F-35 makes it's active duty debut at Eglin AFB

[titanII]

This happened a few days ago, but I just saw the article now.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123264068

[mon876]

I see the f-35 as a pointless aircraft as there is the f-22, but the government can waist there money on whatever they want.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I see the f-35 as a pointless aircraft as there is the f-22, but the government can waist there money on whatever they want.

What is that opinion based on?

[lordmonar]

The F-22 can't drop bombs it is designed as an air superiority fighter.
The F-35 is a strike (bomb dropper) platform.

[coudano]

60 tails going to be at Eglin when the program is full (zoinks)
haha



The F35 is (supposed to) replace the A10, AV8B, F16, and F18, and even the prowler.
It is the 5th gen multi-role.
It will not replace the F18 in practice (the navy just bought a crap ton of brand new superhornets)
It will probably not replace the A10 in practice (pretty hard to improve on perfection)


The F22 is only supposed to replace the F15 (and what used to be the F14), it is the 5th gen Air Superiority.
And last I heard they were all grounded anyway...


Completely different missions.
And completely different quantities of each aircraft being ordered.
187 F22's and that's it.
I think they are supposed to be making something like 2000+ F35's

[AngelWings]

The F-22 can't drop bombs it is designed as an air superiority fighter.
The F-35 is a strike (bomb dropper) platform.

Ugh, that'd be incorrect. They use JDAM guided SDBs. The F-35 can hold its own in air superiority (or atleast it is supposed to), but it is mainly a strike aircraft. The F-22 is this generations F-15, has the F-35 is this generations F-16. They are worth it. I hate it when people fail to see the need for advance. 2 F-22s can, while remaining undetected, shoot down a whole flight of F-15s. That has to mean something.

[DC]

Ugh, that'd be incorrect. They use JDAM guided SDBs. The F-35 can hold its own in air superiority (or atleast it is supposed to), but it is mainly a strike aircraft.

The F-22 CAN drop bombs, but I seriously doubt the Air Force would risk putting one in an air-to-mud situation when there are other platforms much more suited to the job.

The F-22 is this generations F-15, has the F-35 is this generations F-16. They are worth it. I hate it when people fail to see the need for advance. 2 F-22s can, while remaining undetected, shoot down a whole flight of F-15s. That has to mean something.

That analogy doesn't really hold. The F-15 and F-22 are comparable in their respective eras, though the F-15 was much more cost effective than the Raptor.

The F-16, however, was designed as a cheap, lightweight, multi-role fighter. The F-35 is neither cheap, nor lightweight, and I'm curious about how well it will perform air to air or air to ground missions.

Its stealth capabilities are much less potent than the F-22's, it lacks thrust vectoring, has high wing loading, a poor thrust to weight ratio and very limited room for air to air ordinance. None of that bodes well for a dogfighter.

In the air to ground arena, its internal payload is very limited, and using wing pylons will cancel out its stealthiness. In that case, why not just use some modern variant of the F-15E or F/A-18E/F? They are proven designs, the support and training infrastructure is there, and they will probably just as, if not more capable than the F-35 in a real world air to ground scenario. Don't even get me started on the idea that the F-35 can replace the A-10 for CAS.

If I were King for a Day I would cancel the F-35, give everyone Super Hornets with upgraded avionics and sensors (the one thing I think the F-35 really has going for it) for the multirole/strike mission, and buy more F-22s for the air supremacy mission.

For comparison, the F-35's 2011 flyaway cost is $122 Million each. The F/A-18E/F is $55 Million. That's 2.21 Super Hornets we could buy for every F-35. Even if that cost goes up somewhat to accommodate better electronics, it's still a deal.

F-22s are currently $150 Million each, but that would go down a little if we bought more of them. Either way, I'd say they're worth it because they can actually do the job they were advertised to do. It is, without question, the most [mess] hot fighter in history.

[/rant]

[PHall]

The Super Hornet is a last generation jet. Cancel the F-35 and use the money to develop a next generation jet.
And this time get it's role defined before you freeze the design, not after...

[DC]

The Super Hornet is a last generation jet. Cancel the F-35 and use the money to develop a next generation jet.
And this time get it's role defined before you freeze the design, not after...

Our current fleet is already 20+ years old. By the time a 6th gen fighter is designed our current force will not be anywhere near adequate.

I agree that we need to make serious efforts to come up with the 6th generation and even start thinking about the 7th. Part of our problem is that after the teen series fighters were designed we sat and patted ourselves on the back for 10 years before a serious effort to develop a replacement was launched.

