Possible Alternatives to the JSF program

[JasonSpidey]

Obviously, it's still open to debate at this point, but it seems (IMHO) more and more as though the F-35 program, and the entire point of the Joint Strike Fighter program in general, is a bit of a fool's errand. Expecting one plane to simultaneously replace the F-16, the F/A-18, the AV-8 and the A-10 is, well, ambitious at best—and doesn't seem to be doing very well so far.

So what do you think they should have done instead? Should the U.S. have built one plane for the Air Force requirements, one plane for the Navy requirements, and one for the Marine Corps requirements? Should they have built one plane to fill the fighter role (i.e. an F-16/F/A-18 replacement in naval and land-based variants) and one plane for an attack role (a plane that replaces the AV-8, the A-10 and, well, the niche where many of us hoped the A-12 Avenger II would be?) Or something else?

 

[Kryptid]

*waits for this to turn into a duplicate of "The F-35 No Holds Barred Topic"*

 

[chuck4]

1. There should not have been a requirement for heavy ordinance stealth strike/interdiction capability. Any strike ordinance that can not fit in the same space as an AMRAAM should have been consigned to be carried either externally or in external stealth pods.


2. STVOL should never have been a basic requirement. Marines can take it or leave it.


With this, I see no reason why the 3 services can't share the same basic airframe.

 

[kcran567]

If the (unstated) goal of the JSF program was to get as much money as possible, the program has been an astonishing success. Other than that, lets wait and see how the F-35 does operationally.

 

[GTX]

*waits for this to turn into a duplicate of "The F-35 No Holds Barred Topic"*

Just merge it with that one then.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Expecting one plane to simultaneously replace the F-16, the F/A-18, the AV-8 and the A-10 is, well, ambitious at best—and doesn't seem to be doing very well so far.

Is that the cause of the F-35’s problems? The B-2 was just a single role nuclear bomber to replace the B-52, the F-22 was a single role fighter to replace the F-15, the A-12 was a single role naval strike aircraft to replace the A-6 the RAH-66 was a bit more complex being both a recce and an attack helo to replace the OH-58 and AH-1. All of them had long program delays and cost overruns. Two out of five were terminal and failed to deliver any operational aircraft (one didn’t even manage to finish the mock up).

But all of these programs and the F-35 combined low observability with a full combat capability in their type. This is the real source of problems not replacing four different aircraft. Compared to these real benchmarks the F-35 is doing quite well and replacing a range of aircraft is now where near causing as many problems as just replacing an A-6.

 

[Arjen]

So. Integrating full combat capability with low observability.
- Not concurrency.
- Not burdening the basic configuration with STOVL demands.
- Not sensor fusion.

*And* doing quite well. Somebody please call John McCain.

 

[quellish]

But all of these programs and the F-35 combined low observability with a full combat capability in their type. This is the real source of problems not replacing four different aircraft. Compared to these real benchmarks the F-35 is doing quite well and replacing a range of aircraft is now where near causing as many problems as just replacing an A-6.

At the time of program cancellation, the A-12 was to do a lot more than just replace the A-6.
USN is still waiting for a program that can fill the very large shoes left by the A-12 program.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

At the time of program cancellation, the A-12 was to do a lot more than just replace the A-6.
USN is still waiting for a program that can fill the very large shoes left by the A-12 program.

Was the USAF even all that interested in the A-12 as a replacement for the F-111? From what I've read I get the sense they weren't too enthusiastic about that prospect.

Back to the F-35, what obstacles would prevent eventually getting the per-unit cost down to a level that isn't that much greater than the latest Super Hornets? The F-35 isn't horribly exotic or material intensive as far as I know. Sometimes I think Lockheed is shooting themselves in the foot here with the pricing.

Currently my greatest worry with the F-35 is those performance goals it failed to meet recently. Being a step backwards from the F-16 and F/A-18 in terms of raw performance shouldn't be acceptable when we will be relying so heavily on this fighter. The F-35 is rather heavy and has a somewhat large frontal profile, but is that reason enough for those seemingly abysmal transonic acceleration and sustained G figures? Lockheed has all of that design experience from the ATF and 43,000lbs of thrust to work with, I honestly expected a bit better.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/04/natf-better-is-enemy-of-good-enough.html

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Somebody please call John McCain.

And tell him to quit bashing the JSF all the time except for when he is praising it.

If the (unstated) goal of the JSF program was to get as much money as possible, the program has been an astonishing success. Other than that, lets wait and see how the F-35 does operationally.

Though not on par with the F-22 you advocated for Canada previously, that has operationally killed one pilot and has others refusing to fly it, and the USAF saying that the "raptor cough" is here to say. :-X

Back to the F-35, what obstacles would prevent eventually getting the per-unit cost down to a level that isn't that much greater than the latest Super Hornets?

as the super hornet line slows to a crawl its already there.

http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/04/natf-better-is-enemy-of-good-enough.html

Man jumps off a 15 story building, as he passes every floor he shouts, "Doing good so far!"

