U.S. should consider F-35 fighter cuts, a study suggests

Well I have heard a lot of arguments and criticism about the F-35. Some of them are valid and some not. I have however never thought of looking at it from the arguments in this study.

In hindsight it is a really obvious point. Why spend too much money on medium range fighters if A) Your potential biggest threat has most of the targets you would deem necessary to hit buried deep inside it's airspace out of the F-35's range. And B) the cost of the program is so great that it's full implementation will starve funds for the very long range systems that could hit these same targets.

Whilst I do not agree that halving the F-35 program won't have any great affect on unit price and thereby allied support (there is NO way the US will wear the full development cost), it does make for an interesting way of looking at the F-35's wider financial cost and strategic impact of the program.

LEE.

The problem you'll run into if significant cuts are made, is that you'll get into death spiral of increasing per unit cost/cuts in numbers, like what happened to the F-22. You need to have enough aircraft to account for a variety of engagements, sortie rates, spares, training, etc.... and if you cut it too low, that becomes more significantly effected.

The arguments laid out in the article are valid in my opinion. While many have disagreed with me, I have thought from the beginning that the Joint Strike Fighter program that created the F-35 was the wrong program at the wrong time. the Biggest flaw is that they are trying the old "Jack of all Trades" fighter again. What I see coming of the F-35 is a plane that can do a little of everything but can't do anything particularly well.

Nothing against Lockheed, but I never saw the point to the JSF program even Before they picked a contractor.

My main issues with the Program are:

1. When you try to do too much with one aircraft, it usually ends up not being particularly effective at Anything (A Jack of all trades, is a master of None)

2. Single Engine aircraft lack adequate safety margins for combat. One lucky shot with an IR missile will result in a kill.

3. Why did it need to be stealth? Don't get me wrong, but is an overuse of stealth.

Sorry to say it, but I'd be happy to see the F-35 follow the A-12 Avenger into history as another program that never made it into service! This is an example of the Pentagon playing the kid in the candy shop. There are too many other things that money would be better spent on.

Tim

Haha have to say I completely disagree with you ghost on some points.

"One lucky shot with an IR missile will result in a kill."

Sorry but I dont think a F-18 would fair much better if your talking about lucky shots. more then once have dual engine fighters lost controls etc even though the damage was more or less on one side of the plane. Happened to Showtime 100 in vietnam.

"the Biggest flaw is that they are trying the old "Jack of all Trades" fighter again."

Are we talking along the lines of the F/A-18? I find that alot of countries do not have the budget to purchase the number of aircraft that approach would require. Also the plane isn't truely jack of all trades since they have had to create 3 versions of plane. ABC etc and I dont need to tell you the differences.

3. Why did it need to be stealth? Don't get me wrong, but is an overuse of stealth.

Why did it not need to be? anything that can increase the chance of your plane and pilot coming home is a good thing. You dont relly on it solely. The stealth is easier to maintain and so on so I don't see a problem with putting stealth on a plane espasially when S2A is a problem.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Haha have to say I completely disagree with you ghost on some points.

Like wise my friend!

"One lucky shot with an IR missile will result in a kill."

Sorry but I dont think a F-18 would fair much better if your talking about lucky shots. more then once have dual engine fighters lost controls etc even though the damage was more or less on one side of the plane. Happened to Showtime 100 in vietnam.

In Desert Storm (1991) a US Navy F-18 flying in sother Iraq was hit by an IR guided SAM taking out the left engine. Howeve, the remainig engine was able to get the aircraft back to it's carrier.

You are banking on the absolute Worst Case Senario for your argument. If' you are playing that card, NO plane is invincible my friend, Even an F-117 Stealth Fighter has fallen victum to a SAM before!

Are we talking along the lines of the F/A-18? I find that alot of countries do not have the budget to purchase the number of aircraft that approach would require. Also the plane isn't truely jack of all trades since they have had to create 3 versions of plane. ABC etc and I dont need to tell you the differences.

