Raptor rising like a Phoenix?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/f22-raptor-congress/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool


It's possible that Pentagon war planners may push back if Congress chooses to go retro and bring back the Raptor.

God, I'm old if the Raptor is retro. I didn't even realize that they had retired all the F117s. I thought they were just out of the limelight.

Of course a plane is going to cost that much if you only build 1/4 of what you intended.

Is it me, or is the Raptor follow on project "F-X" what they called the F111 during development, or is that just a generic name for the next fighter?

[SomeOtherGuy]

The F-22 has had its own share of problems and then some. But at least it flies - usually.

For a country that still makes the best airplanes in the world, our military aircraft procurement approach is absolutely appalling. The replacement air tanker has been as much of a C-F as both new fighters, and the last generation of fighters was a f-up too, also the last round of bombers, Army helicopters, etc....

[soulezoo]

As a tanker guy, I know a little bit about the subject. The funny thing is, unlike the fighters that are developing technology as they go, the new tanker is pretty much all existing technology and aircraft. That is sad.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Everything I've read indicates that the Raptor, in its intended role, is a much better aircraft than the F-35. But honestly, what need do we have for a stealth interceptor? How often do we have to penetrate enemy radar coverage to attack another air force? The whole idea is a waste of time IMO. Let's stock up on F-18's, F-15's, F-16's and A-10's, update them as required and call it a day.

[Eurodriver]

Everything I've read indicates that the Raptor, in its intended role, is a much better aircraft than the F-35. But honestly, what need do we have for a stealth interceptor? How often do we have to penetrate enemy radar coverage to attack another air force? The whole idea is a waste of time IMO. Let's stock up on F-18's, F-15's, F-16's and A-10's, update them as required and call it a day.

Weren't people saying similar things in 1940?

[SomeOtherGuy]

Everything I've read indicates that the Raptor, in its intended role, is a much better aircraft than the F-35. But honestly, what need do we have for a stealth interceptor? How often do we have to penetrate enemy radar coverage to attack another air force? The whole idea is a waste of time IMO. Let's stock up on F-18's, F-15's, F-16's and A-10's, update them as required and call it a day.

Stealth is a mature and spreading technology, and Russia and China have been working hard to improve their air defense systems to deal with low signature aircraft. If we want a manned first strike ability against an enemy who can buy newer Russian/Chinese technology, we need stealth. That means either the F-22 that mostly works, or the F-35 that may be the worst procurement disaster in history.

The F-15 has been massively improved through the last few years, and it would seem like a useful part of the force to stock up on latest gen F-15s, understanding that they won't do everything an F-22 can do, but will do 95% of it at lower cost and with higher reliability.

The standard approach of having two new fighter programs around the same time is just an intentional C-F to maximize spending and professional career opportunities on the procurement side. The F-16 is a good plane but didn't turn out to be much cheaper than the F-15 it was supposed to complement at less than half the cost. The F-35 is looking the same. The F/A-18 original was supposed to be cheap and simple and ended up being costly and inadequate, resulting in the "Super Hornet" that is adequate but more expensive still. Nothing is more expensive than a government fighter jet program that's supposed to be "cheaper." If anyone actually cared about cost the Northrop F-20 would be a common fighter around the world today.

[JC5188]

Everything I've read indicates that the Raptor, in its intended role, is a much better aircraft than the F-35. But honestly, what need do we have for a stealth interceptor? How often do we have to penetrate enemy radar coverage to attack another air force? The whole idea is a waste of time IMO. Let's stock up on F-18's, F-15's, F-16's and A-10's, update them as required and call it a day.

I remember reading something to the effect of, in simulated combat the F22 defeated F15s at a 15-1 ratio. May have even been 15-0.

I'll see if I can find that

ETA...

Couldn't find that specifically, but this is from Wiki...

