backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 98 comment(s) - last by jamdunc.. on Dec 30 at 10:16 PM

F-35 Lightning II in comparison to the F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-22 Raptor  (Source: Aerospaceweb.org)
Lockheed's F-35 Lightning II takes off the for first time since May

Last week, DailyTech reported that Lockheed's F-35 Lightning II had been grounded due to problems with its electrical system and concerns over the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine. After officials called off a planned flight on December 4, the F-35 Lightning II (AA-1) took to the air on December 7 at 1:30 PM CST.

The AA-1, flown by chief test pilot Jon Beesley, took off under full military-power and the engine was tested at various power levels during flight. Flight characteristics of the AA-1 were also tested at altitudes of 6,000, 17,500 and 20,000 -- a fuel-dump was also performed at 250 knots.

The 19th flight of the AA-1 lasted for just 45 minutes and concluded at 2:15 PM CST. The AA-1's return to air will mark the beginning of a new round of vigorous tests for the F-35 Lightning II program.

"For the F-35, those tests include refueling from an airborne tanker in the short term and supersonic flights next year," said Lockheed Martin executive vice president Dan Crowley. "At the same time, we are putting the finishing touches on our first short takeoff/vertical landing F-35 aircraft, which will roll out of the factory this month and initiate flight testing in the spring. By the end of 2008, we expect to have at least three F-35s in the air and numerous aircraft on the assembly line."

"The Lightning II embodies a long list of advancements that will make it better, smarter and more reliable than anything that's come before it, and those technologies are extraordinarily mature in this first-ever F-35," remarked Beesley. "When you project ahead to the F-35s that will be entering the fleet in 2010, you see fighters that benefit from the testing we're doing now -- fighters that will set new standards for combat-readiness right out of the box."

Also tested on Friday were the F-35's mission systems using the Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATBird). CATBird uses a 737 airliner as a platform to test the F-35's mission systems before they are fully implemented into the F-35 airframe.

"Our goal is to get the system perfected on the CATBird so that it works exactly as advertised when we put it in the Lightning II fighter," said Doug Pearson, Lockheed Martin vice president of the F-35 Integrated Test Force.

F-35's with the mission systems in place will take to the air in 2009 and the plane is expected to enter actual military service the following year to replace the AV-8B, A-10, F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
A10
By SavagePotato on 12/9/2007 6:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
Replace the A10, I imagine the A10 pilots might be disapointed in that.

Personaly being wrapped in a titanium bathtub in a plane that can fly with a wing blown off would be my #1 choice for where to be if I were a pilot.




RE: A10
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/9/2007 6:38:13 PM , Rating: 5
It's a pipe dream. The A-10 has no realistic replacement coming down the pipe right now. The A-10's long loiter time, large armament... that bastardly awesome Avenger cannon, and it's ability to take a beating and continue. It's quite literally a flying tank. F-35 can't do close fire missions the way an A-10 can.

A-10 is here to stay for a while, until they decide to build a newer variant of it, maybe with newer engines, newer composite materials, etc....


RE: A10
By steven975 on 12/10/2007 1:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
actally the F-35 can potentially replace the A-10.

The lift fan on the F-35B (the VTOL Marine variant) is absent on the F-35A/C. This area can be used for something else. What? An energy weapon that's what.

A precision energy weapon means that the plane can fly faster, which is MUCH SAFER than going slow, titanium bathtub or not. Also, ammo is limited only by fuel.


RE: A10
By Chernobyl68 on 12/10/2007 2:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
A directed energy weapon isn't going to take out a tank. A 35mm cannon can quite easily though.
I think the JSF is going to be a great aircraft, hoever I think its its going to be a jack of all trades and master of none.
There's a lot to be said for the warthog - it simply is the infantryman's best air support aircraft. Its got a fantastic bomb load, is more durable than any other aircraft around, and has so much built in redundancy its crazy.how many planes are designed with the ability to land on its belly in mind?


RE: A10
By timmiser on 12/10/2007 11:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
The Avenger is 30mm.


RE: A10
By ImSpartacus on 12/9/2007 7:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
The A10 is sweet. My personal favorite combat plane. I hope it doesn't get replaced.


RE: A10
By Martin Blank on 12/9/2007 8:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to worry for another 20 years or so. Current plans are to hold onto the A-10 until about 2027.