[Ozzy]

This past weekend I saw an F-35 doing its thing above Ft. Dix. Quite a thing to hear it almost overhead with Mk-19s and Claymores going off.

And wow, way to revive a dead-ish thread...

[simon]

They are both a complete and utter waste of money. As usual, the actual cost was an order of magnitude more than the original projections.

The F-35 program is projected to cost $1 trillion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/

"The F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history, and reveals massive cost overruns, a lack of clear strategic thought, and a culture in Washington that encourages incredible waste."

The F-22 program is now officially dead, with 183 units made. The GAO estimated the cost at $366 million per aircraft.

The only countries that the US might take on that would require something more superior than an F-15,16,18 or A-10 are Russia and China, but at that stage the battle is economic and if that isn't enough, well, they all have nuclear capability anyway.

No, the F-22 and 35 were just designed to feed Lockheed.

[lordmonar]

What then is the alternitive?

Not saying the massive cost over-runs are not terrible.....but the F-15, F-16 and A-10s are all over 20 years old....and getting older.

Someone has to build the new airframes.....and the USAF is the ones who wanted all the bells and whistles and initially ordered so many.....and then had to cut back, which drove up the per unit costs of the air frame.

It is not in any way a "complete and utter waste of money".

Could they have spent less money?  Sure.
Could they have asked for less in the new platforms?  Sure.

But a new platform had to be purchased.......the old airframes were just getting too old.

[coudano]

F15's are quite literally breaking apart and falling out of the sky,
just from being flown.

They are over 30 years old now...

Yeah.


I guess the alternative would be to make some more F-15's.


F18's and F16's are still in production.
Don't know about A-10's???  (nope last one was delivered in 1984)

[PHall]

F15's are quite literally breaking apart and falling out of the sky,
just from being flown.

They are over 30 years old now...

Yeah.


I guess the alternative would be to make some more F-15's.


F18's and F16's are still in production.
Don't know about A-10's???  (nope last one was delivered in 1984)

They're still building F-15's. South Korea just accepted a batch of F-15K's about a year ago.

[coudano]

oh yeah, duh...  i saw one of those departing lambert recently.

[simon]

F15's are quite literally breaking apart and falling out of the sky, just from being flown.

References please?

1,200 F-15's have been built. EXACTLY how many of those have "fallen out of the sky, just from being flown". One? Ten? I call BS.

Actually, I will answer that question for you. ONE. An F-15C in 2007. It was 27 years old and is the ONLY F-15 to have failed structurally. But that doesn't mean you can't build new ones. Oh, and by the way, only 20 of the 1,200 F-15's build have been lost and only 2 have been shot down in combat and that was from ground fire. There has never been a combat loss. How does that compute as a successful aircraft?

God I can't stand misinformed posts.

What then is the alternitive?[sic]

Good question. In my view, the alternative is to continue to manufacture the existing world class, field proven aircraft that we've already paid for, versus the F-22 (Cancelled) or the F-35 (Export forbidden).

So, to summarize:

1. The F-15: "It is considered among the most successful modern fighters with over 100 aerial combat victories with no losses in dogfights." Note: "100 aerial combat victories". This aircraft has been in service for 35 years. It is interesting to me, for all the hype about air to air combat, how infrequently the aircraft have actually been engaged in an air to air superiority challenge. Is that $1 trillion air superior F-35 really worth it?

2. The F-16: Also still in production. Great multi-role fighter.

3. The F-18 Super Hornet. Still in production. Also a superb muti-role aircraft.

And on the question of unit cost:

F-15: $30m
F-16: $20m (1998 $)
F-18: $55m (2011 $)

Okay so some of the designs are not recent, keep in mind that the original request for the F-22 came 3 decades ago and the F-35 15 years ago. It takes that long for (the US at least) an idea for an aircraft to reach production. All these other planes described are very capable aircraft, but even if you only consider the most expensive aircraft, the Super Hornet, it comes in at 15% of what the defunct F-22 cost and goodness knows what low percentage of what the F-35 will actually end up costing, if it ever reaches maturity.

In the end, it's all a wash. UAV's will see more action than any of these aircraft. The real disaster was creating the most expensive fighter of all time that couldn't be sold overseas. For decades the US has built strong relations with foreign governments through arms trading. Now it has nothing to offer. Oh, but wait - Except F-18's! And they are a comparative bargain. Meanwhile the US has crippled itself by designing a plane too costly to build and shunned all its other proven performers.