In December 2005, the USAF announced that the F-22 had achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC).[172] During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, in simulated combat exercises 12 F-22s of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses.[35] In the exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat, with neither loss being an F-22. During Red Flag 07-1 in February 2007, 14 F-22s of the 94th FS supported Blue Force strikes and undertook close air support sorties. Against superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, 6–8 F-22s maintained air dominance throughout. No sorties were missed because of maintenance or other failures; a single F-22 was judged lost against the defeated opposing force.[N 4] F-22s also provided airborne electronic surveillance.[173]

[TAZ]

Everything I've read indicates that the Raptor, in its intended role, is a much better aircraft than the F-35. But honestly, what need do we have for a stealth interceptor? How often do we have to penetrate enemy radar coverage to attack another air force? The whole idea is a waste of time IMO. Let's stock up on F-18's, F-15's, F-16's and A-10's, update them as required and call it a day.

It's not about sneaking into enemy territory to shoot their aircraft down. It's about not being seen by the aircraft you are targeting until it's too late. Every aspect of combat releas on your ability to see the enemy without being seen. Achieve that via camouflage for the visible spectrum and stealth for the electronic spectrum and you have a better chance of surviving the affair.

[BrigandTwoFour]

Everything I've read indicates that the Raptor, in its intended role, is a much better aircraft than the F-35. But honestly, what need do we have for a stealth interceptor? How often do we have to penetrate enemy radar coverage to attack another air force? The whole idea is a waste of time IMO. Let's stock up on F-18's, F-15's, F-16's and A-10's, update them as required and call it a day.

Since 1950, the DoD (and particularly the Air Force) has tried to find a balance between weapon systems that are useful right now for today's fight and systems that are sufficiently advanced enough to deter potential adversaries from taking action. In other words, the question shouldn't be, "Why do we need this, when was the last time we had to do what this thing is capable of?" The answer is that we have such a system so that we don't have to use it.

Its much harder to grasp that concept with conventional weapons. My speciality is in ICBMs, and you could ask the same question of the new Minuteman III replacement program (http://www.janes.com/article/57872/pentagon-budget-2017-air-force-prepares-for-icbm-replacement-programme). Why should we buy such a system when we have never actually launched a nuclear ICBM at another country? The answer, as before, is so that we don't have to.

[Dist. Expert 26]

I guess my point is that it's highly unlikely at this point that we're going to get into a conventional war. Definitely not impossible, but thinking as a grunt my feeling is that we should focus more on the asymmetrical warfare that's commonplace today. Stealth aircraft are poorly suited to CAS due to their limited load capacity.

Sure, the F-22 is a great fighter. But how often are we getting into arial engagements?

The military as a whole is largely stuck on the mentality that we're going to fight the Chinese and Russians in WW3. I couldn't begin to count how often we trained for company level supported attacks when we should have been training for squad level engagements.

Then again, I'm just a grunt. What do I know about planes.

[BrigandTwoFour]

I guess my point is that it's highly unlikely at this point that we're going to get into a conventional war. Definitely not impossible, but thinking as a grunt my feeling is that we should focus more on the asymmetrical warfare that's commonplace today. Stealth aircraft are poorly suited to CAS due to their limited load capacity.

Sure, the F-22 is a great fighter. But how often are we getting into arial engagements?

The military as a whole is largely stuck on the mentality that we're going to fight the Chinese and Russians in WW3. I couldn't begin to count how often we trained for company level supported attacks when we should have been training for squad level engagements.

Then again, I'm just a grunt. What do I know about planes.

It's one of those "walk and chew bubblegum" situations. We have to maintain a strong conventional capability, lest someone else gets tempted to start a conventional fight. At the same time, you are correct that the future is in asymmetry.

[soulezoo]

I remember reading something to the effect of, in simulated combat the F22 defeated F15s at a 15-1 ratio. May have even been 15-0.

I'll see if I can find that

ETA...

Couldn't find that specifically, but this is from Wiki...