RE: A10
By captain fufu on 12/22/2007 3:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
With exponentially rising cost for newer more advanced aircraft and weapons, I doubt there will be a like-for-like replacement for the A-10. The military has too many high-dollar things going on...


RE: A10
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2007 11:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
It ain't broke and it gets the job done, so they ain't gonna fix it.


RE: A10
By NullSubroutine on 12/10/2007 12:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
They just need to take the time to make an updated A10 giving that perfect balance in between attack helicopters and fighter jets.


RE: A10
By CascadingDarkness on 12/12/2007 3:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was already.

Which is why it's impossible to replace with anything that has same capabilities.


RE: A10
By klstay on 12/10/2007 9:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
No one in their right mind seriously considers this a replacement for the A-10 which itself is really "just" a GAU 8 with wings. Fortunately those in a position to make the decision have done so and extended the lifespane at least another 20 years. This plane should no longer realistically be listed among those scheduled for replacement by the F35; not that it ever should have been to begin with.


RE: A10
By jamdunc on 12/30/2007 10:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
Keep the A10 but replace the Pilots. I'm sick of losing friends to those imbeciles that can't tell a friend from a foe. It's not hard, they send out a friendly signal and have a different colour and shape of vehicle to the enemy.

But yet they still keep getting hit. Great aircraft, shame about the pilots,


Manned fighters will soon be obsolete
By mkorn on 12/9/2007 9:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think spending 40 billion on a new manned fighter program is 20th century thinking. The future is UCAV's like the predator. And here is why I think so. No fighter pilot to get killed or captured causing a political crisis. With missile technology what it is today fighters are glorified missile platforms. They don't need the maneuverability that thrust vectoring brings. You could put an advanced targeting computer and missile on a predator and be as effective as the raptor for much less money.

It is hard for many people to say goodbye to manned fighters
not because they are more effective but because that is the
way it has always been. A similar situation happened in world war 2 regarding the aircraft carrier. Most navy commanders thought naval supremacy would be decided by battleships. One man Billy Mitchell new that the aircraft carrier was the future. Where is the Billy Mitchell of today.




RE: Manned fighters will soon be obsolete
By bunnyfubbles on 12/9/2007 10:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and the F-22 and F-35 both started from programs that started in the 20th century. Our military is well aware of the wall that has been met with manned aircraft, and they've even admitted that the F-22/F-35 are most likely to be the last manned fighter jets for the U.S.


RE: Manned fighters will soon be obsolete
By RubberJohnny on 12/9/2007 11:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...the F-22/F-35 are most likely to be the last manned fighter jets for the U.S.

IMHO the F-35 will be the first unmanned fighter jet too, possible retro fitted to the aircraft or with another top secret variant in development already.
I saw a documentary here in aus that was quizzing the govt on why we were buying the inferior F-35 instead of lobbying for the F-22 (considering we are miles from anywhere and the extra range would have come in handy) and our (former) minister for defence said that there was one big reason that swayed us but it was still classified information that he could not discuss. I'm taking a wild guess here but what else could it be?


By UNCjigga on 12/10/2007 12:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well the F-22 was never cleared for sale/export. Even if it were, I doubt it would make sense for Australia to invest in it from a cost perspective.


By FastLaneTX on 12/16/2007 2:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
The F-35 costs a lot less than the F-22. They also perform different missions; the F-22 is designed to kill anything that flies, whereas the F-35 is designed for attacking ground targets -- after the F-22s have cleared the skies for them and a forward air base is ready.

It's perfectly logical to expect an unmanned version of the F-35 or even F-22 as a testbed, but there's a lot of things you'd do different if you were designing for unmanned operation from the start. There's a lot of weight, space, and aerodynamics that could be improved if you didn't have to accomodate a pilot.

Also, while UCAVs are obviously the future, they're nowhere near ready for real-world combat today. The F-15, F-16, and F-18 are all showing their age and we need something to bridge the gap.


By captain fufu on 12/22/2007 3:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
That makes a lot of sense. I've figured the technology is here, as proven by the Predator. Why not take the next step and produce an unmanned combat aircraft?


RE: Manned fighters will soon be obsolete
By Lastfreethinker on 12/9/2007 11:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
Manned fighters will never be obsolete. A manned fighter has no lag between input and action a UCAV does. Also if a UCAV was to get autonomous capabilities it would only be able to do that it was programmed to do. The device would be predictable and easy out thought. UCAVs have a great strategic and tactical advantage what I would imagine you will see down the pipe is manned fighters accompanied by UCAVs either as sacrificial lambs if the need arises or/and to augment the capabilities of the squadron to a better degree.