It is, I am affraid to say, a pork barrel affair. I say this with no pleasure because I have followed the incredible achievements of US military (And civil) aviation in the past, especially during the 50's, and wonder when was it that we finally lost the plot. Thankfully Kelly Johnson did not have to live through this era.

[coudano]

God I can't stand misinformed posts.

Easy there, trigger...
I'm not anti F-15.

Can you tell me /EXACTLY/ how many tails had to have longeron refurb/replace before being returned to flyability, and how many never made it back from those inspections?  Or how many were already down that wouldn't have made it if they were still in service at the time of that grounding?

Any idea what exactly is is that caused the longerons to fail over time?
I'll give you a hint, it has a little something to do with "just being flown" above mach, and at high g

[simon]

Okay coudano, I apologize. That comment was unnecessary.

Back to your relevant question, I will address the service issues of the F-15, but it is late right not and your question warrants a factual response that put the F-15 in perspective with all the others mentioned and the thread in general. Stay tuned.

[PHall]

Any idea what exactly is is that caused the longerons to fail over time?
I'll give you a hint, it has a little something to do with "just being flown" above mach, and at high g

Funny, the Air Force and Boeing both say that there were manufacturing defects in most of the longerons that have failed or have failed inspection.
There may have been a few over G incidents that have damaged longerons. But it's been very few. Stan-Eval takes a very dim view of over G'ing the jet.

[DC]

God I can't stand misinformed posts.

What then is the alternitive?[sic]

Good question. In my view, the alternative is to continue to manufacture the existing world class, field proven aircraft that we've already paid for, versus the F-22 (Cancelled) or the F-35 (Export forbidden).

You should check your facts before you blast someone else for being uniformed. The F-22 was export forbidden due to the technology on board. The F-35 program, however, is RELYING on foreign buyers to keep the program afloat.

At last count the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Austrailia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel and Singapore have contributed funds to the program and are considering buying or already have aircraft on order.

[simon]

Coudano, I am back to answer your questions, which were:

Can you tell me /EXACTLY/ how many tails had to have longeron refurb/replace before being returned to flyability. How many never made it back from those inspections? How many were already down that wouldn't have made it if they were still in service at the time of that grounding? Any idea what exactly is that caused the longerons to fail over time?

The one and only structural failure of an F-15 was in 2007 and was caused by a manufacturing defect in the right upper longeron, where the material was thinner than specified in the blueprint. Instead of being the specified 0.090-0.110in (2.3-2.8mm) thick, the flat top, or web, of the aluminum longeron that failed was as thin as 0.039in – less than a millimeter - in the area when the fatigue crack formed. These cracks expanded under life cycle stress. Weakened by the crack, the posts fractured as the aircraft pulled almost 7.8G in an air-combat turning maneuver. The fractured post led to the other longerons failing as well. The cockpit separated from the fuselage, the pilot ejected but suffered a broken arm when the canopy snapped off.

As a result of these findings, the entire US F-15 fleet was grounded pending inspections along with most of the foreign owned fleet. This meant 665 US and over 400 foreign aircraft, a total of around 1,100.
The thinning was caused when the longeron was machined by McDonnell Douglas during production of the aircraft, which was delivered in 1982. Similar manufacturing defects - undercuts, ridges or surface roughness that could potentially cause stress concentrations – were detected in upper longerons in 40% of the fleet.
The inspections were thorough. The USAF ultrasonically inspected 84 specific locations on each upper longeron on every F-15A-D. That is 168 data points per aircraft, and if any one was under blueprint, then the aircraft remained grounded. This was a very conservative approach.

By January 10, 2008, 60% of the entire F-15 fleet was approved for return to service. The defects were caused by manufacturing between 1975 through 1985, which covers the A through D models. No E models were affected.

In addition to the F-15's found with longerons below blueprint specification, nine aircraft were been found to have cracks in their longerons.

Kits were designed to replace the longerons. 15 were originally ordered. The cost of the replacement longeron was $10,000, but the cost of the repair was $250,000. Compared to the new cost of an F-15E ($55m), it was a relatively small, but at this point the service life of the aircraft and the future plans for the USAF fighter fleet came into the discussion.

The fleet was already old at the time of the crash. The Air Force first began flying the F-15 in 1972. By the time a jet fighter has been in service for 30 years, it will be fatigued and possibly nearing the end of its design life. The actual life of individual aircraft is based upon inspections using crack growth methodology.