In December 2005, the USAF announced that the F-22 had achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC).[172] During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, in simulated combat exercises 12 F-22s of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses.[35] In the exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat, with neither loss being an F-22. During Red Flag 07-1 in February 2007, 14 F-22s of the 94th FS supported Blue Force strikes and undertook close air support sorties. Against superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, 6–8 F-22s maintained air dominance throughout. No sorties were missed because of maintenance or other failures; a single F-22 was judged lost against the defeated opposing force.[N 4] F-22s also provided airborne electronic surveillance.[173]


I can tell you with first hand knowledge. Without getting into too much detail, I was involved with the force on force exercises in Okinawa with F-22 vs F-15. It would take 5 F-15's to get a F-22. And that was when the -22 was alone. Of course they don't fly alone. When it is two or more, that ratio goes up exponentially and would support 15-1 ratio with a flight of 4 -22's.

To partially address other posts, TAZ had it right in post 8. It is the ability to "see" the enemy first Beyond Visual Range (BVR) and shoot him down at that distance. Just like in WW I or II or Korea... the ability to locate and strike first is the key in engagements regardless of acft quality. To those that would rather have the f-16 or f-15 still... why don't we bring back P-51's too? While they were good in their era, they are fairly obsolete in today's world. Think for a moment that the F-16 was designed in early 70's! The F-15 in the late 60's! While we are at it, let's bring back the Garand and the BAR too!

For the grunts on the ground... take the lessons of WW II to understand that without air supremacy, your job just got a lot harder. Look at what we accomplish with the Taliban even in irregular warfare. In the gulf war, Iraq buried or flew it's planes to Syria and Iran to save them. They knew it was suicide to go up against us in the air. Point is, we need to move forward to keep our edge. The F-22 does that. The F-35 is a boondoggle. It's not as if the .gov procurement has been great throughout history. Any grunt can look to his own kit to see that. If one were to look at our famous aircraft of the past, one will see similar patterns that the F-35 is going through and the planes were a lot less sophisticated then as well. The P-51 Mustang when first arrived was a dog with an Allison engine. It wasn't until the Merlin was installed that the plane shined. The P-38 and P-47 went through continual and extensive modifications to overcome serious flaws (in the P-38, fatal flaws). I don't like the f-35 and think it ill-conceived. But give it time.

I'm not necessarily defending these aircraft ad hoc, but better thought needs to be made regarding just how valuable a contribution they make.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Does the F-22 gain its primary advantage over the F-15 in stealth or in the thrust vectoring ability?

[Pilot1]

If anyone actually cared about cost the Northrop F-20 would be a common fighter around the world today.

I always liked the F-20. It's a souped up F-5 which I also liked. I remember Chuck Yeager promoting the F-20, but I am sure he was paid by Northrop/Grumman to do that.

[BrigandTwoFour]

Does the F-22 gain its primary advantage over the F-15 in stealth or in the thrust vectoring ability?

It's an overall more capable aircraft. More speed, more stealth, a far superior electronics suite, and dozens of other improvements that I'm sure are still classified. Remember, the F-15 began the design process in the 1960's, and came online in 1976. Think of all the advancements in all the various scientific/engineering fields we've made since then. It's not just computers, but metallurgy, computer aided design, aerodynamics, propulsion, radar, targeting systems, safety systems, and on and on.

[JC5188]

I can tell you with first hand knowledge. Without getting into too much detail, I was involved with the force on force exercises in Okinawa with F-22 vs F-15. It would take 5 F-15's to get a F-22. And that was when the -22 was alone. Of course they don't fly alone. When it is two or more, that ratio goes up exponentially and would support 15-1 ratio with a flight of 4 -22's.

To partially address other posts, TAZ had it right in post 8. It is the ability to "see" the enemy first Beyond Visual Range (BVR) and shoot him down at that distance. Just like in WW I or II or Korea... the ability to locate and strike first is the key in engagements regardless of acft quality. To those that would rather have the f-16 or f-15 still... why don't we bring back P-51's too? While they were good in their era, they are fairly obsolete in today's world. Think for a moment that the F-16 was designed in early 70's! The F-15 in the late 60's! While we are at it, let's bring back the Garand and the BAR too!