By geddarkstorm on 12/10/2007 2:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ooo, like those little helper bots in Grandius :D


By inperfectdarkness on 12/10/2007 9:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
simple physics tells us why manned fighters will be obsolete:

g-forces.

your top pilots will g-loc beyond 9 sustained g's. meanwhile, we have missiles which can pull excess of 40 g's. the more g's that a plane can withstand, the better dogfighter it will be. even if it's a 15g unmanned plane against an f-22, the performance advantage is stark.


RE: Manned fighters will soon be obsolete
By timmiser on 12/10/2007 11:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
You may be right, but the unmanned program is in its infancy and I don't think anyone in their right mind is willing to go 100% to an unmanned fighter program. 50 years from now maybe, but no way are we ready to make that step today.

In my opinion, I think the whole 'platform' idea of air combat is "20th century thinking". Why build a large drone aircraft to shoot missiles from? It would be much more effective and efficient to develope an advance cruise missile that is operated remotely, able to loiter the target area and return to base if not needed. This results in a cost savings, less fuel to keep the ordinances aloft, plus you would have more redundency over enemy areas therefore more difficult to defend against.


RE: Manned fighters will soon be obsolete
By inperfectdarkness on 12/11/2007 12:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
because the enemy is never going to send up a lone mig against us.

if anything, they already know the only way to stand a chance is to overwhelm us in numbers. a long "flying missile" isn't going to cut it.

we need a half-dozen amraams on station minimum.


By timmiser on 12/11/2007 9:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
You missed the fact that the reduncy is in the numbers of flying missiles would be much higher than those on a flying platform.

Regardless, where do get the idea that an enemy's strategy is to overwhelm us? Is that just your hunch or is there a link you can refer to that points out that this is the most likely line of attack?


Right out of the box
By tallguywithglasseson on 12/9/2007 9:07:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"When you project ahead to the F-35s that will be entering the fleet in 2010, you see fighters that benefit from the testing we're doing now -- fighters that will set new standards for combat-readiness right out of the box."


It comes in a box?




RE: Right out of the box
By cheetah2k on 12/9/2007 9:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
.... all wrapped in Xmas paper, red bow, and personalised name tag

HO-HO-HO

:-D


RE: Right out of the box
By theapparition on 12/10/2007 2:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It comes in a box?

At the end of the day, don't we all..........


RE: Right out of the box
By timmiser on 12/10/2007 11:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you're lucky.


F-35s Difference from the F-22
By Lastfreethinker on 12/9/2007 6:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22 is an air force fighter, meaning it has LONG runways to land and take off from allowing it to carry more weapons and fuel. It is considered and Air-Dominance fighter with strike capabilities.

The F-35 is a multipurpose fighter, it is set to replace the F-16 and is to also be used by the Navy, and Marines. The Marine variant has VTOL and is more of a ground support (Harrier replacement.) In live free die hard you saw the marine version.




RE: F-35s Difference from the F-22
By ajfink on 12/9/2007 6:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, these are definitely different aircraft. They will compliment each other extremely well when they're in the air together, though. Together, they represent the definition of air superiority. There are some other really nice fighters out there, but none are as total-package as the F-22 and F-35. The MiG 29 and "Eurofighter" come to mind.


RE: F-35s Difference from the F-22
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2007 11:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
In Live Free or Die Hard you saw a CGI sequence of the Marine version. ;)


By Lastfreethinker on 12/10/2007 12:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
...


Another difference between F-22 & f-35
By SaintSinner1 on 12/9/2007 9:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
F-22 can be refuel and rearm by flying on low attitude over carrier or any friendly airfield. F-35 no way !




By cheetah2k on 12/9/2007 9:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
LOL

EA should introduce airtanker refueling and rearming in Battlefield 2, rather than carriers and airfields.

The airtanker could be deployed like a UAV to make the game more interesting ;-)


RE: Another difference between F-22 & f-35
By RubberJohnny on 12/9/2007 11:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually BF2 features the F-35 not the F-22... remember VTOL from the carrier while the attack chopper smokes you with the camera guided missile :) some people are just to accurate with those things...


