If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

[hanelyp]

I've heard something about the new air to air combat doctrine being based on firing the kill shot before getting close enough for the enemy to see you on radar. In such a battle plan you don't need superior agility.

I'm also reminded that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.

[JLawson]

Can the F-35 Win a Dogfight?

In the aftermath of the F-22's cancellation, the Air Force was forced to alter its plans and press-gang the F-35—originally meant as a ground-attack aircraft—into service as an air-to-air fighter. It was the only way for the flying branch to keep enough dogfighters in the air.

“Operationally, we have to have it,” says Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh. “The decision to truncate the F-22 buy has left us in a position where even to provide air superiority [we need the F-35], which was not the original intent of the F-35 development.”

By contrast, there are troubling questions as to how well the F-35 would fare against the new foreign fighters. While the F-35 has air-to-air sensors and can carry air-to-air missiles, it does not have the kinematic performance of the F-22. It’s simply sluggish in comparison.

The Raptor was designed from the outset as an air-to-air killer par excellence—the F-35 was not. The Raptor combines a very stealthy airframe with a high altitude ceiling and supersonic cruise. Further, the F-22 possesses excellent maneuverability for close-in visual-range dogfights.

Combined with the integrated avionics, which correlate all of the aircraft’s sensor data into one coherent display, the F-22's stealth and kinematics make it arguably the most lethal fighter ever built.

The F-35 does have integrated avionics—in some ways more advanced than even the Raptor’s—and it has stealth. But the F-35 lacks aerodynamic performance. U.S. military test pilots say the JSF is similar to the Boeing F/A-18C in speed and maneuverability.

Ah, the joys of 'unexpected consequences'. Cut the number bought to save money, the cost per plane goes up, they start looking for an alternative - and shit, one plane looks a lot like another. F-22, F-35, the number's greater on the F-35 so it's probably more capable, so let's cut that underperforming, expensive ancient F-22 and go with the sparkly new F-35. We'll get our money's worth then!

Or so thinks our 'elite' politicians.

But that's okay - they saved the tooling for the F-22, it shouldn't take much longer than three or four years to get all the contracts going and all the parts coming in and the first new one off the assembly line. But Lockheed would charge them out the ass for it, if the beltway buffoons decided it was time to buy more F-22s...

[JLawson]

I've heard something about the new air to air combat doctrine being based on firing the kill shot before getting close enough for the enemy to see you on radar. In such a battle plan you don't need superior agility.

I'm also reminded that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.

F-35's not as stealthy as the F-22. Hard to sneak in close when you're lit up like a bug on a headlight...

[GIThruster]

. . .the number's greater on the F-35 so it's probably more capable, so let's cut that underperforming, expensive ancient F-22 and go with the sparkly new F-35. We'll get our money's worth then!

Or so thinks our 'elite' politicians.

The F22 is much more capable. Try to remember, the entire F35 program has always been sold as an inexpensive, single engine fighter, up until the program costs had ballooned so much it became the most expensive defense program in human history. And it is a flop. There was never a reason to develop a hover-fighter except the marines think that's cool. There's no reason to develop a Navy F35 because that role has been taken over by drones. There's no reason to have an Air Force version because the F-22 is a much better fighter.

The F35 is a horrible mistake, start to finish. Continuing spiral development of the F22 and drones would have cost far less and delivered far more, except to LockMart stock holders.

[choff]

I'm hoping that if the CAF doesn't get the F35 we get the F18E/F/G package, but especially the Growlers. Adds a whole different dimension to air to air combat. Enemy stealth aircraft stuck unable to use radar or communications, forced to slow down under mach 1 and go visual with cheaper aircraft using guns, even the missles get jammed.

[GIThruster]

I'm hoping that if the CAF doesn't get the F35 we get the F18E/F/G package, but especially the Growlers. Adds a whole different dimension to air to air combat. Enemy stealth aircraft stuck unable to use radar or communications, forced to slow down under mach 1 and go visual with cheaper aircraft using guns, even the missles get jammed.