For the grunts on the ground... take the lessons of WW II to understand that without air supremacy, your job just got a lot harder. Look at what we accomplish with the Taliban even in irregular warfare. In the gulf war, Iraq buried or flew it's planes to Syria and Iran to save them. They knew it was suicide to go up against us in the air. Point is, we need to move forward to keep our edge. The F-22 does that. The F-35 is a boondoggle. It's not as if the .gov procurement has been great throughout history. Any grunt can look to his own kit to see that. If one were to look at our famous aircraft of the past, one will see similar patterns that the F-35 is going through and the planes were a lot less sophisticated then as well. The P-51 Mustang when first arrived was a dog with an Allison engine. It wasn't until the Merlin was installed that the plane shined. The P-38 and P-47 went through continual and extensive modifications to overcome serious flaws (in the P-38, fatal flaws). I don't like the f-35 and think it ill-conceived. But give it time.

I'm not necessarily defending these aircraft ad hoc, but better thought needs to be made regarding just how valuable a contribution they make.

Thanks for the first hand insight. I'm absolutely fascinated by the advanced systems our military and private sector are capable of producing. It's unfortunate that it is often the product of what began as a total abortion. Like the first p-51, Bradley IFV, etc.

[soulezoo]

I always liked the F-20. It's a souped up F-5 which I also liked. I remember Chuck Yeager promoting the F-20, but I am sure he was paid by Northrop/Grumman to do that.

I've met Chuck Yeager. He lives in my neighborhood. He's a crusty old guy that holds strong opinions. Not unlike others of his ilk. I have no doubt he was paid, but on the other hand, he is quite likely to just tell it like it is.

[soulezoo]

Does the F-22 gain its primary advantage over the F-15 in stealth or in the thrust vectoring ability?
The F-22 gains its advantage in every aspect you can think of, not just stealth or thrust vectoring. The TV is way overrated by the way.

The fact is this: we arm chair pilots like to romantically think of dogfighting in WW I or WW II terms. It is not that in today's world. If you are in a spot (ala top gun) with the most modern fighters that you see one another... chances are very good at a mutual kill. Missiles are that good now and the threat of Russian missiles cannot be underestimated. Their new flankers have thrust vectoring as well and are actually as maneuverable if not more so than a -22. The SU 35 can eat the -15's lunch if properly piloted. Right now, our advantage lies in primarily pilot training and skill. The -22 gives us the tech edge by a good margin, the -15? No. It is not like you just stuff some new avionics in there either. It doesn't work that way. One of the drawbacks of Russian acft (see MiG29 for instance) is a severe lack of range. Anyway, the advantage of the -22 is to be able to identify the enemy from a lot further away than they can and take them out before they know they are there. An awful lot like Chris Kyle with a .338 against Taliban with AK's.

Modern air warfare is quite complicated and technology driven. We do a lot of things with old and obsolete acft simply because we are not challenged. I can tell you that if you went up against modern Chinese acft with F-18's similarly situated, they will win more often than not.

[Pilot1]

I've met Chuck Yeager. He lives in my neighborhood. He's a crusty old guy that holds strong opinions. Not unlike others of his ilk. I have no doubt he was paid, but on the other hand, he is quite likely to just tell it like it is.

I believe that. I have also heard he is pretty crusty, but he has always been that way. Now that he is older (old), I am sure he is worse, but he can do or say whatever he wants IMHO.

[TAZ]

Does the F-22 gain its primary advantage over the F-15 in stealth or in the thrust vectoring ability?

Short answer is: yes. Kind of like a sniper with a ghillie suit and trick rifle. What gains him the advantage: both. One allows him to not be seen while the other allows him to kill the enemy efficiently. Stealth allows the 22 to not be seen while the vectoring allows it to get into a better position to kill or escape being killed.

Countries are always faced with 2 types of conflict. Strategic and Asymmetric. Strategic war can be fought like WW1 or WW2 by blowing stuff up, killing millions of folks and destroying gazillion dollars worth of infrastructure. Or they can be fought via intimidation. MAD was/is a form of intimidation. B2 bombers, SSBN, F22 and the like are forms of intimidation. Make others believe that so much as trying to punch you in the nose just isn't worth it in the long run.