To be fair, the combat-proven Super Hornets were not employed in Operation Odyssey Dawn either. There were no U.S. Navy aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean at the time, Enterprise having departed in mid-February for the Arabian Sea.

I thought EF-18Gs deployed from Iraq?

 

[Arjen]

Senator McCain is supremely happy, in his own slightly inarticulate way, about F-35 procurement as it's developing.

SEN. MCCAIN:
Well, according to one of the people who is very highly regarded by this committee because of his previous performance, General Bogdan, says, quote, "Are they getting better at a rate that I want to see them getting better? he asked. "No, not yet."
I'd say you have your work cut out for you, and I can just say that as strong an advocate as many of us are for maintaining strong national security, you cannot continue these kinds of incredible, total loss of the taxpayers' dollars without there being an understandable backlash on the part of the taxpayers -- America -- of America, which I believe will harm our ability to defend this nation.

 

[malipa]

I guess the problem lies in the merge with the VTOL requirements as well. These aircraft have complete different design requirements.
A more ideal shape would be a delta wing with canards for the ctol/cv. And a two engined aircraft would have fulfilled these roles better, with more range, speed, lower drag and a bigger load, in combination with the diamond delta wing and canards.

Pros:
- Lower development costs
- Higher speed
- Bigger range
- Better replacement towards f-16

Cons:
- higher price a unit
- More maintenance,
- The Americans aren't used to delta configurations.

 

[quellish]

I guess the problem lies in the merge with the VTOL requirements as well. These aircraft have complete different design requirements.
A more ideal shape would be a delta wing with canards for the ctol/cv. And a two engined aircraft would have fulfilled these roles better, with more range, speed, lower drag and a bigger load, in combination with the diamond delta wing and canards.

Pros:
- Lower development costs
- Higher speed
- Bigger range
- Better replacement towards f-16

Cons:
- higher price a unit
- More maintenance,
- The Americans aren't used to delta configurations.

This may be helpful:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA292094

 

[Sundog]

Cons:
- The Americans aren't used to delta configurations.

As demonstrated by the XF-92, F-102, F-106, B-58, XB-70, Space Shuttle, the cropped delta on the F-16, X-31, X-32, the Blackbird series and the countless design studies which have lead to the U.S.'s use of conventional layouts for all of their advanced fighters. Russia even went from a canard delta to a more conventional layout (PAK-FA). Canards aren't always better. They have their limitations. The advantage of a pure delta is low cost and the main reason Europe went with canard layouts was due to being able to get a smaller airframe for a certain level of performance to lower cost.

 

[jsport]

At the time of program cancellation, the A-12 was to do a lot more than just replace the A-6.
USN is still waiting for a program that can fill the very large shoes left by the A-12 program.
[/quote]

Thank you quellish. finally someone remembers the history, a craft w/ the A-12's projected capability remains the primary justification to fund the cost of carriers... A-12 may not have even been the right design but..where we are now, @#^#^ planes now and into the future which generally do not afford the capability to justify the cost of carriers.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

So. Integrating full combat capability with low observability.
- Not concurrency.
- Not burdening the basic configuration with STOVL demands.
- Not sensor fusion.

*And* doing quite well. Somebody please call John McCain.

This. And also, nothing to do with handing LM a monopoly on the entire programme on the basis of non-production representative technology demonstrator.

unlike Boeing of course

Thank you quellish. finally someone remembers the history, a craft w/ the A-12's projected capability remains the primary justification to fund the cost of carriers... A-12 may not have even been the right design but..where we are now, @#^#^ planes now and into the future which generally do not afford the capability to justify the cost of carriers.

The USN opted for a simple interim fighter to keep their carrier decks occupied. Some people praise the Super Hornet as complete practical brilliance, others feel it was a complete waste of resources to keep Big Navy, big. YMMV.

 

[royabulgaf]

"Back to the F-35, what obstacles would prevent eventually getting the per-unit cost down to a level that isn't that much greater than the latest Super Hornets? The F-35 isn't horribly exotic or material intensive as far as I know. Sometimes I think Lockheed is shooting themselves in the foot here with the pricing."

Depends on when you decide marginal cost kicks in. That is, when do you decide that the development cost is fully amortized and you are just paying for materials and labor?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thank you quellish. finally someone remembers the history, a craft w/ the A-12's projected capability remains the primary justification to fund the cost of carriers... A-12 may not have even been the right design but..where we are now, @#^#^ planes now and into the future which generally do not afford the capability to justify the cost of carriers.