No, Look up the TFX (F-111). Origionally it was supposed to be for the Air Force, and Navy. The A model was quite different from the B model, but both had a lot of problems (the A went through a major overhaul and the B was scrapped). However, it could never cover all projected missions well. It wasn't until a altered version was redesgn for the Air Force that it worked.

Why did it not need to be? anything that can increase the chance of your plane and pilot coming home is a good thing. You dont relly on it solely. The stealth is easier to maintain and so on so I don't see a problem with putting stealth on a plane espasially when S2A is a problem.

There's an old Saying: Too Much of anything in Not good!

What has made stealth so effective for the US is the fact that we use it to achieve surprise in combat. I will agree that the SAM's and AAA are a problem. However, that is why we use planes like the B-2 and F-117A to take these threats out. The trick is balance, knowing how much is Too much.

Every aircraft can be a target to some degree. So where do you draw the line:

• A Stealth Transport?
  
• A Stealth AWACS?
  
• Stealth Observation/FAC aircraft?
  
• Stealth Tanker?
  

Good Military Strategy is about Balance Use different things to your advantage, but don't depend completely on one technology or tactic. You raise many great points in your argument. I truly applaud you for your effort to prove your point. However, I still cannot agree with you on this paticular issue.

You are looking at the situation Tactically, what's on the other side of the hill I'm climbing! I personally perfer the Strategic perspective, "If I engage in this fight, How will it effect the war as a Whole!

Both views are important, however, for this topic, I think we need to look at the bigger picture!

Tim

Originally posted by Ghost01
The arguments laid out in the article are valid in my opinion. While many have disagreed with me, I have thought from the beginning that the Joint Strike Fighter program that created the F-35 was the wrong program at the wrong time. the Biggest flaw is that they are trying the old "Jack of all Trades" fighter again. What I see coming of the F-35 is a plane that can do a little of everything but can't do anything particularly well.

Nothing against Lockheed, but I never saw the point to the JSF program even Before they picked a contractor.

Tim

Very good point!
Because of I am a Chinese that almost every one knew, my agreement will be cause confusion or misinterpretation. But if you considered that I stand for US, you will see why I agree Ghost.
See back since 70's, US never lost air superior just because of the form of UASF were conbined with heavy fighter and light fighter cooperated to both. Yeah, that F-15E almost to be a bomber, F-16E/F now are can be a lighter fighter, but initially they are fighter, even obtained a good capability of attacking ground targets, they never lost their air superior power. That's why any potential enemy saw the USAF are unbeatable.
But now the tendency F-35 developed to are wrong! You can do everything little means each thing done are not perfect. It is concerned a interrelation of performance effection which aspect between qualitya and quantity should be essential. The bombs F-35 carried too littile, the conter-air capability F-35 has even less than F-16, what gimp is this! Some one who has power to bring out the specification of a next generation combat aircraft should know that a fighter, thanks to great powerful engine now, could further be a good attacker or even a bomber, but an attacker or sticker aircraft won't gain any better airsuperior capability then initial status lay on the initial configuration.

Originally posted by thebozeian
A) Your potential biggest threat has most of the targets you would deem necessary to hit buried deep inside it's airspace out of the F-35's range.

The F-35 is not designed to be a strategic bomber, it's supposed to be a tactical 21st century multi role fighter. Continuing where the F-16 left off, now the same argument could have been made in the 70's, and it was made mind you. Why spend money on a weak multi role fighter when you need bombers to take out the Soviets and when you need big air superiority birds to take out their AC. Let's be glad that the naysayers did not win that one, history has judged the F-16 differently. In fact all successful systems were criticized at one point or another, F-16, M1 Abrams etc...

Originally posted by thebozeian
And B) the cost of the program is so great that it's full implementation will starve funds for the very long range systems that could hit these same targets.

