise, something the F35 cannot do), it has the ability to penetrate. Now, add its capabilty to carry 8 GBU39 small diameter bombs, each of which can be individually targeted, and due to the Raptor's kinematics launched many miles away, and one Raptor is far more lethal than several F35s when it comes to advances IADS penetration.
According to the Air Force website the F-22 can carry 2 1000 lbs JDAMS in the ground attack mode. The F-15E can carry many more and at a fraction of the cost of an F-22. Boeing has upgraded the design to make it stealthier than older models, though not as stealthy as the F-22 it could certainly improve survivability. A mix of F-22s for air superiority and new, upgraded existing designs would be a more cost-effective solution to the F-35.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/h-46-upgrades.htm
“The current H-46 Engine Condition Control System (ECCS) has several failure modes, which cause engines to shut down in flight; this presents a significant safety hazard to the fleet. Three bulletins have been issued by NAVAIR to inspect for system deficiencies. A formal system safety analysis utilizing historical failure data defines this as a Category One hazard and predicts six to seven failures per year. In the three and a half years before this upgrade was initiated there were 35 hazard reports (HAZREPs) issued documenting this failure mode, and it is estimated that 20 more occurred that were not reported through the HAZREP system. The aircraft has a limited single engine-operating envelope and is vulnerable to engine failure while flying and hovering over water.
There have been five aircraft lost at sea in which pilots reported engine failure as the cause of the mishap. The aircraft were not recovered and therefore, the specific engine failure mode could not be determined, but it is likely that ECCS caused some of the engine failures and ultimately led to the loss of aircraft.”
You are correct in saying the Raptor can only carry 2 1000 pound JDAMs ....however it can also carry 8 GBU39 Small Diameter Bombs, which are smaller than the 1kJDAMs, but have wings that enable them to glide long distances (which coupled with a supercruise launch from a Raptor enables them to go far). As for making F15s stealthy ....the Silent Eagle concept is a half-joke. The RCS for a F15 is 25m2, as compared to that of a Raptor of 0.0001m2: they are not only compatible, but fact is one cannot make the F15 stealthy enough. Not even against X band radar ....and against L and S band even the F35 would have problems. Also, the internal carriage of the F15SE in the conformal tanks takes space for fuel. Anyways, against a third world country the SE is ok, but against an advanced IADs the Raptor makes a world of difference.
I don’t see the need for the A-10 in a battle over Taiwan at all. This would be more of a naval and air battle. The Chins would have to eventually invade the island to take it. This would be a battle for tactical aircraft with the air superiority aircracft working to deny aerial refueling and antiair defense systems. Taiwan would quickly have to move to take the battle to the mainland to keep the Chins busy. If we are involved and we hit out at the mainland your looking at a nuclear exchange if it doesn’t happen sooner when the Chins go after our carriers.
Reconfigure B-1s to carry long range air to air missiles. I have seen a photo produced by rockwell back in the 80s of a B-1 with very large numbers of AIM-54 phoenix missiles laid out in front of it.
You're so right. ...and the chickens are about to come home to roost.
Prepare...and keep your powder dry.
Apples and kumquats.
Two different aircraft, two different missions.
Next anti-F35 article please.
They just started flight testing, what isn't working? Proof/facts please, not some armchair generals perspective
"...while proven, overwhelmingly dominating technology (F-22)"
How has the F-22 been "proven"? What enemy has it faced and defeated outside of exercises? Proof/facts please, no armchair generals perspectives or quotes from an exercise.
Neither one of my requests can be answered because neither one of your assumptions is fact.
I really wonder what we'll be saying about the F-35 in 10 years. In the meantime, why don't we wait until the damn thing has started doing weapons testing at Eglin and supporting our troops in combat before we start throwing eggs at the plane.
I truly believe that many of you posting here would have said many of the same things about the F-117 if you had known about it before it came out.
That's just the internal load. Externally, it has four hard points capable of holding 5000 lbs each. Why does everyone dismiss that? 20,000 lbs of ordnance is enough for people to quake in their boots, no?
First off, you only quote the internal capability of the F-22. Yes, only two 1000 lb GBU-32s. But the F-22 has four external hard points capable of 5000 lbs. That's 22,000 lbs of bombs plus it can still carry two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s. (For comparison, the F-15E can carry 24,000 lbs of ordnance total.)
That's the capability aspect. The F-22 can do everything the F-15E can do, but the not even close the other way around. Your second point was cost. Well, we know the fly away cost of more F-22s: $140 million. The cost of the latest F-15 is $100 million according to Boeing. The F-35 is not known, with estimates between $85 and $210 million each. I dunno, but I think that the F-22 is reasonably priced since it can do the job of both the F-15E and F-35, plus jobs neither of those planes can do.