The asymmetric stuff is completely different and requires a different approach. This is why we have SOCOM and all its children.

People who have lots of stars and stuff get to try and play a balancing game between what gets how much attention.

Not defending the whole boondoggle known as DOD purchasing, but it's not as easy as we think.

[JC5188]

I believe that. I have also heard he is pretty crusty, but he has always been that way. Now that he is older (old), I am sure he is worse, but he can do or say whatever he wants IMHO.

I don't know how you could have balls as big as Gen. Yeager and not be a little "crusty".

[JC5188]

The F-22 gains its advantage in every aspect you can think of, not just stealth or thrust vectoring. The TV is way overrated by the way.

The fact is this: we arm chair pilots like to romantically think of dogfighting in WW I or WW II terms. It is not that in today's world. If you are in a spot (ala top gun) with the most modern fighters that you see one another... chances are very good at a mutual kill. Missiles are that good now and the threat of Russian missiles cannot be underestimated. Their new flankers have thrust vectoring as well and are actually as maneuverable if not more so than a -22. The SU 35 can eat the -15's lunch if properly piloted. Right now, our advantage lies in primarily pilot training and skill. The -22 gives us the tech edge by a good margin, the -15? No. It is not like you just stuff some new avionics in there either. It doesn't work that way. One of the drawbacks of Russian acft (see MiG29 for instance) is a severe lack of range. Anyway, the advantage of the -22 is to be able to identify the enemy from a lot further away than they can and take them out before they know they are there. An awful lot like Chris Kyle with a .338 against Taliban with AK's.

Modern air warfare is quite complicated and technology driven. We do a lot of things with old and obsolete acft simply because we are not challenged. I can tell you that if you went up against modern Chinese acft with F-18's similarly situated, they will win more often than not.

So...couple questions. And obviously, if they're not appropriate for an open forum because of too much detail, I get it.

When you say the primary -22 advantage is ability to see and target BVR, is that due to something like IFF squawk (I think that's what it is/was called), or do we have the tech to allow the pilot to independently verify the threat ID? I would assume in a non-controlled airspace (no E-3, etc), that if you could see them, they would at least know it, even if they could not see you?

[Pilot1]

I don't know how you could have balls as big as Gen. Yeager and not be a little "crusty".

That's true. That's why I said he can pretty much do or say whatever he wants. The stuff that guy did in an airplane was unreal.

[JC5188]

That's true. That's why I said he can pretty much do or say whatever he wants. The stuff that guy did in an airplane was unreal.

Absolutely. And the X-1...

"We'd like you to get in this rocket with tiny wings, and pin it til you hear the boom".

Damn.

[soulezoo]

So...couple questions. And obviously, if they're not appropriate for an open forum because of too much detail, I get it.

When you say the primary -22 advantage is ability to see and target BVR, is that due to something like IFF squawk (I think that's what it is/was called), or do we have the tech to allow the pilot to independently verify the threat ID? I would assume in a non-controlled airspace (no E-3, etc), that if you could see them, they would at least know it, even if they could not see you?

I can't get into that really. There are open source sites to visit and you can get a good appreciation. Just understand that the -22 is more than just a magnitude of difference from the venerable -15.

Maybe a good simile is like a 1960's Ferrari vs a Bugatti Veyron in performance. About the only similarity in the two is top speed is within a few knots of one another.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I remember reading something to the effect of, in simulated combat the F22 defeated F15s at a 15-1 ratio. May have even been 15-0.

I'll see if I can find that

ETA...

Couldn't find that specifically, but this is from Wiki...

In December 2005, the USAF announced that the F-22 had achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC).[172] During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, in simulated combat exercises 12 F-22s of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses.[35] In the exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat, with neither loss being an F-22. During Red Flag 07-1 in February 2007, 14 F-22s of the 94th FS supported Blue Force strikes and undertook close air support sorties. Against superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, 6–8 F-22s maintained air dominance throughout. No sorties were missed because of maintenance or other failures; a single F-22 was judged lost against the defeated opposing force.[N 4] F-22s also provided airborne electronic surveillance.[173]

I think remember reading about the the 15-1 ratio and I thought it came from head-to-head dog fights. The F15 was able to get a kill by drawing the F22 in and got the kill with a low probability gun shot. At least that is what I remember reading.