That's not true, the USAF has already a bomber program underway with another in the planning stages and god knows how many black projects devoted to the bombing role. Not to mention the FALOCN project.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Ghost01
1. When you try to do too much with one aircraft, it usually ends up not being particularly effective at Anything (A Jack of all trades, is a master of None).

They are not trying to do too much with one aircraft. Being optimized for ground strikes and air to air combat is not a particularly radical concept nor is it an overwhelming one. The F-35 will also be more effective in those roles than all other contemporary multi-role fighters.

Originally posted by Ghost01
2. Single Engine aircraft lack adequate safety margins for combat. One lucky shot with an IR missile will result in a kill.

Grasping for straws here. Is the F-16 unsafe? Has it not proven to be one of the most reliable and successful fighters in modern history?

Originally posted by Ghost01
3. Why did it need to be stealth? Don't get me wrong, but is an overuse of stealth.

Because stealth significantly increases mission effectiveness. It's by no means the answer to everything but it is effective. What's the point of designing a new fighter with a conventional design and making it just as vulnerable as the fighter it's replacing?

[edit on 26-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

Why did it need to be stealth? Don't get me wrong, but is an overuse of stealth.

Now, I simply don't get this as an argument tim.

When you are developing new military equipment you simply have to make it the best you can and incorporate every useful and practical advance available.

For example, were the plethora of new jet fighters in the late 40's a bad idea because it was an overuse of jets, or were all the new military aircraft of the late 1930's an overuse of monoplanes?

You can't uninvent something once its out there and its no use artificially handicapping your own forces by leaving something out in the hope that others will not use it either.

The fact is that stealth design exists and NOT using it would simply be negligent, it would simply mean that 20 years down the line when everyone elses aircraft are designed to stealthy principles your own planes are just the biggest target in the sky.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by waynos]

It would seem highly likely that the report into cutting the numbers of F-35's to enter service or that are on the order-books is linked to the current news story of the US anti-corruption investigation into BAE systems and the UK-Saudi Al-Yamamah arms deal

Nothing against Lockheed, but I never saw the point to the JSF program even Before they picked a contractor.

In general I agree with you Tim, I am a DEEP sceptic of the multi role aircraft as a lynchpin in a fighter force, but I fear the US has painted itself(and others) into a corner on this one. It would be a disaster to pull out now as there is nothing else on the drawing board, which is the fundamental problem with multi role concepts I have but that is another story.

The F-35 is not designed to be a strategic bomber, it's supposed to be a tactical 21st century multi role fighter

Westpoint that wasn't what I or the report was saying. The report was making the valid point that if you had to operate tactically inside a country like China you either need A) long range. B) A2A tankers in hostile space. C) captured forward bases. And the F-35 doesnt make any of these options palatable or practical.

Continuing where the F-16 left off, now the same argument could have been made in the 70's, and it was made mind you. Why spend money on a weak multi role fighter when you need bombers to take out the Soviets and when you need big air superiority birds to take out their AC. Let's be glad that the naysayers did not win that one, history has judged the F-16 differently

And the reverse argument was put forward in the 90's to kill off the larger supposedly more expensive platforms like the F-111 and guess what? they were WRONG!. The doctrine was flawed and has moved on, the F-35 has not. This is why the interim bomber program has been put on the table. As good as the F-16 was it has not proven to be cheaper per target as first thought. This is part of the reason that sustained bombardment/loiter doctrine has seen B-52's and B-1's used in Afghanistan. By the time you factor in ingress/egress, loiter time, number of crews and their cost, per aircraft(or more precisely per target) servicing cost and applying standard risk per sortie models, a larger aircraft like the F-111 or a bomber is often much cheaper in the long run. Dont get me wrong lightweights still have their place but they have in the last 20yrs entered operational doctrine territory that they should never have been allowed to.

In fact all successful systems were criticized at one point or another, F-16, M1 Abrams etc...