The accident aircraft had already exceeded the original design life of the first F-15's.  A-B models were designed with a life of 4,000 hours. The useful life was doubled to 8,000 hours with the F-15C, and then doubled again to 16,000 hours with the F-16E Strike Eagle, which are expected to remain in service past 2025. The accident aircraft had accumulated 5,700 flight hours, below its design life as a C model but also 11,000 "equivalent spectrum hours" taking in account the additional fatigue stress imposed by high-G maneuvering. The longeron itself was projected to last 31,000 hours, well past the life of the aircraft, but there is no doubt that by 2008 a substantial portion of the F-15 fleet was nearing the end of their design lives and therefore the value in repairing that part of the fleet grounded with below specification longerons was questionable.

In the end, 182 F-15's that were found to have below blueprint longerons were grounded. It is unknown how many of the repair kits ordered were applied to the grounded aircraft and how many, if any, made it back into service. None of the affected aircraft were F-15E Strike Eagles, which are still in service.

The question is really whether the F-15E Strike Eagle is still a worthy fighter and should be considered as an aircraft that the Air Force should continue to manufacture (Along with the F-16 and F-18) in lieu of the F-35. The F-15 is a small fraction of the cost of an F-35.

It is also worth noting that this aircraft has decades of combat and worldwide deployment history in which the creases have been ironed out.  Its vices are known. There is real value in that. The Air Force just last week returned the F-22 fleet to service after a four month stand down due to 12 incidents of crew hypoxia over the last 3 years. They still haven't found the cause of the problem, but they are going to fly them anyway and use a risk mitigation strategy. So even the latest and greatest aircraft in the Air Force fleet have problems and even then, it is early days for these aircraft.

[simon]

You should check your facts before you blast someone else for being uniformed. The F-22 was export forbidden due to the technology on board. The F-35 program, however, is RELYING on foreign buyers to keep the program afloat.

At last count the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Austrailia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel and Singapore have contributed funds to the program and are considering buying or already have aircraft on order.

Correct. I misread the ban as being on the F-35. Even more to my point though, because it shows that in addition to the F-22 being a failure internally, it was not allowed for export even though countries like Australia specifically asked for it instead of the expensive and forever overdue F-35.

Australia has ordered 14 F-35's. Think about this for a second: 14 airplanes spread over a country as large as the mainland US. Can you imagine the infrastructure support cost at multiple locations? They are not even scheduled to have the squadron operating for another 7 years.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/us-air-force-needs-troubled-f-35-fighter-jet-which-is-also-bound-for-australia/story-e6frg8yo-1226141544067

As Australia's existing fleet of F-18's ages, it is now reevaluating alternatives to the F-35 in case the US is unable to deliver or suffers another blowout in costs. The original estimate from Lockheed was $25 million per aircraft. It is now expected to exceed $200 million, plus lifetime support costs, generally at least as much as the cost of the aircraft.

Estimates used to bait governments and quash votor dissent should just have a zero added to them.

[simon]

At last count the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Austrailia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel and Singapore have contributed funds to the program and are considering buying or already have aircraft on order.

Let me update you on "At last count":

UK: Orders reduced from 138 to 40.

Italy: Looking at cutting order numbers by up to 60 – mostly the STOL variant.

The Netherlands: The have quit the program completely.

Australia: With a recent change in government, now reconsidering all orders due to cost and delays.

Canada: On the fence. Rumors are the escalations in purchase cost could be a tipping point for the government at the next election. However, they are still hanging in there.

Denmark: They have quit the program completely.

Norway: All orders on hold because Lockheed would not commit to a country specific missile regarded as mandatory.

Turkey: All orders on hold because the US would not reveal the technology, e.g. source code to the software.

Israel: The only country still full speed ahead. Of course.

Singapore: Still considering entering the program as of July. The only Asian country.

So you are right, one of the justifications of the F-35 was foreign sales, most of which were either pipe dreams or are rapidly evaporating. Any way you cut it, the program is a disaster. Leaders in foreign countries don't even want to talk about it.

[BradM]

Wouldn't you go into areas with advanced Russian made SAMs with cruise missiles and a stealth fighter bomber like the F-35 in the first waves and then when much of the SAMS are taken out follow with 4th Gen fighter bombers as well that can carry more payload? So we would need F-22s, F-35s, cruise missiles, and the cheaper 4.5+ Gen fighters and fighter/bombers.

[simon]

Strategy for taking out Russian SAMs is best answered by an expert.