What BS! Bear in mind that the carrier has been a decisive tool in warfare of high, medium and low intensity for over 80 years with the greater majority of this ships and air wings having ZERO deep penetration strike aircraft. For the USN they were able to decisively impact the Pacific Campaign in WWII, the Korean War and the wars against Terror without any deep strike aircraft. In VietNam half or more of the carrier wings they deployed had no deep strike aircraft. Those that did only had a one out of five squadrons flying the type. While the RN briefly had a deep strike aircraft the only thing it ever did was scare Guatemala with a single flypast but meanwhile in WWII Atlantic, Mediterranean and Pacific Campaigns, Korea, Suez and the Falklands they won without them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So. Integrating full combat capability with low observability.
- Not concurrency.
- Not burdening the basic configuration with STOVL demands.
- Not sensor fusion.

There have been concurrent programs and STOVL aircraft built without LO and fifth gen sensors (ie sensor fusion) without any significant problems which would indicate that this is not as much of a bug bear as every single LO and fifth gen sensor project which has had huge problems.

*And* doing quite well. Somebody please call John McCain.

Compared to the B-2, A-12, RAH-66 and even the F-22 it is going dambusters. Which is kind of what I wrote. But please edit out the substance of my statements in the future so you can than use the now hollow conclusion to support whatever argument you have.

 

[quellish]

Thank you quellish. finally someone remembers the history, a craft w/ the A-12's projected capability remains the primary justification to fund the cost of carriers... A-12 may not have even been the right design but..where we are now, @#^#^ planes now and into the future which generally do not afford the capability to justify the cost of carriers.

From the GAO report on the A-12:
"On the basis of a 1984 carrier air wing composition study, the Navy plans to replace all current air wing configurations with the Roosevelt air wing, which calls for an increase in the number of A-6E aircraft from the 10 currently assigned to most aircraft carriers to 20. Accordingly, Navy plans call for 20 A-l& in each air wing to replace the A-6&. How- ever, the A-12 is planned to be significantly more capable and surviv- able than the A-6& and it is expected to have double the reliability of the A-6E, while needing only half the maintenance staff-hours. Conse- quently, fewer A- 12s may be required to perform the missions the A-6& now accomplish."

And...
"On the basis of a 1984 carrier air wing composition study, the Navy plans to replace all current air wing configurations with the Roosevelt air wing, which calls for an increase in the number of A-6E aircraft from the 10 currently assigned to most aircraft carriers to 20. Accordingly, Navy plans call for 20 A-l& in each air wing to replace the A-6&. How- ever, the A-12 is planned to be significantly more capable and surviv- able than the A-6& and it is expected to have double the reliability of the A-6E, while needing only half the maintenance staff-hours. Conse- quently, fewer A- 12s may be required to perform the missions the A-6& now accomplish.""On the basis of this study, the Secretary testified on April 26, 1990, that it would be necessary to reduce the number of aircraft carriers to no more than 14 through the rest of the century and A-12 requirements to 620. According to Navy officials, 620 A-12s would support 12 active and 1 reserve carrier air wings. The Secretary estimated that if only 620 A-12s are procured, total costs will be reduced to about $57 billion. (In the
next section, we discuss issues that will contribute to raising projected A-12 program acquisition unit cost to over $100 million.)"

So the reduction in carriers resulted in a smaller A-12 buy, which drove up the unit flyaway cost - contributing to the cancellation of the program.
The A-12 was supposed to perform strike, limited air to air, refueling, etc and maintain aggressive signature requirements. USN is still looking for the airplane that meets those requirements.
Currently the F/A-XX (or whatever it's called now) is that set of requirements, so a JSF alternative would not be expected to fill those shoes.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Alternatives?

The Nostalgia plan would have Canada with Super Arrows of course.

The F-22 is dead. And I mean dead.

The countries and operators of Hornets could go with Super Hornets but it would mean one less carrier for the UK, and none for the US ARGs.

Gripen NG would get some sales

And then 5th generation fighters would start developing between multiple countries. Thats the other hard part of the equation. buying a 4th gen 4.5 gen aircraft in lieu of the F-35 just means you get to buy more airplanes (the 5th gen type) in 15-20 years. For example Canada's KPMG report put the F-35 at a 42 year life span. buying Super Hornets now just to replace them in 15 years is going to be cost prohibitive. Whatever Canada gets they are going to be flying for 4 decades so choose wisely.

 

[jsport]

Thank you quellish. finally someone remembers the history, a craft w/ the A-12's projected capability remains the primary justification to fund the cost of carriers... A-12 may not have even been the right design but..where we are now, @#^#^ planes now and into the future which generally do not afford the capability to justify the cost of carriers.