Yep, totally agree. Sometimes the criticism is warranted, sometimes not.

That's not true, the USAF has already a bomber program underway with another in the planning stages and god knows how many black projects devoted to the bombing role. Not to mention the FALOCN project.

And you just wait and see the fireworks WHEN the F-35 program cost and very possibly the interim bombers blows out. One of them WILL have to be chopped if this happens or the money hole that is Iraq drags on much longer. Can you honestly say that if the JSF program were about $100 billion cheaper this wouldn't have a huge impact on other programs like the F-22, E-10, interim bomber, C-17 etc, etc?

They are not trying to do too much with one aircraft. Being optimized for ground strikes and air to air combat is not a particularly radical concept nor is it an overwhelming one

Sorry but I agree with Tim. Multi role aircraft are by design a compromise. The FA-18 has never been as effective as it's supporters claim. It has been adequate at both roles but not great. In fact its weaknesses have been papered over by the fact that friendly air superiority(F-14) and in earlier days dedicated attack aircraft(A-7,A-6) were always around. Since the demise of its earlier stablemates it has not been placed in anything like a real world situation, Iraq and Afghanistan really dont count. It should also be pointed out that the aircraft would be much cheaper and more capable if they were not going through the absurd exercise of effectively inventing three airplanes in one. The F-35B should have been dropped like the performance and money sucking stinking turd it is, and the USMC told to shut up and stop trying to reinvent the naval aviation wheel. For that matter somebody should slap the RN's FAA procurement office and remind them they are buying 60,000t carriers designed to be catapult capable.

The F-35 will also be more effective in those roles than all other contemporary multi-role fighters

But not as good dedicated ones.

Grasping for straws here. Is the F-16 unsafe? Has it not proven to be one of the most reliable and successful fighters in modern history?

Err.. IR missile hit arguments aside, do you realise how many F-16's have been lost due to engine out situations in the last 30 yrs? Enough to equip a large airforce.

Because stealth significantly increases mission effectiveness. It's by no means the answer to everything but it is effective. What's the point of designing a new fighter with a conventional design and making it just as vulnerable as the fighter it's replacing?

I agree, as much as I hate the cost it adds effective stealth design is now a must. I just wish that they had designed the F-35 with all aspect wide band capabillity like the F-22.

I realise I have concentrated on your thoughts Westy, but I am not picking on you. I just disagree with some of your points, Hey at least you have an opinion .

It would seem highly likely that the report into cutting the numbers of F-35's to enter service or that are on the order-books is linked to the current news story of the US anti-corruption investigation into BAE systems and the UK-Saudi Al-Yamamah arms deal

citizen smith, How so? I am not sure I follow your train of logic.

LEE.




[edit on 27-6-2007 by thebozeian]

Originally posted by Ghost01

In Desert Storm (1991) a US Navy F-18 flying in sother Iraq was hit by an IR guided SAM taking out the left engine. Howeve, the remainig engine was able to get the aircraft back to it's carrier.

Aahh yes... the two engine thumb rule for all naval fighter aircraft!
I totally agree with you on this.
The IN is looking to induct the naval version of the LCA and that I fear will be a single engined craft as well!

Not good.


and as for the rest of your post; I think you're trying to say that a cost-effective balance in maintaining a fleet should be chalked out such that:

1. The money spent doesn't sky rocket chasing after possible white elephants(Stealth on everything)
   
2. The fleet structure shold be dissimilar in offensive/defensive capabilities so that any effective enemy counter will not leave the entire fleet with their pants down.
   

If you're implying the above then, yes, I agree with you again.

Infact I had written about this long ago in one thread here on this forum or the weapons forum. It was quite long and in-depth post, but it boiled down to this:

Don't keep all your eggs in one basket; in this case the stealth basket.