By BruceLeet on 12/10/2007 10:45:34 AM , Rating: 2
Like me :P Seriously, my team is 1st in TWL NA 2v2 Chopper ladder, Im sure most of you dont know what Im talking about but I just had to say heh


By hobbes7869 on 12/9/2007 7:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot vouch for the performance of the f-35, since I have never seen them perform, however at this year's EAA, there was an F-22 that performed. It did not need extreme distances for take off, they lit the afterburners, vectored the exhaust and launched off the runway in well under 5000 feet. Then it blew down the flight line 50' above the tarmac, afterburners blazin' (flaps down, since it is frowned upon when they break the sound barrier) and rocketed verticl into the sky. Compared the f-16,16, this was even more astounding. I do have to say though the a-10 is just as impressive, and intimidating, though not nearly as loud. The F-35, is going to probably end up like the f-16 vs the f-15, with the f-15 being the more impressive of two incredible aircraft.




Err..
By IceTron on 12/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Err..
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/9/2007 5:27:08 PM , Rating: 3
Looking at the pic should tell you the differences :)

The F-22 is larger and is twin-engined. The F-35 is a single-engine plane.


RE: Err..
By KingstonU on 12/9/2007 5:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
The F-35 also has vertical takeoff and landing while the F-22 does not. It's also in the "Live Free or Die Hard" movie :D


RE: Err..
By Martin Blank on 12/9/2007 7:39:44 PM , Rating: 4
Only one version, the F-35B planned for use by the Marines and the Royal Navy, has V/STOL capabilities. The naval F-35C is carrier-hardened. The F-35A, intended for use by the Air Force, is the base model on which the other two are built.


RE: Err..
By Anonymous Freak on 12/9/2007 11:23:51 PM , Rating: 3
The "vertical" model is technically a "STOVL", or "Short Take Off, Vertical Landing". It cannot TAKE OFF vertically, but it can land that way. (For that matter, while the AV-8B may technically be a vertical takeoff, it is almost never used that way, simply for the fact that it takes a lot of fuel to take off vertically, and that weight is better used for distance, or for weapons.) The idea is that by not even designing in vertical takeoff, you don't need to have as powerful a vertical engine. The vertical engine only needs to support the "empty" weight of the plane, not the fully weapon loaded and fueled weight.


RE: Err..
By boing on 12/10/2007 4:42:30 AM , Rating: 5
all planes can land vertically, it just doesn't impress the passengers much.


RE: Err..
By clayclws on 12/10/2007 8:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
You made my day~!


RE: Err..
By gilboa on 12/10/2007 11:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
/+1.

There goes my coffee :)

- Gilboa


RE: Err..
By MrBungle123 on 12/10/2007 10:50:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It cannot TAKE OFF vertically, but it can land that way.


Yes it can, they've shown it do it on the military channel.


RE: Err..
By spindoc on 12/10/2007 1:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I saw VTOL when they were competing with Boeing for the contract.

Fully armed and fueled may be a different story. I think the Harrier works the same way.


RE: Err..
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/9/2007 5:54:00 PM , Rating: 5
The F-22 is also far more badass than the F-35 could ever dream to be.


RE: Err..
By Bluestealth on 12/9/2007 5:59:48 PM , Rating: 5
The F-22 was also in Transformers... so it is thereby better than F-35 which was only in Live Free or Die Hard.


RE: Err..
By KingstonU on 12/9/2007 6:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ok the F-22 was in many movies like The Hulk. And Iron Man is going to take on 2 of these bad boys next spring. I can't wait.


RE: Err..
By ryedizzel on 12/9/2007 7:01:16 PM , Rating: 4
The F-35 must suck then if it couldn't even take out Bruce Willis in a slow moving semi.


RE: Err..
By Etsp on 12/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Err..
By Bigjee on 12/9/2007 8:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ability of the machine depends heavily on the ability of the one operating it.


heavily? i don't think so. The F22 cannot fly without its on board computer regardless of the ability of the pilot.


RE: Err..
By Ringold on 12/9/2007 8:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
It can, and they have.

Consult the great oracle of knowledge that is past DT articles. :)


RE: Err..
By Luna M on 12/9/2007 8:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
Do your homework. The F-22 is plenty airworthy without its computer system, and in fact it has been piloted successfully during a system-wide computer failure.


