I read a while back how the U.S. will not share the F22 Raptor, even with it's closest allies because it is so very advanced. Hence why the allies are buying and providing mega-dollars to the F35 JSF project.

The F35 was never designed to have a secondary engine choice. It has more than enough power to be every style imaginable, including the VTOL version which recently passed it's first vertical take off and hover tests.

I find it interesting though that after so few F22's have been built and put into service that the funding is being pulled early. Perhaps the warring the country is involved in is a huge dollar sink hole?

Originally posted by Tayesin
I read a while back how the U.S. will not share the F22 Raptor, even with it's closest allies because it is so very advanced. Hence why the allies are buying and providing mega-dollars to the F35 JSF project.

There is actually a law against the foreign sale of F-22s, which is what has blocked sales thus far - remove that law, and...

I find it interesting though that after so few F22's have been built and put into service that the funding is being pulled early. Perhaps the warring the country is involved in is a huge dollar sink hole?

The F-22 is significantly more aircraft than is needed today or for the next 15 years.

The USAF is more likely to be fighting small, high intensity, ground supporting wars than a war which requires air domination against a trained, combat effective enemy airforce.

This is why Lockheed and the USAF are rushing to prove the F-22 in the air support role, because otherwise you end up with a situation much like the B-1B was in during the first Gulf War - it was still exclusively in a nuclear deterrent role, and had to undergo significant modifications and certification in order to switch to a conventional role. Without the role enhancement, you end up with the F-22 stuck in the air domination role which even an aging F-16 could fulfill.

So the emphasis has switched from the 'total domination aircraft' to the 'all rounder aircraft', with the latter being the F-35. Funds have switched as a result.

Yes, the F-22 is a nice aircraft, but its designed for a purpose, and that purpose is not one which the USAF has a great need for in todays conflicts - the F-22 was always designed to fulfill the theoretical role of an all out conflict with the USSR.

As some bright spark said:

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

The F-22 is nice to have around, if and only if the USAF engages in a conflict where its other air domination aircraft are outmatched. The problem is, thats unlikely to happen even with an unstable China and Russia.

This is a sin and a shame. The UK doesn't want them if they don't have the F136 engines, but you can't blame them. At $85m a piece, times 200+ planes ordered, that's $17+ billion dollars of investment for a barely on-par plane. The addition of the F136 over the F119 engines will give a much needed 20% improvement to power on an overweight plane. Also there is the economic side. The RR F136 is a 60/40 UK/US partnership, meaning there will be jobs created on both sides of the water if the 136 is produced. If the US were to buy the SU37, they taxpayers would be in uproar if the US was cut out of production. Just look at the Boeing/Airbus fiasco

This is what happens when you allow politicians to make military decisions. They don't know what the correct choice is so they go with what the lobbyists tell them to do.

I actually spoke with my uncle, a recently retired USAF Colonel (6mos out of service) who was actually involved in the F22 and F35 projects. We talked about the F136 2nd engine option, which he declared a necessity, as the plane was already overweight and the added power was needed. He also stated that several of our partners in JSF are considering alternative planes such as Eurofighters, Dassaults, and Saabs, due to the lack of a Grade A plane due to watering down of features.

We also spoke of one of the trials which he oversaw. Note that the plane has in-flight refueling capabilites:

The politicians demanded that there be external tank capabilities for additional fuel to extend range. Nevermind the fact that in being a stealth designed setup, there were no external hardpoints (all weapons are carried in the internal bay), as this would defeat the purpose of the stealth. But it was demanded and so it was done. Well they were ferrying planes using 2 external tanks and a major issue was they were already overweight, without any weapons in the bay! Also, the weight of the extra fuel increased the range by only ~100-150 miles, because so much more had to be burned to keep the plane up with the extra weight and increased drag created by external fuel tanks.

So this "improvement" demanded by politicians in fact weakened the plane as a weapons system, and provided no benefit in combat as significant losses were seen in maneuverability and radar avoidance.




So the summary is that failure to develop the F136 engines will result in lost sales in the tens of billions of dollars in international arms sales, and subsequently, the loss of potential American jobs. The F35 will also be a sub par plane due to the interference of politicians in design elements that they have no right to demand due to their lack of knowledge.

Honestly I think the F136 should be continued, however....

1. The F-35 is powered by the F135 engine, rather than the F119, which is used to power the F-22.
   
2. Both the F136 and F135 are supposed to be indistinguishable from a pilots perspective.
   
3. There is no data on the F136 being more powerful than the F135.
   
4. There is no data on the F136 being more reliable than the F135.
   
5. The F136 is 60% GE, 40% RR, not the other way around.
   
6. F-35 does have external hard points, they have already loaded one aircraft up with external munitions, but haven't flown it like that yet.
   