Originally posted by thebozeian

It would seem highly likely that the report into cutting the numbers of F-35's to enter service or that are on the order-books is linked to the current news story of the US anti-corruption investigation into BAE systems and the UK-Saudi Al-Yamamah arms deal

citizen smith, How so? I am not sure I follow your train of logic.

Was an attempt to 'connect dots' between news-stories in a lateral sense..

I was thinking more in economic/political terms of unit-sales rather than aircraft technological function. Basically, the more of a unit you produce, the cheaper that unit can be sold (economy-of-scale).

If the F-35 still has yet to recoup it's initial R&D costs, then the cost-per-plane will be higher, so leading to cut-backs in the planned numbers of planes that could be bought by the USAF. If the Saudi's drop the Al-Yamamah deal with BAE, that would leave the market open for large-volume sales of the F-35, making the plane more economical to mass-produce and the USAF able to buy the original number of planes it initially sought.

I hope that makes some sense....apologies if not, and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong

Originally posted by WestPoint23
They are not trying to do too much with one aircraft. Being optimized for ground strikes and air to air combat is not a particularly radical concept nor is it an overwhelming one. The F-35 will also be more effective in those roles than all other contemporary multi-role fighters.

Let see here 1 Plane will replace: F-16, AV-8B, some F/A-18's, F-117, A-10? Did I miss any? No offense, but you need to review the history of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Originally posted by Ghost01
Grasping for straws here. Is the F-16 unsafe? Has it not proven to be one of the most reliable and successful fighters in modern history?

Debatably! Yes the F-16 is numorus, and has a combat record of sucess, however, it is not too different than the F/A-18's which is larger and delivers a better punch. Personally, I find the F/A-18 a much more capable figher and strike aircraft.

Side Note: I take it you've never heard the F-16's nickname "Lawn Dart".

Because stealth significantly increases mission effectiveness. It's by no means the answer to everything but it is effective. What's the point of designing a new fighter with a conventional design and making it just as vulnerable as the fighter it's replacing?

The New F/A-18E/F Super Hornet isn't a stealth fighter, yet it could hardly be considered as vulnerable as the origional Hornet! Stealth technology is not only expensive, but it has it's drawbacks. The problem is that in making an all-stealth force, we are over using the technology. What makes stealth effective is the element of surprise. The main mission of the F-35 doesn't really require it. Sure it is a plus, but if we use that argument, what wrong with a tanker version of the B-2 with all the LO trimmings?

Balance is lost in moving to an all-stealth air force. The whole idea of a good strategy is NOT to overuse any one thing.

You're are entitle to your oppinion, but I still disagree. The F-35 is the poster child for Wasteful defense spending! They bought it because it looks cool, not because we have a need for it.

Tim

Originally posted by thebozeian
...that if you had to operate tactically inside a country like China you either need A) long range. B) A2A tankers in hostile space. C) captured forward bases. And the F-35 doesnt make any of these options palatable or practical.

First of all the scenario above is ridicules and extreme, it's sad they would use it as an argument. For that matter nothing but bombers can do the above so we might as well not built any other type of aircraft. In any case the US will usually have forward air bases, on land and at sea. We also have a great capacity to refuel in and near hostile airspace, and the F-35 has a 700NM combat range with internal fuel only. In such a unique scenario external drop tanks (that are jettisoned along with the pylon) could be used to give adequate range.

Originally posted by thebozeian
This is part of the reason that sustained bombardment/loiter doctrine has seen B-52's and B-1's used in Afghanistan.

Well yeah they are bombers, when all you require is loiter time and a massive armament in the face of zero threats then go with the B-52. But it still does not meant that it can replace the multi role fighter and vise versa.

Originally posted by thebozeian
Dont get me wrong lightweights still have their place but they have in the last 20yrs entered operational doctrine territory that they should never have been allowed to.

So your issue is with the airframe of the F-35 and what it's capable of or how it’s intended to be used? Because the latter I can partially agree with.