RE: Err..
By Martin Blank on 12/9/2007 8:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
A complete collapse of the control computers would make it impossible for the pilot to control. Fighters are designed to be as unstable as possible within the parameters of the computers that can control it to maximize maneuverability and responsiveness. The flight control electronics are probably the most stable thing on these planes. It's been this way for decades, and the only fighter-sized jet combat aircraft in the US inventory that can be flown without control computers is the A-10.


RE: Err..
By 91TTZ on 12/9/2007 9:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
This is incorrect.

There have been a number of successful landings in modern fighters when the electrical systems have gone out.


RE: Err..
By aaorator on 12/10/2007 3:26:42 AM , Rating: 4
No, he's right. There is a significant difference between an aircrafts flight control computers, which operate all of the aircraft's control surfaces, and it's avionics and navigational systems. Aircraft can (and have) lost their avionics systems and still be safely landed. However, an aircraft will become completely unstable and go into a downward spiral within a second of losing it's flight control computer.

As was mentioned earlier, modern aircraft are built to be dynamically unstable. A typical analogy used to represent dynamic instability is a ball sitting on the top of a hill, with valleys immediately to each side. While the ball will stay in place at the top of the hill if untouched, even the slightest of disturbances will cause it to roll down one side. Modern aircraft are built the same way; their tendency is always to roll away from the crest of the hill, and it takes significant computing power and input to keep the aircraft from going unstable.

In fact, pilots of these aircraft are quick to point out that when it comes to flying the aircraft, their input into the control stick is really more of a suggestion than a command. Ultimately it is the aircraft's flight control computer which determines how to interpret the input, either by applying rudder or vertical stabilizer deflections, or some combination there of. No pilot in the world could safely fly one of these aircraft without the flight control computer.

That being said, there are a number of stunt aircraft which approach the limits of dynamic stability in an effort to add maneuverability. Pilots of such aircraft will attest to the difficulty inherent in flying such demanding aircraft, even without the added complication of performing an aerobatic routine.


RE: Err..
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2007 11:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
Nearly all military aircraft have hydraulic backups for the flight controls in case the computer systems go down.


RE: Err..
By Martin Blank on 12/10/2007 8:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
Every fighter in current inventory is at least fly-by-wire, if not fly-by-light. There is no direct connection from the stick or pedals to the actual control surfaces. It is impossible for a pilot to control a modern fighter without electronic input, and therefore any links to the hydraulics would be a pointless waste of space and weight, and add needless complexity.


RE: Err..
By theapparition on 12/10/2007 2:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
Martin's right.

Without flight control, these newer craft become aerodynamically unstable and would drop out of the sky like a paperweight.


RE: Err..
By KingstonU on 12/9/2007 9:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
Same with the F-16. It is aerodynamically unstable, the benefit of this is that the plane can rotate much more quickly and more maneuverable. But pilot would never be able to keep it level without the aid of the on board computer making hundreds of adjustments every second.


RE: Err..
By Amiga500 on 12/10/2007 5:17:43 AM , Rating: 1
The first F-16 was unstable.

Every subsequent model had relaxed stability - but technically were "just" stable.


RE: Err..
By Min Jia on 12/10/2007 9:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
F-22 airframe IS aerodynamically stable. It can glide.


RE: Err..
By Martin Blank on 12/10/2007 11:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's not stable. It may have a backup electrical system such as a battery bank or a ram air turbine to maintain power to the hydraulics and allow the engines to be spun back up for a restart, but an F-22 without any power whatsoever will crash uncontrollably.


RE: Err..
By Bluestealth on 12/9/2007 5:58:21 PM , Rating: 3
The F-22 is currently in service in the US Air Force, the F-35 won't enter service until ~2011.
It costs much more than the F-35 per unit, ~138M vs 48-63M.
It is a stealthier aircraft, as well as being an electronic warfare platform.
It does not have vertical lift off and landing like the F-35B, but does have thrust vectoring.

As someone else already mentioned the F-22 is also bigger, and is twin engined. They are in reality very different planes that share some common elements.


RE: Err..
By Noya on 12/9/2007 6:08:39 PM , Rating: 3
There was an article just the other day citing the F-35's price tag at $100m each (budget overrun), not far from the F-22 price tag. And considering the F-22 is an air-superiority fighter (meaning it can secure airspace against ANY threat) with stealth and ground attack capabilities, all but the ground attack F-35's seem kind of redundant.