[JC5188]

I can't get into that really. There are open source sites to visit and you can get a good appreciation. Just understand that the -22 is more than just a magnitude of difference from the venerable -15.

Maybe a good simile is like a 1960's Ferrari vs a Bugatti Veyron in performance. About the only similarity in the two is top speed is within a few knots of one another.

I gotcha. I figured as much. Thanks for the replies. :)

[JC5188]

I think remember reading about the the 15-1 ratio and I thought it came from head-to-head dog fights. The F15 was able to get a kill by drawing the F22 in and got the kill with a low probability gun shot. At least that is what I remember reading.

There was a recent news story about exercises with The Germans and their Eurofighters, during Red Flag. It was pretty interesting. Obviously, "the hairball" isn't what the -22 was designed for, but hey...gotta bitch about something.

"The United States has spent nearly $80 billion to develop the most advanced stealth fighter jet in history, the F-22 Raptor, but the Air Force recently found out firsthand that while the planes own the skies at modern long-range air combat, it is "evenly matched" with cheaper, foreign jets when it comes to old-school dogfighting."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

That would be like a cavalry guy getting off his horse to duke it out with with a foot soldier. Sounds like a confidence booster for the German pilots after getting their heads handed to them for a week.

[JC5188]

That would be like a cavalry guy getting off his horse to duke it out with with a foot soldier. Sounds like a confidence booster for the German pilots after getting their heads handed to them for a week.

Lol...with all due respect to the Germans, I think you're right.

[crusader377]

There was a recent news story about exercises with The Germans and their Eurofighters, during Red Flag. It was pretty interesting. Obviously, "the hairball" isn't what the -22 was designed for, but hey...gotta bitch about something.

"The United States has spent nearly $80 billion to develop the most advanced stealth fighter jet in history, the F-22 Raptor, but the Air Force recently found out firsthand that while the planes own the skies at modern long-range air combat, it is "evenly matched" with cheaper, foreign jets when it comes to old-school dogfighting."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/

The Eurofighter is a very capable plane and is definitely one of the top 3 or 4 fighter aircraft in the world. Also the F-22 is handicapped in a dogfight because until very recently it lacked off-boresight IR missile like the Aim-9X which planes like the Eurofighter have had for the last 5-10 years.

Every combat aircraft like everything else is a series of compromises. In the F-22s case, the need for stealth combined with the requirement for high supercruise speeds making a large amount of internal fuel necessary comes at a trade off of making the F-22 bigger and heavier than many other fighters which can work to its disadvantage in some areas of dogfighting. For example although the F-22 has more powerful engines than the Eurofighter it is much heavier at 65,000lbs loaded vs the Eurofighter at 36,000lbs.

[JC5188]

The Eurofighter is a very capable plane and is definitely one of the top 3 or 4 fighter aircraft in the world. Also the F-22 is handicapped in a dogfight because until very recently it lacked off-boresight IR missile like the Aim-9X which planes like the Eurofighter have had for the last 5-10 years.

Every combat aircraft like everything else is a series of compromises. In the F-22s case, the need for stealth combined with the requirement for high supercruise speeds making a large amount of internal fuel necessary comes at a trade off of making the F-22 bigger and heavier than many other fighters which can work to its disadvantage in some areas of dogfighting. For example although the F-22 has more powerful engines than the Eurofighter it is much heavier at 65,000lbs loaded vs the Eurofighter at 36,000lbs.

So I've never seen an F-22 in person...how do they compare to an F-15? I know the F-15 is considered a capable dogfighter, and is similar in size to the Navy's F-14. One thing I specifically remember about climbing on that Tomcat is looking back from the cockpit and thinking "geez thats a big bird". (Air & space museum).

[nova3930]

I didn't even realize that they had retired all the F117s. I thought they were just out of the limelight.