Originally posted by thebozeian
Can you honestly say that if the JSF program were about $100 billion cheaper this wouldn't have a huge impact on other programs like the F-22, E-10, interim bomber, C-17 etc, etc?

Maybe, but you get what you pay for, if we spent less we would have less. The F-35 will not cost nearly as much as the F-22 yet it's the most capable all round fighter we will have after it. The days of premier fighters costing in the low millions are over.

Originally posted by thebozeian
Sorry but I agree with Tim. Multi role aircraft are by design a compromise.
...But not as good dedicated ones.

Of course, having a large number of solely air to air or air to ground dedicated aircraft is not practical or realistic. As such you take the best features of both and design a compromise that can do both well while still operating a small force of aircraft whose primary focus is air or ground combat. I'm not saying the F-35 is the next F-22 or A-10, but it has a place and we do need it, in combination with those two other types it should do well.

Originally posted by thebozeian
Err.. IR missile hit arguments aside, do you realise how many F-16's have been lost due to engine out situations in the last 30 yrs? Enough to equip a large airforce.

If I had to choose between losing one aircraft in 30 year of operation to such a lucky and one time shot or completely redesigning the aircraft I'd choose the former. As for the F-16, it is a much larger force than other aircraft types the west operates so naturally in that long a service thing will go wrong. Still, I do not buy the argument, or that it is that urgent of an issue. It's not like Vipers are raining down from the sky.

Originally posted by thebozeian
I just wish that they had designed the F-35 with all aspect wide band capability like the F-22.

But then you would be saying the cost was too high... Still, for it's role the F-35 is stealthy enough, it will allow it to be more than marginally successful even if it could be better.

Originally posted by thebozeian
I realise I have concentrated on your thoughts Westy, but I am not picking on you.

Likewise buddy, same for Tim, I don't mind an insightful debate either.

Originally posted by Ghost01
1 Plane will replace: F-16, AV-8B, some F/A-18's, F-117, A-10? Did I miss any? No offense, but you need to review the history of the Joint Strike Fighter.

No offense but there is one family and three different designs that will replace some of the above. The F-35A will replace the Viper, the F-35B the Harrier and the F-35C the older Hornets. The F-117 is "officially" being replaced by the F-22 and the A-10 is not being replaced at all. Don’t worry about political and sell point Lockheed power point presentations, they are designed for the weaker minded. The USAF realizes that nothing can currently replace the A-10 which is why it will still be around for another two decades. At which point it will more likely be replaced by future unmanned systems and not by the F-35.

Originally posted by Ghost01
Debatably! Yes the F-16 is numorus, and has a combat record of sucess, however, it is not too different than the F/A-18's which is larger and delivers a better punch. Personally, I find the F/A-18 a much more capable figher and strike aircraft.

The older Hornets were no match for Vipers, in virtually all categories and aspects. With the Rhino however it's a different story. Still the F-16 has more battle experience and both AC are two faces of the same coin. One was designed for naval aviation and the other for land based. Even the Super Hornet however cannot be compared to the F-35, it's just not even fair to do so.

Originally posted by Ghost01
Stealth technology is not only expensive, but it has it's drawbacks.

It's not as expensive or unpractical as it once was, plus it also has it's advantages which have been show to far outweigh the drawbacks.

Originally posted by Ghost01
The problem is that in making an all-stealth force, we are over using the technology.

Maybe, but currently it's a must have. Stealth will never become obsolete overnight. Sure it's effectiveness might fade with time but it will still force the enemy to work harder than they would have to with a conventional design, in that aspect it reigns supreme.

Originally posted by Ghost01
Sure it is a plus, but if we use that argument, what wrong with a tanker version of the B-2 with all the LO trimmings?

Nothing, if you can make it practical and economical enough go for it.

Originally posted by Ghost01
The whole idea of a good strategy is NOT to overuse any one thing.