7. The F-35 is not overweight, and it is projected to meet all of its KPPs, however it needs to prove itself first.
   
8. All fighter aircraft should be provided with external tank provisions for ferry range, or last day of war operations where extra endurance or range might be needed at a kinematic and stealth expense.
   
9. Most versions of the F-35 have a significant range without external fuel tanks.
   
10. No F-35 has ever flown with an external payload.
    
11. The F-35 has around 250lb of weight which can be removed at a slight cost expense, if there is an unforeseen event. These weight savings are not needed at the moment.
    
12. The UK wants the F136 and that is understandable. However almost every other program in history has a single engine type. Studies showing two engines being cheaper usually fail to include the costs of two separate supply chains.
    
13. It is claimed that partner nations are looking at pulling out of the F-35 about every day, but this never comes to fruition. Instead, we see them, time after time again, defending it.
    
14. Partner nations have received stealth information on the aircraft they will receive.
    
15. Nobody knows what the funding that has been provided to develop an export version of the F-35 will actually be for.
    

So this "improvement" demanded by politicians in fact weakened the plane as a weapons system, and provided no benefit in combat as significant losses were seen in maneuverability and radar avoidance.

Utterly logic defying.

The F-35 can carry external tanks only if it needs even more range. It is not as if they are permanently attached to the aircraft. It will greatly strengthen it as a weapons system and it was furthermore NOT a political decision.

The F35 will also be a sub par plane due to the interference of politicians in design elements that they have no right to demand due to their lack of knowledge.

That is your summary based on complete absence of facts. Let me guess, your uncle either, doesn't exist, or had nothing to do with the program?

[edit on 12/9/2009 by C0bzz]

Excellent, thank you both.

In Oz we're involved in the F35 Program with what amounts to a smallish order I think. This year our venerable F111's are retiring as our long range Bomber. Yep, we're old tech here in a way, but that aircraft suited our needs perfectly. It still does, and with the last, cheaper, upgrade the old "Pig"would stay in service to 2020.

In the interim we are to get 24 F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters for $3 billion, which were "mothballed" as you know. It amazes me that my country continues to purchased total garbage from the spare parts desert. Our last outing was the Sea King helicopter, which seems to be useless for what we bought it for, as well as them having problems. Prior to that it was the Collins Class Submarine, the biggest piece of junk we've ever bought, and that still are not fulfiling their intended role properly.

I read some Aussie Strategic report a while back from three guys who ran simulations of exercises to compare the Super Hornet to the Pig. No guessing that in the scenario to bomb a nearby northern country defended by SU37's, the Pig could get the job done with a loss of maybe 2 from 5 aircraft deployed. The Super Hornets on the other hand would be annihilated.

So I agree, Politicians must keep their nose out of these hardware decisions. Leave it up to those who know what is what to do the job properly, just observe them at the same time.


[edit on 12-9-2009 by Tayesin]

Bottom linr. We spend more on defense than all of the nations of the world combined. Not because we have the need to but beacuse of the system we have in place. This kind of spending can not be sustained.

Today, 09/21/2009,@ 1oc , here at 38 n, 119 w, I saw:
1. a shiney aluminum colored sigar shaped vessell approaching my location, at hwy 338 south, at 18- 25 k foot, i'm at 5 k ft. I grabbed my 7 by 35's binoculars and saw,,
a, large commercial, two jet, with tail and wings, w/ jets near the tail, but no con trail, then i heard no noise, so I thought it was a flame out, and noted it was dooing a slow r-l tail skid, so as to see behind ?
It came over at the 11:30 position, with faint to extreme low noise, to was a heading tward L.A. It kept going, S/W,same direction, same alt, and no con -trail= Odd, I thought, so I looked about and saw two other jets , at same alt, going E, with con-trils,= normal.
b. 8 to 10 min later, two ,4 eng jets, commercial shiney aluminum, were on the same course, as the first one, and low to no noise,until overhead, and no con-trails,=odd
jorcl

[edit on 21-9-2009 by juan old rc layman]

I reckon us Aussies should get some Su-34MKIIs, why not? The Malaysians have them so we can too.

Originally posted by citizenbob
Bottom linr. We spend more on defense than all of the nations of the world combined. Not because we have the need to but beacuse of the system we have in place. This kind of spending can not be sustained.

well, Obama's in charge now...which pretty much means thats the military will shrink, and the government will grow.

All we've been hearing from the government lately have been things like competition is good and competition lowers costs.
Now these same same folks are against a second engine for F35?

If Pratt & Whitney have a monopoly what happens to Rolls Royce and GE?

HYPOCRITES!


[edit on 9-10-2009 by Alxandro]