They're retired from operational duty but not completely. There are relatively recent pictures of them operating out in the Nellis area. My best guess is that since the F-117 is probably EXTREMELY well understood from a radar signature standpoint, it's either being used as a baseline comparison for newer platforms OR it's being used to help develop anti-stealth tech of our own. I'd bet more the latter since Russia/China are now starting to get into the stealth game.



The standard approach of having two new fighter programs around the same time is just an intentional C-F to maximize spending and professional career opportunities on the procurement side. The F-16 is a good plane but didn't turn out to be much cheaper than the F-15 it was supposed to complement at less than half the cost. The F-35 is looking the same. The F/A-18 original was supposed to be cheap and simple and ended up being costly and inadequate, resulting in the "Super Hornet" that is adequate but more expensive still. Nothing is more expensive than a government fighter jet program that's supposed to be "cheaper." If anyone actually cared about cost the Northrop F-20 would be a common fighter around the world today.

From a procurement perspective it's all about balancing performance requirements with cost. I work in it every day and see all the issues with it. If you throw enough money at something, you can get a weapon system that will very nearly do anything. Can you afford it though. The threshold requirements are what are considered the bare minimum to close a capabilities gap. A lot of times we end up buying something that just meets threshold because we don't have the $ for anything else.

The cost savings on the F-35 were predicated on economy of scale with 3 services buying plus a pile of allies. Problem is those procurement numbers are dropping so the total unit cost is going to go up quick. I'm afraid if that trend continues we might hit the death spiral point with the F-35 like we did with the B-2 and F-22 and end up with almost none of them. Regardless of what anyone tells you, we didn't procure nearly enough of either of those platforms. We could have had over 100 B2s for just over double the total program cost of 20. Think about the added capability that represents for a second. F-22 was basically the same. We could have doubled our procurement for to nearly 400 planes for 1.5X total program cost. In the latter case we might could have saved $ in the long run because we could have retired some F-15Cs that are becoming maintenance nightmares due to age.


I guess my point is that it's highly unlikely at this point that we're going to get into a conventional war. Definitely not impossible, but thinking as a grunt my feeling is that we should focus more on the asymmetrical warfare that's commonplace today. Stealth aircraft are poorly suited to CAS due to their limited load capacity.


The price of war is paid in gold or blood. Although I do think we've shifted our strategy too much in the direction of the former. If you stop preparing for a conventional peer state war, you're almost guaranteed to get one....

[BrigandTwoFour]

The standard approach of having two new fighter programs around the same time is just an intentional C-F to maximize spending and professional career opportunities on the procurement side. The F-16 is a good plane but didn't turn out to be much cheaper than the F-15 it was supposed to complement at less than half the cost. The F-35 is looking the same. The F/A-18 original was supposed to be cheap and simple and ended up being costly and inadequate, resulting in the "Super Hornet" that is adequate but more expensive still. Nothing is more expensive than a government fighter jet program that's supposed to be "cheaper." If anyone actually cared about cost the Northrop F-20 would be a common fighter around the world today.
From a procurement perspective it's all about balancing performance requirements with cost. I work in it every day and see all the issues with it. If you throw enough money at something, you can get a weapon system that will very nearly do anything. Can you afford it though. The threshold requirements are what are considered the bare minimum to close a capabilities gap. A lot of times we end up buying something that just meets threshold because we don't have the $ for anything else.




There is also another reason to have two fighter programs active at once: redundancy. In the nuclear world, we maintain two separate weapon design labs (Los Alamos National Labs and Lawrence Livermore National Labs) that compete with one another. The two labs almost always take different approaches to solve similar problems; and, more often than not, both designs get implemented in different weapons. An underlying function of this is that if something ever happens that deadlines an entire model of weapon system, you didn't put your entire fleet out of commission.

Think of the F-22 oxygen generation issue. If the F-22 was the only fighter we had, and then we grounded the whole fleet because the plane might make pilots pass out from oxygen deprivation, what are you left with? Yes, it costs more to maintain multiple systems online, but the added redundancy helps provide needed stability.