If you see an advantage and a weakness in the enemy the point is to exploit it as much as possible and to keep pushing on that front. Plus as Waynos said, people thought the same thing about the jet engine.

Originally posted by Ghost01
They bought it because it looks cool, not because we have a need for it.

It does look cool but it's not useless and we really do need it.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Even the Super Hornet however cannot be compared to the F-35, it's just not even fair to do so.

Erm... How so? The F-18 Hornet (and Super Hornets) have been consistently performing in Iraq sorties and achieving their goals. One pilot in an F-18 became the first to have ever downed AA targets while simultaneously completing his original ground mission. Last I checked the F-35 has done... Squat. Nothing. As much as I like to drool over specs and debate future products, I find it difficult to let the F-35 into comparisons to in-service aircraft considering that the F-35 has done nothing yet in combat.

It does look cool but it's not useless and we really do need it.

For the record, neither of those is true. The first one is irrelevant anyway, but the second one matters. There is no real need for a single fighter (variants aside; it's the same fighter.) to replace a load of current ones that are still doing their job quite well. The only reason the 4th Generation fighters were deemed obsolete and in need of replacement was because the DoD said so. No enemy has created some piece of warfare that completely trumps current designs. So we don't actually need the F-35. The only real reason for the F-35's existence is that the DoD decided that it wanted a new toy.

Originally posted by thebozeian
Dont get me wrong lightweights still have their place but they have in the last 20yrs entered operational doctrine territory that they should never have been allowed to.



So your issue is with the airframe of the F-35 and what it's capable of or how it’s intended to be used? Because the latter I can partially agree with.

Now were on the same wavelength! Yes. If you could add another 400NM to the "600" NM range(700 is Lockheed spin. Hell, it probably refers to the C models range in statute miles ) and add a bigger internal bay I would be more relaxed.

Originally posted by thebozeian
This is part of the reason that sustained bombardment/loiter doctrine has seen B-52's and B-1's used in Afghanistan.



Well yeah they are bombers, when all you require is loiter time and a massive armament in the face of zero threats then go with the B-52. But it still does not meant that it can replace the multi role fighter and vise versa.

No, the reason that "BUFF's" & "Bones" were used was because they were the least resource draining solution and as a byproduct, cheapest. The USAF could just as easily have used "Beagle's", "Viper's" or "Hog's" to pickle JDAM's at Tora Bora but they didn't because it would have used up a disproportionate number of aircraft and crews. It pays to highlight that the above scenario fell smack bang in the middle of the doctrinal territory that the F-16, F-18, F-15E, A-10 and most importantly F-35 inhabit. And of course if the USAF had something more survivable against SAM's other than the B-52 or B-1 in a more uptempo scenario they would probably use it. Something along the lines of the defunct F-111. It is this thinking that I believe has led to the interim bomber/LRS initiatives. So I guess this gets back to the previous point we partly agree on about issues with the F-35's airframe size, technology and employment.

Originally posted by Ghost01
The problem is that in making an all-stealth force, we are over using the technology.



Maybe, but currently it's a must have. Stealth will never become obsolete overnight. Sure it's effectiveness might fade with time but it will still force the enemy to work harder than they would have to with a conventional design, in that aspect it reigns supreme.

Actually both of you guys are correct here I believe. Tim is correct that if stealth becomes too widespread there will be serious efforts put into countering it because the dividend from countering it will be greater. Think of it like this. The F-117 and B-2 between them never exceeded 75-80 airframes. It was much less cost effective as a game changer for anyone to design a way to defeat it as they were seen rightly or wrongly as only a relatively minor part of an overall much larger force. It all comes down to perception. Hypothetically if suddenly in 1990 all the USAF's aircraft had morphed into stealth versions the Soviets would have pulled out all the stops to defeat it, and probably by now would have succeded. By not having a large stealth force it "seems" less of a threat and opponents are less likely to critically analise it as a threat or convince their politicians to spend billions developing a defence against it. It is for this reason that I believe that the the US (and allies) should only concentrate on an F-22 like aircraft for air to air and secondary ground to air, a B-2 style strategic weapon and a stealthy recon and SEAD platform. The rest of the systems should be substantially treated the way the FA-18E/F has been, ie if there is a glaring design feature that makes it light up like a christmas tree then change it, otherwise continue as normal. At this point I believe your argument about the eventual fade of stealth advantages comes in. The trick is to convince him not to work harder to defeat it than we want him to.