What BS! Bear in mind that the carrier has been a decisive tool in warfare of high, medium and low intensity for over 80 years with the greater majority of this ships and air wings having ZERO deep penetration strike aircraft. For the USN they were able to decisively impact the Pacific Campaign in WWII, the Korean War and the wars against Terror without any deep strike aircraft. In VietNam half or more of the carrier wings they deployed had no deep strike aircraft. Those that did only had a one out of five squadrons flying the type. While the RN briefly had a deep strike aircraft the only thing it ever did was scare Guatemala with a single flypast but meanwhile in WWII Atlantic, Mediterranean and Pacific Campaigns, Korea, Suez and the Falklands they won without them.

" wars against Terror without any deep strike aircraft."
Pretty sure I wouldn't want you planning my 21st century Navy.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

" wars against Terror without any deep strike aircraft."
Pretty sure I wouldn't want you planning my 21st century Navy.

I guess you haven’t noticed all those carried based Hornet sorties flown over Afghanistan.

Would US carriers be better off with the A-12 in service? Absolutely.

Are they “not worth it” (as jsport told us all a few posts ago) without the A-12 (or A-6F, or similar)? Absolutely NOT.

 

[jsport]

If you don't have stealth deep strike w/ significant load you hand the arguement to long range AF bombers every time regardless..all fighters do is provide first on AS. This argument is tired.. people have heard these compromises so long somehow they become acceptable.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

If you don't have stealth deep strike w/ significant load you hand the arguement to long range AF bombers every time regardless..all fighters do is provide first on AS. This argument is tired.. people have heard these compromises so long somehow they become acceptable.

Maybe you could give us the magic numbers for range and load out that make carriers worth while in your mind.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If you don't have stealth deep strike w/ significant load you hand the arguement to long range AF bombers every time regardless..all fighters do is provide first on AS. This argument is tired.. people have heard these compromises so long somehow they become acceptable.

Well good for you Forrestal but the bombers vs carriers argument hasn’t changed US force structure for over 60 years. With or without carrier deep strike. The capability provided by carrier TACAIR even without short legged Hornets is still more than enough to justify their presence in the force structure.

 

[malipa]

With delta wing configuration I meant the back placed wing with the frontplaced vertical stabilisers. Sorry for the bad description.

 

[riggerrob]

If you move outside the Pentagon, most NATO nations are happy if they can afford one or two types of combat airframes.
If they have a big defence budget, they may overlap two or three generations to keep numbers up. Sort of like the way the RCAF kept CF-5s on line as supersonic trainers for supersonic fighters. CF-5s never had the range to defend Canada's coastlines, but they were far less expensive than full-fledged supersonic fighters.
For example, the basic USN CF-18A and B were designed to rigid USN standards. GN offered a lighter land-only version, but never completed it. So smaller countries like Austraiia, Canada, Finland, Spain, Switzerland, etc. cheerfully fly the USN version.

If I were in charge of the JSF program, I would limit it to one size of wing and one set of landing gear. The bigger naval wing allows ground-based fighters to carry more fuel or bombs from shorter runways. Tougher landing gear will survive longer at the hands of ham-fisted junior pilots. You could save a few hundred pounds (kilograms) by deleting catapult gear and simplifying arrestor hooks. Bolt foldable wings in the extended position and leave all the heavy actuators on the ground. For example, CF-104 just had a giant leaf spring for its tail hook. The only reason that the RCAF did not eliminate carrier-specific hardware was it would have confused the software.

There is still a need for STOVL strike-fighters for navies that cannot afford full-sized aircraft carriers ... er. most NATO allies.

Most weapons should be carried internally. I always thought that fighters look silly with drop tanks the day after the prototype flies. If you need more fuel for longer range, then design it from the start with enough internal fuel volume. If you later decide that you need more fuel, start by hanging an extra fuel tank inside the bomb-bay.

Yes, design external hardpoints from the start, but reserve them for weapons that are introduced AFTER the airframe enters production.

As for stealthy profiles .... none are invisible to the next generation of radar or newer types of sensors.

 

[Empire]

Here is the technology the airforce would have pursued had the f-35 not sucked all the money away!! photoshop by Dragon
pictures #
1. The F-118 Silent bird operational strike fighter.
2. X-36 program tested yaw vectoring nozzle and fly by wire system in a semi white world setting.
3. Bird of Prey tested low observable technology- radar, visual, thermal in a black program.
Engine: modified GE F412-400= 13,000lbs thrust
Radar: Raytheon AESA pre-APG-79 radar
EO system: Modified An/AAS-44c Multi Spectral Targeting System
Contract: The advantages of super low observables and reduced visual signature once demonstrated by the Boeings Bird of Prey Technology demonstrator quickly led to a sole source development contract. It called for five full-scale development and fifteen production models of a single-seat, subsonic daylight attack aircraft to be officially designated F-118. The aircraft is the airforces silver bullet strike force.

Attachments