Back in December I applauded the decision to cut the F-22 Raptor funding and switch resources to increased production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. I still think that was the right move, but it’s disappointing to see the F-35 hit bumps. The project manager, a USMC major general (two stars), was recently replaced by a Navy vice admiral (three stars). Perhaps the message is an extra star means we’re trying that much harder. I hope so; we need to try harder.
The F-22 Raptor was an exercise in conspicuous consumption and the triumph of wants over needs. The F-35 is a much more cost-effective aircraft, but costs are still escalating and everyone involved in the project seems to have a hard time not tinkering with design and specifications. Some pretty smart defense reformers have argued the problems encountered by the F-35 are the unavoidable results of a procurement system which has gone completely off the rails – and I have a hard time disagreeing.
But make up your own mind on that score. Here are some good links to articles on the project’s current status.
Center For Defense Information
Related Articles |
MIG said:
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter designed to replace another air superiority fighter the F-15 Eagle. The F-35 was designed to replace the F-16 Falcon which has a complete different mission as a cheap multi-role fighter. Think of it this way the F-22 clears the sky of enemy fighters while the F-35 attacks ground targets. The exact same the job the F-15, and F-16 did during the Gulf wars. The problem is we have a President who doesn’t understand the difference between the two. The same man who had dozen meetings with Oprah Winfrey for the Olympics, but only meet Gen. McChrystal once during the first 5 months of taking office. His priority’s are all screwed up.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Frank Chadwick said:
MIG, thanks for your comment. I have to disagree, however. I’m sure the President is aware of the difference between the two aircraft. The number of people involved in defense who called for cancelling the F22 Raptor is legion, and while the comparison of the F-15/F-16 team to the F-22/F-35 sounds good in theory, in execution the F-22 was an unsustainably costly aircraft — a program which threatened to consume and destroy the entire Air Force procurement pipeline. The F-35 can easily fill the role of the F-22 for the forseeable future; the only aircraft on the planet it would have any problem with would have been the F-22. That’s why canning the Raptor and putting the funding behind the F-35 made such good sense, and still does. The challenge is keeping the F-35 program from going the same direction as the Raptor.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Firehand said:
Except that the Russians are test-flying a 5th-generation fighter, and the PRC is working hard on one. And the Russians have openly said they’re going to sell them.
Which means the F-35 will likely be facing planes equivalent to ‘the only aircraft on the planet it would have any problem with’.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Frank Chadwick said:
Firehand, thanks for the comment. I suppose that depends on what you mean by “equivalent.” I have genuine doubts that the Sukoi/HAL design the Russians and Indians are jointly developing will be anywhere near as capable as the F-22. The Indian J-XX won’t enter squadron service until 2020-2025 and I’m in pretty good company (including the Defense Intelligence Agency) in thinking the Chinese are not at the point where they can mass-produce a fifth-generation stealth fighter with capabilities equivalent even to the F-35, let along the F-22. The F-35 is an outstanding fifth generation fighter itself, and I suspect once we know more about those other aircraft, the JSF will come out on top of the heap.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Frank Chadwick said:
Sorry, there’s a slip in that last comment. It should read “The Chinese J-XX,” as the rest of the sentence suggests.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Shawn said:
You wrote that you doubt that the Sukoi/HAL design will be “equivalent” to the F-22. I agree but it doesn’t have to be, it only has to be “equivalent” or better than the F-35. From what I have read on the Russian design, is that it is intended for a F-22 level of capability. Whether they acheive this or not, it is a higher bar than the F-35 capability.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Shawn said:
One other point, was not the air-to-air fighter capabilities of the F-35 / JSF/ JASF downgraded during its development in the 1990’s so that it would not appear as a competitor to the F-22?
February 9th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Brian King said:
There is also the question of who we plan to fight with our F22’s. Sure it can defeat 20 F-15s (equivalents) in a straight up fight…but the Chinese will just send 21 or 41 aircraft or use 1000 ground to air missiles to knock one down. At some point we just have to accept that no matter how technologically advanced we get, there is almost always going to be a 10 dollar solution to stop it. We need to be masters of the 10 dollar solution, not the 10 billion dollar one. Of course the 10 dollar solution isn’t as glamorous…
February 9th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Frank Chadwick said:
Shawn, thanks for reading and commenting. You may be right about the Sukoi/HAL but that’s not my impression. There are design elements in it which seem deliberate decisions to not go high-end high-cost stealthy, unlike the F-22. Also the talk from the Russian defense minister (that I’ve seen) is all about penetrating enemy air defense envelopes at high speed, and it’s maximized for range and payload. To me it looks more like a multi-purpose stealthy strike fighter than a dedicated air defense aircraft, and with a price tag aimed at the export market. In other words, it sounds more like the F-35 than the F-22 to me. But admittedly we’re speculating on pretty thin evidence.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Shawn said:
I appreciate that we are speculating about which aircraft will be better at its job ten years from now. From what I have read though, the F-22 was meant to replace the F-15C in the air superiority role while the F-35 was meant to replace the F-16C/D, F-18C/D, AV-8B and A-10C in the ground attack roles. Air to air capability was a secondary consideration in the development of the F-35. Now, the F-35 is meant to act as a fighter primarily along with the limited number of F-22’s.
At least the US is allowing the F-35 to be exported unlike the F-22 which Japan, Australia and Israel wanted.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
MIG said:
I’ve linked some articles to try to prove a point that the F-22 cancellation was a big blunder on Obama’s part, and putting all your eggs in the F-35 was a bigger blunder. Not saying that the F-35 is not needed it’s just a poor substitute for an F-22. As Shawn has pointed out so well. In two day’s Iran has said they are going to give a big punch to the west. My guess is good as your guess, but if our worst fears are realized Iran will test a bomb in less than 48hrs. Iran will do all in it’s power to protect is nukes sites. Iran just had an air defense drill, and some defense analyst have said Iran air defense is very capable.
I doubt the Obama administration will do anything to stop Iran. But if they did this time instead of kicking the door open with F-15’s and letting the F-16’s bomb targets. We will be using the F-22’s to do the door kicking, and letting the B-2’s, B-1’s do the bombing. The new 30,000lb bomb massive ordnance penetrator can only be carried by B-2’s, B-1’s, and B-52’s. Most likely the B-2’s would do the bombing because it’s stealthy. If we had to rely on F-15’s to provide air support to B-52’s we would lose a lot of pilots to SAM’s or to fighters just like we did in first Gulf War. An air war is not won by fighting fair, it’s won by using overwhelming force. Just because the Afghanistan is a Special Ops War does not mean that next war will be same. If the F-22 was cancelled because we don’t need it in Afghanistan then the same logic would be to get rid of our US Navy since Afghanistan is land locked.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585143,00.html
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?129494-Fortress-Iran
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3771522&page=1
February 10th, 2010 at 4:25 am
Frank Chadwick said:
Shawn, without beating this horse forever, let me just say that my understanding is similar to yours. However, I would substitute the term “FGA” (fighter ground attack) where you say just “ground attack.” F-16 and F-18 are both very capable multi-role aircraft, including air superiority, which is why a lot of air forces fly the F-16 without the F-15 and the USN replaced its F-14 Tomcats with F-18 Hornets.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
The Forester said:
Bravo, Brian King, for hitting the nail squarely on the head. You might also have added that the $10 solution is also not as profitable for the corporations that rule our empire.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Brass said:
After reading this, I’m not so sanguine about the PAK-FA,
http://www.gormogons.com/2010/02/pak-fa-analysis-verdict-uh-oh.html
February 17th, 2010 at 9:41 am