As waynos mentioned, a cat maybe out of the bag in regards to stealth technology, but that doesnt mean we should pull out all the cats and start the dogs barking.


citizen smith, thankyou for clarifying your point. You maybe partly right, but no Saudi order regardless of how large could ever hope to make up for large scale US procurement cuts in the many hundreds of airframes. Remember the Saudis only agreed to buy around 72 Typhoon's anyway.


LEE.


[edit on 28-6-2007 by thebozeian]

Lee,

Thanks for your great take on my post! You did a very good job explaining and expanding on my thoughts regarding the issue of stealth and how it should be best used.

I am a firm believer of the "Force Multiplier" concept. The key concept being that we use a very modest sized fleet of stealth aircraft in a limited number of carefully selected missions to Boost the effectivenesses, and overall punch of the air power as a whole.

My feeling is that the F-35 program is going way beyond the Force Multiplier concept, and into the "Let's use it just to use it concept.

Here are the Limited roles I feel stealth should be used in:

Strategic Bombing (Opening Punch): This would be the B-2 type mission of using a few stealth bombers to strike a crippling blow early in a war by destroying air defense networks, Key C3I facilities, and other carefully selected strategic targets.

Intelligence: Reconnaissance aircraft should use stealth to aid in getting sensitive information from deep in enemy territory when you don't have time to wait for a satellite to get there.

Covert Strike: If you need to go in a hit a small target quickly without drawing attention (say killing Bin Laden and a few key terrorist leaders quickly and you don't have time for all the diplomatic maneuvering), you send in something stealthy like an F-117 Nighthawk to take care of the problem.

These are ideal uses for a stealth aircraft. I believe that is what these planes were developed for, and how they should be used. We do NOT need, nor should we have a stealth replacement for the F-16.

Too much of Anything is Not good, and that includes Stealth Technology!

Tim

Originally posted by waynos

Why did it need to be stealth? Don't get me wrong, but is an overuse of stealth.

Now, I simply don't get this as an argument tim.

When you are developing new military equipment you simply have to make it the best you can and incorporate every useful and practical advance available.

For example, were the plethora of new jet fighters in the late 40's a bad idea because it was an overuse of jets, or were all the new military aircraft of the late 1930's an overuse of monoplanes?

You can't uninvent something once its out there and its no use artificially handicapping your own forces by leaving something out in the hope that others will not use it either.

The fact is that stealth design exists and NOT using it would simply be negligent, it would simply mean that 20 years down the line when everyone elses aircraft are designed to stealthy principles your own planes are just the biggest target in the sky.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by waynos]

Waynos,

My friend, your looking at this the wrong way. The idea here is not to over do it. For example if we use your view point let's see where we get.

Example: The AV-8 Harrier Proved that VTOL is an advantage in combat aircraft. Why then are ALL aircraft not design for VTOL?

The F-22 isn't VTOL, neither is the F/A-18.

The Answer is This: Everything is a balancing act. For every advantage gained something is given up. I'm sure a VTOL F-22 is possible with current science and technology. The issue is is it worth it in the overall picture.

Heck, I'm sure if they were desprate enough, VTOL could be achieve with a B-52, even if it requires rocket engines.

Your example with the Jet or the monowing was a bit off target (IMHO). What you were using is an example of an across the board system. Stealth isn't across the board.

Name one country OTHER than the USA who has flown a stealth aircraft in combat?

Tim