I will however, add that AGM-129 advanced cruise missiles, with a range of 1,500 miles, can be carried by the B-2 stealth bomber, which can launch from Whiteman in the US, fly fully armed to any location in the world with aerial refueling (As they have done many times in actual combat missions), deploy the missiles and return without ever getting close to Russia's longest range SAM, the S-400, which has a range of 250 miles. The S-400 is not maneuverable enough to take out a low flying cruise missile.

If it is a short/medium range SAM, maybe the strategy would be different. But this is just an example where you might not even need the F-35's. Plus the B-2's are already flying and paid for. Or at least on credit.

As to whether you would actually try and do that to take out a SAM, I am just guessing really. Again, an expert is best to chime in.

It is worth remembering that stealth technology isn't 100% against some of those very good Russian SAMs. I *believe* an F-117 was taken out by one.

[PHall]

It is worth remembering that stealth technology isn't 100% against some of those very good Russian SAMs. I *believe* an F-117 was taken out by one.

The F-117 was hit by a SA6 Gainful (aka Three Fingers of Death) mostly because the F-117 pilot flew right into it's engagement zone.
Stealth is nice but it can't overcome stupid.

[lordmonar]

Not to mention that the F-117 was 1970's stealth...

That is why the argument for just building more F-16/F-15/A-10's is not necessarily the right one.

You have to remember that our potential advasaries are building new weapons all the time....if we want to remain the most powerful air force in the world we have to research new technilogies....like the F-22 and F-35.

[simon]

I agree with the research part but the cost has ballooned into an untenable situation.

It was a big ask from the outset. Develop one design to satisfy the needs of the Air Force, Navy and Marines. One strong enough to perform carrier landings, compact enough to fit below deck, powerful and light enough to perform vertical takeoffs, fast enough to go supersonic, stealthy enough to avoid radar detection, carry enough armaments to provide primary close air attack / support and be the best air to air fighter in the world.

(I could talk how the job was farmed out to one contractor whose prime objective is to maximize profits, but that would be off topic.)

It is really such a mess that I have no answers on what to do with the program. Like I said earlier, it is a political hot potato worldwide. Hence I offered the simple solution: Re-energize our perfectly good fleet that can kick anybody's butt worldwide. The US doesn't have the money for this plane. It has bigger fires to fight.

[lordmonar]

That we can still kick but world wide is no longer a given.

The Europeans, Russians and Chinese all have new jets on the production line that equal or surpass the F-15/F-16/F-18.

The A-10 does not have much life left in it as MANPAD SAMS are getting so much better.

The F-117 and the F-14 are both already mothballed.  The Harrier is only alive because we still need a VSTOL platform.

So just building new F-16 and F-15...while would put a perfectly good airplane in the air that would last another 30 years......will only mean we will get our butts kicked by someone who bought the next gen fighter.

[BradM]

That we can still kick but world wide is no longer a given.

The Europeans, Russians and Chinese all have new jets on the production line that equal or surpass the F-15/F-16/F-18.

...

So just building new F-16 and F-15...while would put a perfectly good airplane in the air that would last another 30 years......will only mean we will get our butts kicked by someone who bought the next gen fighter.

I agree. If we are facing a 4th gen fighter then we can put up a 4.5+ Gen fighter to shoot it down. If we are facing 5th gen fighters we need the F-22 and the F-35 to go up against them. Unless we have an armed stealth UAV with air to air missiles that can take out the 5th gen fighter like the PAK FA and the J-20 in the near future? The Russians plan on putting the PAK FA into production in 2015. The Chinese will probably try to put their J-20 into production around 2017-2020.

[simon]

The Europeans, Russians and Chinese all have new jets on the production line that equal or surpass the F-15/F-16/F-18.

Enlighten us all. Save me the effort of Googling it.

I am especially interested in the European fighters in production that are superior to the F15/16/18.

[lordmonar]

The Europeans, Russians and Chinese all have new jets on the production line that equal or surpass the F-15/F-16/F-18.

Enlighten us all. Save me the effort of Googling it.

I am especially interested in the European fighters in production that are superior to the F15/16/18.

The Eurofighter  Typhoon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

And the rest of the list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_jet_fighter

[Mustang]

The Super Hornet is a last generation jet. Cancel the F-35 and use the money to develop a next generation jet.
And this time get it's role defined before you freeze the design, not after...

The F-22 and F-35 are last generation jets too.  Last generation of manned jets, that is.