RE: Err..
By Bluestealth on 12/9/2007 6:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
LOL :)... I didn't hear about the budget overrun, but yeah except for the VTOL for the marines the F-35 does seem pretty redundant.
I did read about more F-22s being ordered though yesterday in an article about the F-15s.


RE: Err..
By KingstonU on 12/9/2007 6:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
This is because the 30 year old F-15s are starting to show signs of metal fatigue and so have been grounded. Now they all have to be replaced with F-22s.


RE: Err..
By Martin Blank on 12/9/2007 8:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
The grounding is temporary, and the F-15E models (and their variants) were cleared for flight on 14 November provided each airframe was inspected prior to flight. The A-D models are pending further investigation, and will fly even if repairs are required. The Eagle is scheduled to serve US interests through at least 2025.

It may result in a larger buy-up of Raptors than expected, as only 183 are currently planned (including the 100 or so which have been delivered), with the current production contract ending in 2011. However, full-rate production was only recently approved for the F-22, and even with a hundred planes available, there's still a lot of work to be done, including wear evaluations, development of tactics and strategy, and working it into the existing battle plans, all of which takes significant time.


RE: Err..
By Noya on 12/9/2007 7:24:32 PM , Rating: 3
Why rate me down?

quote:
Costs for the program have ballooned from $30 billion USD in 2002 to $40 billion USD today. And according to the Air Force, a single F-35 will cost $100 million USD when production is comfortably underway in 2013 -- this compares to $50 million USD for a single F-16 or $132 million USD for a single F-22 Raptor .


Source: http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed+F35+Program+Plag...


RE: Err..
By 91TTZ on 12/9/2007 8:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
This has been covered many, many times. That is the cost of the entire program divided by the number of aircraft built, not the price of the aircraft itself. The R&D and tooling costs are already sunk regardless of if they build any aircraft or not.


RE: Err..
By Jedi2155 on 12/10/2007 3:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
And if you keep that in mind, then the F-22 actually costs about $325 million each, while the F-35 "only" costs $102 million with R&D figures included.

$62 Billion for the F-22 program / 191 Planned Aircraft = $325 Mil each
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371

$244.8 Billion for the US F-35 program / 2400 Planes = $102 Mil each
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A382...


RE: Err..
By 91TTZ on 12/10/2007 12:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
I like to avoid using those figures since they're very misleading.

The R&D and tooling costs are already spent so you're not going to be able to reduce them by buying less aircraft. You spent the money designing the thing, you might as well get something out of it.

Unfortunately politicians sway people by misquoting figures and skewing numbers. They'll say something like "These fighters cost $325 million a piece! The taxpayers can't afford to buy 400 of them! Let's cut that down to 200", making people believe that they'll only be spending half the money now. But in reality, the aircraft themselves are not that expensive, the cost of R&D was thrown in there and you're never getting that back, even if you buy no aircraft.


RE: Err..
By Bluestealth on 12/9/2007 11:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well I saw in another comment that the F-22 cannot actually be used by the Navy because it requires long runways. Thus the F-35 is still very useful to the Navy and Marines; and somewhat so to the Army and Airforce.

This might get me modded down...
Why hasn't the Air Force been reintegrated into the Navy/Army? It seems to me they have outlived their need to be a separate entity.


RE: Err..
By Martin Blank on 12/10/2007 8:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
The Navy was going to buy a version of the F-22 to replace the F-14, but this was scrapped in the 1990s.


RE: Err..
By inperfectdarkness on 12/11/2007 12:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
because of the focal point of the branches.

the navy fights a naval battle and supports the marines.

the army fights the ground war.

the marines are the strike force.

the air-force fights for air-superiority. they also provide a real-time tactical ground picture (e-8), they support space operations (satellites, etc), and they also are the front of military cyberspace defense. long story short--the air-force is the research r&d branch moreso than any other. the results benefit all branches.


RE: Err..
By bunnyfubbles on 12/9/2007 10:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well there's a big check point that was left out in that the F-35 is going to be available to some of our allies whereas the F-22 is solely a U.S. plane, so they'll have access to this "F-22 Jr". ;)


RE: Err..
By imperator3733 on 12/9/2007 6:54:40 PM , Rating: 3
One of the easiest ways to tell them apart visually (at least for me) is the air intakes. The F-22's intakes angle back, while the F-35's angle forwards. Minor difference visually, but if you're looking at them at the right angles it's a quick thing to check.