If it has to kill something before being proven, we should give it the same benefit of doubt the USAF gave the F-15, which was 15 years before they blew anything up with it in anger.
Out of how many flight hours?
The aircraft has a limited single engine-operating envelope and is vulnerable to engine failure while flying and hovering over water.
Doesn't sound like the Marine 46's outside of the SAR birds, as without Doppler, precision hovering overwater is a non-starter. The engine failures in this regime could easily have been from salt encrustation. A common hazard to sea going helos especially when the fresh water capability of the shipboard capable ships preclude washing.
With the expanded fuel capacity, SE performance is always going to be an issue.
an emergency helicopter flotation system.
I'm guessing this mod has been a failure as well.
This modification was installed on 65 H-46D aircraft (all active)
Navy and SAR birds.
The 46 fleet has degraded from 7 years of war in a lousy environment. 55 total HAZREPs in 31/2 years is nothing considering the hours flown and the environmental conditions.
Well, with the external load, its no longer as fast and no longer stealthy. Its just a computerzied F15 with less firepower.
I guess its a question of mission again. What purpose does this plane serve? Is it a stealth interceptor? Is it a light bomber? Is it to kill heavy bombers?
As far as I can tell, its real purpose is to suck money out of the pockets of taxpayers and put it into the pockets of Lockheed and Boeing.
Which also defeats the purpose of the stealth design. External ordinance reflect radar and make the aircraft detectable. If you're going to accept that then why not do it with a highly capable non-stealthy aircraft that can carry more ordinance and at a fraction of the cost? An F-15 or F-16 or F-18?
Thank you for making my point. If the aging F-15 suits a particular mission without stealth just fine, then it would be no issue to run the F-22 in a less stealthy mode. However, if the mission entails deep penetration into IADS, well only the F-22 can do that currently.
However, you are wrong to say the F-22 has less firepower than the F-15. The maximum payload of the F-15E Strike Eagle is 24,000 lbs. The F-22 can carry 20,000 lbs externally and 2,000 lbs of bombs internally plus hold four missiles.
I guess its a question of mission again. What purpose does this plane serve? Is it a stealth interceptor? Is it a light bomber? Is it to kill heavy bombers?
Why not all of the above? The F-15 was designed to be an air supremacy fighter. Period. But what the USAF found with the Eagle is that it was such a good design, that it could be adapted to do other roles. Hence the Strike Eagle introduced 12 years after the original Eagle. Now we have the Raptor, and it is superior to the Eagle in every way. There is no reason there couldn't be a "Strike Raptor."
As far as I can tell, its real purpose is to suck money out of the pockets of taxpayers and put it into the pockets of Lockheed and Boeing.
That could be said about any weapons system. I suppose that when the F-15 was being developed, you argued that the F-4 could do everything the F-15 could do, and do it cheaper. And at that point, the F-4 could carry 18,000 lbs of bombs and the F-15 could not.
Why this false dichotomy? If our conventional fleet can go drop bombs without needing to be stealthy for a particular mission, then the F-22 does not need to be in its clean configuration. The F-22 can do that job too.
But if a particular mission requires stealth, then you have to use the F-22. Basically, you can have one plane that can do it all or specialized planes that do specific missions. As the Navy has found with the F/A-18, it's a lot cheaper to have one plane do it all.
If you're going to accept that then why not do it with a highly capable non-stealthy aircraft that can carry more ordinance and at a fraction of the cost? An F-15 or F-16 or F-18?
The main reason is that the teen series aircraft are too old. Not that the design is obsolete, but that the planes themselves have more hours on their airframes then they were designed for. F-15 in the fleet for example is on average 28 years old. They need to be replaced.
Now do we open up a new F-15C production line? Not even Boeing would do that. They are offering the latest F-15 for $100 million. Or so they say, as it hasn't even been built yet. We do know the price tag of a new Raptor. $140 million.
Remember, we still don't know how much the F-35 is yet. Anywhere between $85 to $210 million depending on how many are to be made. One thing is certain: If they only made 187 of them, they would be far more expensive than the F-22.
Yet the the F-22 is stealthier, has a longer range radar, can supercruise with a full load of eight missiles (F-35 can not), has a higher payload capability plus has external hardpoints that can be attached, flies higher and faster, has longer range on internal fuel, is more maneuverable, is already in service while the F-35 program has been pushed back two and a half more years
Thanks for helping to make my argument. That’s my point about the F-35, people are already trying to kill it saying it’s “unproven”, yet we give the F-22 the benefit of the doubt and, as you say, we did with the F-15, F-16, etc.
FRegards,
SZ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.