F-35- cost per effect makes more sense

I think its a good idea and as Bluetone says above similar to the smart weapons.

It needs to be accurate though, say for example you were replacing the UK Harrier and Tornado with the F-35 then you should take into account the commonality, reduction in manpower, training and facilities etc.

I suppose why I say it has to be accurate, I don't recall legacy fighters cost per hour comparison being due to wartime survivability, it was just a linear line of flight vs maintenance?

Tornado was designed to fly nap of the earth putting it in the way of AAA but that didn't come with the consideration that it would be cheaper because we would lose more.

The other consideration is if we buy less aircraft due to the above reasons, you have already taken the survivability into consideration so be careful not to double dip.

Have to make sure we are comparing the right things with the cost and its good to challenge it, you don't just stick with Cost per flying hour just because we have always done it.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Mach2

Baghdad's defenses were heavy enough that only the F-117 was allowed to hit targets there. Projected losses of non stealth aircraft trying to hit there were fairly heavy. I don't remember the exact number though.

The problem here is that you can't do an apples to apples comparison that makes sense. A single F-35 completely changes the battlefield without ever firing a shot.

...The stealth planes took out the radar and command/control structure of the air defenses.

8 Apaches destroyed the radar and opened the corridor;



It's a badass video, too short though,

originally posted by: Bluntone22

There is a reason every Nation with a military aircraft industry is developing stealth fighters.
I would also point out that the f-15 first flew in the mid 70’s.
The airframe is approaching fifty years old.
The truth is that you never know for sure who or where you will be fighting.

Most nations building stealth fighter jets today do not regard themselves as a superpower or have any intention of fighting an expeditionary war against the Chinese.

The US is preparing to fight in a theater woefully unsuited for fighter jets of any kind. Times change. The Air Force fighting Desert Storm in 1990 was built up to fight the Soviet Union in Europe. This mission is long gone but the US has proven incapable to adjust to the new realities for the last thirty years. Programs like the F-22 and JSF were little more than the continuation of Cold War armament programs. Just a decade late and the wrong tools for the war at hand at the time.
But this is water on the bridge. Today the US is facing the reality of confronting a near-peer opponent determined to take US airpower head on. Confronting this enemy requires new thinking and an adjustment of the force structure to the realities of expeditionary warfare in the Pacific.
The US needs fewer fighter jets overall. It will need a higher percentage of stealth fighter jets in its force structure as well, but procuring 1700 F-35As is a huge waste of resources they don't have.
What they should do is cut the JSF program back to 1000 F-35As, get rid of the F-Teens entirely, and procure 400 B-21 while rejuvenating the existing strategic platforms.
They'd end up with a leaner, less expensive force structure actually geared towards their next mission instead of a bloated fighter jet centric circus desperately short on tanker aircraft and runways.

And yes, in all likelihood, the US won't actually fight China. But they need to build up their forces properly in order to deter them. And if the US ends up fighting someone else, the Air Force that can take on China can take on anyone else as well.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Mach2

You'd be surprised at how many people that should understand better that are against the entire program, and in favor of more upgraded fourth gen. They keep looking at it as a failed dogfighter based on old reports, and ignore everything else it brings to the table.

You would be surprised in how many people have a vested interest in seeing the F-35 program being cancelled. If you are going to build more fourth gen fighters, the only place to go is Boeing and their track record right now sucks. I've been posting that when you look at almost any article attacking the F-35, the author has a connection to Boeing.

a reply to: JIMC5499

It's worked on the masses. Luckily they don't have a say in it.

a reply to: mightmight

Does everything have to be centered around the South China Sea? There is a whole continental corridor available for air operations that isn't nearly as defended as the SCS.

a reply to: Masisoar

The distance between Bagram Airfield and Central China is some 2500 miles, basically the same as if you were coming in from Guam.
But you'd be flying through hostile airspace the entire time and the PLAAF does have a significant presence in Western China.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's great and all, but most actions these days are carried out by drones against targets that don't have radar. Such as Taliban or ISIS convoys, or arms caches in the desert.

An expensive stealth plane doesn't make economic sense when your enemy is decades away from having even WWII level radar coverage.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Of course, because we're never going to fight anyone but cave dwelling barbarians that don't have their own military.

Speaking of Desert Storm vids,did anyone figure out the mystery plane that was supposedly filmed while taking off at night during a News report?Or is my memory out to lunch again?
With the F35 and its data fusion and integration of multiple battlefield views its a game changer..

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: Zaphod58

Wow that’s a bad argument on many levels.

Desert Storm was 30 years ago. It’s almost irrelevant for the battlefield of today or a near-peer conflict ten or twenty years down the line.
You cannot pick a single-use case from 30 years ago to support your economic arguments of operating a stealth fleet in the threat environment of the 21st century.