The F-35 is also being sold to allied countries, while I'm pretty sure that the F-22 is not.


RE: Err..
By HrilL on 12/9/2007 7:22:47 PM , Rating: 3
Correct. the US is keeping the F-22 to itself. But I don't have a problem with that since I live in the US of A


RE: Err..
By jamdunc on 12/9/2007 7:56:12 PM , Rating: 5
Well the EFA is more manouverable than an F22 thanks to the cunards on the front but to be honest, nothing can compare to the Russian planes for air to air fighters.

As an ex-Avionics Technician, I can say that the equipment in the F22 is jaw-dropping in what it can do and the EFA can turn on what seems to be a penny, but when I see the Sukhoi's and MIG's of today, my eye's just pop out of their sockets with what they can do. That's why the F22 needs stealth, so it can sneak up, fire off an AMRAAM or 2 and then turn tail before it gets too close in case the AMRAAM's miss.

The F35 also has some form of stealth technology, and is why it has had a few hiccups when Lockheed-Martin didn't want to allow the RAF and Royal Navy access to the technical data, but when the British Government stepped in they withdrew their concerns, especially as it is BAE that is providing the data which allows it to be VTOL/STOL as only BAE has had success in that field (previously with the Harrier).

Also I'm not sure if the F22 is any good at low-level bombing which is what is normally needed to reduce civilian casualties.

As for when someone says it can secure the air against any threat, reminds me of a story from the 80's or the 90's when the US got it's new radar system and asked the RAF to test it and see how far they could get into the US on a pretend bombing run before they were spotted and intercepted. So along went the Vulcan bomber sent by the RAF and it was soon spotted by the radar and up went 2 Interceptors to take it out. But as they got there, the 4 Tornado F1's (the Fighter variant) flew out from underneath the Vulcan's radar signature and 'killed' the Interceptors. Pride always comes before a fall!

Nothing is invincible. :)

N.B. I do really like the F22 and the F35. They're both extraordinary planes but they are not the be it and end all which is the main point of my post!


RE: Err..
By Martin Blank on 12/9/2007 8:10:30 PM , Rating: 3
The F-22 is qualifying for the Small Diameter Bomb, which is allegedly accurate to a 5m CEP. This is going to help the accuracy of weapons dropped from medium altitudes dramatically.

Part of the strength of US air resources is the integration with AWACS. Using AWACS gives what could almost be considered an unfair advantage, but as it's part of the system, it has to be included. Russian and Chinese forces also use them to some degree, but are still a good 10-15 years behind US developments. Israel uses a business jet mounting a Phalcon radar for its own AWACS, and is alleged to be at least as good as the US in wielding it.


RE: Err..
By inperfectdarkness on 12/9/2007 10:08:24 PM , Rating: 3
couldn't have put it better myself. the russin awacs "mainstay" has mission capability issues. it's also inferior to the awacs. what we need, is the wedge-tail. like what the aussies are getting. what we're worried about is the "mainring" that china is developing.

you have to understand that to increase the distance a radar can see...you have to increase either the pulse repetition frequency, or the power input. there's no way a twin engine business jet will provide power anywhere close to what the awacs or jstars can put in the radar. heck, even if it loses a generator, the awacs can still give a very good radar picture.

bear in mind that even though the su-35 and mig-35 appear to be serious threats, they still fall behind the U.S. (especially in repairs). that's why our jets are so dammed expensive. we need upgraded missiles to keep our advantage in taking BVR shots. while we do have the upper-hand in radar missiles, israel is schooling us in i.r. missles. case in point: python 5.

oh, and last but not least. the f-22 flying with a 4-ship of f-15's is about 5x more lethal than 6 f-15's. ahhh...force integration.


RE: Err..
By rudy on 12/9/2007 8:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
From what I have heard currently an F22 can kill a person maneuvering. So unless these other planes are autonomous won't they all pretty much be the same unless they have some way to keep a guy alive under greater Gforce?


RE: Err..
By soydios on 12/9/2007 9:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
airframes have been able to take more g's than their pilots for some time now. my friend's dad flew F-14s, and he has a story where he blacked out during a high-g maneuver, flight suit with the pressure things around the legs and breathing and all, and didn't wake up until a few seconds later, when he came out of the clouds heading towards the ground upside down. fortunately, the ceiling was nice and high that day.