I'm sure the EW some EW package is scheduled to be installed in the X-47B when it goes to a production frame. There are a bunch of really nice things about the 47. It is very stealthy, has much greater range and flight time, and is fantastically cheap compared to any manned fighter. The entire X-47B program cost less than 3 delivered F-35's will. That is the promise that was made when people lobbied for the F-35 but that has been shorn away through mismanagement.

Think about the savings if we likewise replace the B2 Spirit with the X-47C. The Spirits cost a billion dollars each. Drones can fly for a tiny, tiny fraction of that.

Manned aircraft are definitely on their way out, and some say the aircraft carrier itself is obsolete because of advancement in anti-ship missiles. I am not however convinced. Phalanx, lasers and anti-missile missiles.

[choff]

There's always this package of stealth and jamming from the early '80s in a pinch.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/01/bone-ibs/

[DeltaV]

This is just bringing the avionics up to the state of the art. Pacific Pivot seems to be the driver:

“Whether providing air support over ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan or shifting focus to support maritime operations in the Pacific, the IBS upgrade to the B-1 provides more capability to the quiver of our combatant commanders.”

Not a replacement for F-22s, but still very welcome to Pacific commanders as a long-range system, given the US's poor basing options there.

[ladajo]

given the US's poor basing options there.

Don't know if I agree with that. There is plenty of real estate in the pacific to operate from/through.

[ltgbrown]

And thus why aircraft carriers remain relevant for the foreseeable future.

[Skipjack]

Meanwhile, things are developing exactly as I predicted it. Lots of small combat drones at the front line (many for the price of one F22) supported by fewer manned fighters in the back.
This is the future and this is why we dot need more F22s and why I think that the F35 is a giant waste that should have been cancelled a long time ago. The F35 going towards a trillion USD now. Think of all the fusion research that could have been funded with that money (energy independence is much, much more important for national security than the F35).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... H2Zbo0KCxE

[GIThruster]

One thing is certain, while the F35 was originally conceived as and procured to be an inexpensive fighter, it is now the most expensive weapons system in human history. All by itself this is a colossal failure. Unless of course you own stock at Lock-Mart.

Predator C Avenger is not a stealth craft. This is just General Atomics dressing up an old form factor to compete with the real deal. Shabby by comparison. Predator's mission requires long flight times, hence the prop and broad wings. Making it faster negates these benefits and it won't form much competition with other options as it is not a stealth platform. It has lots of time in the sky and it's cheap, but my guess is when you compare its radar cross section to X-47B and its derivatives, it falls far short. And I'm sure there are platforms flying we know nothing about. . .

[Skipjack]

One thing is certain, while the F35 was originally conceived as and procured to be an inexpensive fighter, it is now the most expensive weapons system in human history. All by itself this is a colossal failure. Unless of course you own stock at Lock-Mart.

Yupp, I fully agree.

[DeltaV]

T-50 and J-20/31 pilots are quaking in their boots, Skippy.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4519&p=101441&sid=0 ... 25#p101441

[Skipjack]

T-50 and J-20/31 pilots are quaking in their boots, Skippy.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4519&p=101441&sid=0 ... 25#p101441

If you outnumber your enemy more than 12 to 1 and do no loose any pilots when you loose your vehicle, the odds are still in your favor. How many air to air missiles does an J-20 carry? How many will reach their target before the inevitable counter attack will hit the J20? How many will reach their target before being shot down by the laser carried by the drones? Also don't forget that the plan is to have manned fighter jets provide support. It would be similar to the bomber- fighter groups the allies used in WW2.
In WW2 (especially towards the end), the German Luftwaffe hat superior fighters, but they had no chance against the huge, never ending number of allied bombers. Same with tanks. German tanks were superior but they were crushed by the allied force of cheap mass produced, yet robust (because mass produced) light to medium tanks. German tanks were running out of fuel and ammo and the allies still kept coming. It worked in WW2 it would work even better with drones that do not cost you any pilots if they are shot down.
Drones are also a huge tactical advantage. You can sacrifice drones en masse in decoy attacks. It is a no brainer, if it gives you even a small advantage. You would not make the decision that easily when the lives of pilots are at stake (pilots are harder to replace than aircraft).