Does this even need explaining?
Aerospace warfare has changed drastically to what was possible a generation ago. Technologies and capabilities have improved tremendously and will continue to evolve in the coming decade. Aerial warfare today is nothing like it was 30 years ago and it will be different again 10 or 20 years from now.

So yes, F-117s back in 1990 were able to hit more targets on the first night than a conventional, much larger strike package. But what of it?

First, the first hour / first night is an extreme use case anyway. Conventional aircraft were perfectly able to perform strike at high-efficiency levels once Iraqi AD was degraded. And this is true for every conflict everywhere. Once the enemies AD is rendered ineffective, Stealth becomes irrelevant very quickly.

Second, back in 1990, the F-117 was a new plane with the very latest targeting and weapon tech, while conventional strike packages often relied on significantly older, basically 70s hardware to get the job done. This very unique situation is not in any way relevant today.

Third, if they think the F-117 went in without support they are kidding themselves. Whether you believe the Companion stories or not, they did have at the very least EF-111 support and air cover.

Fourth, the most economic solution today, tomorrow or back in 1990 is, was and ever will be standoff weaponry deployed from ships or strategic platforms. You don’t need to send in a 40 or 20 aircraft strike package. A couple of Tomahawks or a single B-52 using JASSMs (or ALCMs back in the day) is far superior.

So, moving forward, what would a Desert Storm like conflict look like today?
First off, both conventional and stealth aircraft have basically identical targeting capabilities. There is no practical difference between using a late Block F-16, Strike Eagle, or an F-35. Yes, the F-35 has superior technology but both, 5th and 4.5th Gen would be able to hit assigned targets without any difficulty.
The same is true for the bomber department, it really doesn’t matter if a B-21 or a B-52 or B-1B drops the JASSMs or JDAMs. It just works and we’re not talking edge case here.

And you won’t need one aircraft for one Aimpoint either, if it came down to it. Fighter jets today are perfectly able to attack half a dozen or more targets with quad-packed precision weaponry. And a single strategic platform today could reliably take out the aim points assigned to multiple fighter squadrons in 1990 in one sortie. It’s just not comparable, it’s ridiculous.

Sidenote - if they want to argue economics, they should look at sortie rates in any case. A modern conventional fighter jet (if properly supported) can fly significantly more combat missions in any given timeframe compared to the 1990s. Just look at how the IAF was able to boost their sortie rates over the last ten years alone. Stealth jets have yet to demonstrate similar rates in wart time conditions.

Moving on, strike packages. The main point is, whether you fly conventional or stealth, after the first day there’s no difference anyway. Against a second-tier opponent you’ll just knock out the AD on the first day and after that, your stealth fleet converts to hauling ordnance externally anyway.
The entire ‘oh conventional aircraft are so inefficient because they need so much support’ just doesn’t fly since it’s at best only relevant for the very first few missions to kick in the door.

Never mind that against a first-rate opponent, the Stealth fleet too would be heavily supported. You’d have a fighter escort component as well as standoff jamming support. Just like they had in 1990.
And since they mention the B-21, the entire freaking program is built around a family of systems supporting the penetrating bomb carrier. If the B-21 is ever going up against targets defended by an integrated air defense system, it will do so with at the very least a recon and a jamming component in support. The idea of the single stealth platform flying through enemy airspace just isn’t a thing.
Maybe it was for a brief period in the 90s against a second-rate opponent but this is just not relevant anymore.
You just wouldn’t penetrate the enemies AD to drop short range laser-guided bombs today. The whole concept is just asinine.

The US arsenal has changed since Desert Storm and is changing even more rapidly today. Engagement ranges have increased dramatically. SLAM-ER and JASSM family missiles offer an extreme range strike precision strike capability. SiAW is just around the corner. 1990 SEAD/DEAD was a joke compared to what’s possible today with AARGM or even ordinary conventional precision glide bombs. Tomahawk are deployed in ever larger numbers and are in the process of receiving groundbreaking upgrades.
Not to mention the looming revolution that is hypersonic weaponry. It again will change the picture in its entirety and offer strike capabilities inconceivable even ten years ago.

So no, the lesson to take away is not stealth means fewer aircraft sorties, but that the fighter jet no matter the generation is the wrong platform to deploy modern standoff weapons against a first-tier opponent.

I could go on and put it in a more organized form but geez, I certainly don’t get payed to pick this bs apart

Don't rely on a conflict from 30 years ago to support your argument for the fight 10 years down the line.

/rant

The Strike Eagle also had the latest and greatest avionics. It is the only aircraft to hit a moving helicopter with a laser guided bomb. The F-15E and F117 would be a good comparison for the day. The F35 and F22 have superceded the penetration capabilities of the F117.

Zaph, even if the F35 were not that great at dogfighting, the A-7, A-10 and A-4 were not great either but all enjoyed a great career in tactical support.