RE: Err..
By cheetah2k on 12/9/2007 9:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
The F22 and F35 have stabilisation software that cuts in and levels when it decides the pilot is no longer in control.

This is essential in high-G maneuvers.


RE: Err..
By 91TTZ on 12/9/2007 9:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
Maneuverability is great for airshows, but realistically the fight is over long before you're seen. The Russian aircraft may look more impressive at airshows, but in an aerial battle what most likely would happen is that they'd detect missiles coming seemingly out of nowhere. The F-22s' radar will detect the other fighter long before it can detect the F-22.


RE: Err..
By NullSubroutine on 12/10/2007 12:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
thats what they thought in the Vietnam war that they didnt need guns on the Phantoms. However, when they couldnt attack a fighter until they have visual confirmation, which meant you have to be in gun range where your radar and Air to Air missile advantage gets wiped out.

the Su and MiG make great planes that are very maneuverable and could have an advantage in close air to air combat. however to what extent either F22 or Su-37 (or other Su/MiG aircraft) could beat each other is highly dependent on pilot skill and how many encounters occur.

as more and more battles between pilots and aircraft ensue more exploitations, strengths, and weaknesses are found in each aircraft.

no amount of arguing and talking on the internet will ever discover the truth. sure the F22 looks great at distance and multi-targeting dogfighting. sure the Su-37 and variants have great handling, but thats all on 'paper' no one can know what will be superior until the wars are fought.


RE: Err..
By inperfectdarkness on 12/10/2007 9:41:22 AM , Rating: 1
it's more highly dependent on the air-air weaponry. our tactics revolve around BVR shots. extend the range we can launch "no-escape" shots, and we increase our lethality.

imagine if amraams could use medium PRF from 60mi. holy shit!


RE: Err..
By inperfectdarkness on 12/10/2007 9:46:25 AM , Rating: 2
*edit*

there's also talk of integration between flights. so that plane #2 can support plane #1's missiles.


RE: Err..
By Grast on 12/10/2007 12:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
I does not matter how manuverable an aircraft can be. If the pilot does not know where the target is located, the pilot can not manuver their aircraft into a position. This is the reason the F-22 can and IS ruler of the skies.

A F-15E, F16, Su27, Euro Fighter, and all of the other fantasic aircraft do not have a chance. You can not hit what you can not see.

Later...


RE: Err..
By jamdunc on 12/30/2007 10:05:21 PM , Rating: 1
Later?

Well up until a few years ago, the best radar around was the one in the Tornado F3 in the RAF. just a pity the aircraft around the radar was absolute shite.

Not sure about EFA's radar but I think the best one in the world right now is French, I could be wrong on that one though.


RE: Err..
By 91TTZ on 12/10/2007 12:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
You're right.

The problem in Vietnam wasn't related to the weaponry on our aircraft, it was related to the rules of engagement imposed by our leadership.

They took an aircraft (F-4) designed for Beyond Visual Range engagements and prohibited the pilots from engaging the enemy from that far out.


RE: Err..
By timmiser on 12/10/2007 11:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, more of the issue was the Sparrows that the Phantom carried were cutting edge for the day, but guided air to air missiles were still in their infancy during that era.


RE: Err..
By Martin Blank on 12/10/2007 11:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
There were plenty of cases of MiG-21 fighters popping up out of nowhere to ambush Phantoms. In addition, the much smaller MiGs with their smokeless engines made them harder to see at a distance (the F-4's engine exhaust is visible from a long way off), and the Phantom's radar didn't cover the sides or rear of the craft. AWACS wasn't in use at the time over Vietnam, so there wasn't enough radar coverage to pick up enemy craft.

This is less of an issue now, but it's still possible to be ambushed. Just as the pilots that flew in Desert Storm and Kosovo, who occasionally had enemy fighters pop up nearby despite AWACS covering the area (though I think only one allied aircraft, an F-18, was ever shot down in air-to-air combat between the two conflicts).


RE: Err..
By inperfectdarkness on 12/11/2007 12:15:33 AM , Rating: 2
no. but we had ec-121's back then.

and NO fighter has radar coverage in the sides and rear of the jet. stop smoking crack.


RE: Err..
By Bigjee on 12/9/2007 8:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-35 is also being sold to allied countries, while I'm pretty sure that the F-22 is not.


Yup there is European cooperation in the F35 program. I think the F22 is superior since it has thrust vectoring . The F35 clearly lacks that and is single engined.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki