We Need Both

Test pilot Jon Beesley -- one of only two men on the planet to have flown both the F-35 Lightning II and the F-22 Raptor -- says aerial combat is not two gunfighters facing each other in the middle of the street, drawing pistols, and shooting it out.

Thats High Noon, thats Gary Cooper, says Beesley, 59, a grandfather of 16 and a former Air Force fighter pilot who now test flies experimental and prototype fighter-aircraft for Lockheed Martin. Air combat has always been about stealth; about being able to get into position to kill the other guy -- preferably unobserved -- and if you are observed, being able to outmaneuver him.

Ever heard of fighter pilots wanting to come out of the sun or the clouds? Thats why they want to do it. They dont want their opponent to see them. Thats stealth.

It is that stealth, superior air-combat training, platforms that outperform all others, and sheer numbers of aircraft that have enabled America to dominate the skies above every battlespace in which U.S. forces have been engaged for nearly 60 years.

But that air-dominance -- which Air Force officials say far too many Americans take for granted -- has increasingly become a hyper-costly proposition.

Take Americas hottest new fighter aircraft programs: Lockheed Martins F-22 Raptor, a now 10-year-old super-stealthy air-supremacy fighter designed to replace the F-15 Eagle; and the not-yet-operational also-stealthy Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Both fifth-generation fighters. Neither of which competes with the other. Meant for different missions they are, rather, designed to compliment each other.

The F-22 was built for speed: Though her numbers are classified, she can outrun, outclimb, and outmaneuver any fighter aircraft a potential adversary might be able to put up against us.

According to Beesley, F-22 was designed to supercruise [Mach 1.5 without afterburner] and for air-dominance. It has thrust-vectored engines, strong maneuvering capability at all speeds. And it is exceedingly maneuverable at supersonic speeds.

Basically, nothing on earth can touch it much less see it.

Problem is, the $130-million-plus Raptor was capped at 187 airplanes in recent Defense spending cuts.

Then we have the F-35, the first-ever aircraft designed to replace four existing aircraft from three services:

The CTOL (conventional takeoff-and-landing) variant for the Air Force will replace the F-16 Fighting Falcon and the tank killing A-10 Thunderbolt.
The STOVL (short takeoff-vertical landing) variant for the Marine Corps will replace the AV-8 Harrier jump jet.
The carrier takeoff-and-landing variant for the Navy and Marine Corps will replace the F-18 Hornet.

Because it is designed as a family of three warplanes -- and 70-80 percent of each variant is common to the other two -- the F-35 is said by Lockheed officials to be extremely cost effective throughout the life of the program, about 30-plus years. One jet in three versions means one assembly line instead of three.

Though not as expensive as the F-22 and though cost-estimates vary based on a variety of factors, the price of an F-35 is anywhere from $60 million to $90 million per copy (just under $50 billion to $60-plus million if looking at the 2002 baseline estimates), with the CTOL fighter on the low end, and the more expensive models being the increased bells-and-whistles STOVL and carrier jets.

Granted, shes not as fast as the F-22 nor is she quite as maneuverable at supersonic speeds, but the F-35 can carry more weapons and run a broader range of missions than the F-22.

The F-35 is amazing in action: Able to simultaneously fight at least eight enemy planes, and, at the same time, lock-on to as many as 16 enemy ground targets. She can track literally hundreds of targets for 360 degrees and at tracking distances that -- though classified -- far exceed the distances of the legacy jets. And like the F-22, there is nothing out there that can outfight F-35. Except the F-22.

So which of the two would win in a dogfight? Difficult to answer, says Beesley who states that subsonically, the F-35 and F-22 are very much the same airplane. Supersonically, the F-22 is in its own realm, but to think that somebody else can go out there and dance with the F-22 is just not true.

Nevertheless, the F-35 is not designed to be an air-superiority fighter, and so when I suggest it not be billed as such, Beesley suggests That may be a naïve point of view, adding those who attack the air-superiority capabilities of the airplane use a benchmark thats way above everybody else.

According to Beesley, one must first define what is meant by air supremacy. If air supremacy means there not being anybody out there that does a specific role better than me -- hence air supremacy -- then we have a challenge and build an airplane around that role, he says. If we talk about my ability to go out in my airplane and engage and destroy the enemy, control the skies in many aspects, then the F-35 is very much an air-superiority airplane.

Beesley adds, we already have F-22s, have had them since the turn of the century. But we need numbers, he says, because some potential adversary might have tremendous numbers.

Yes, the F-22 can fly higher and faster, and it has longer reach. The F-35 advantages are -- because of the affordability that has been driven into the design -- you get to have more than one airplane. Also, the F-22 is a marvelous example of integrating advanced avionics systems, but its based on technology thats more than 10 years old. So, in many ways, the mission systems on the F-35 will be a strength and an advantage. And both airplanes have a distinct advantage over other fighters in a close and beyond-visual-range fight.

Wrapping up my conversation with Beesley, I ask two basic questions.

First, how theoretically might we make the F-35 like the F-22?

We might put a smaller weapons bay in it, Beesley says. We might lengthen the airplane, increase the wingspan, make the tail a bit bigger and put in two engines. Then it would look remarkably like the F-22.

Second, if the F-35 is not designed to be an air supremacy fighter and the F-22 has been capped at less than 200, there is a concern that the Russians, the Chinese, or who knows who else might be able to put up fighters in great numbers that will challenge our air supremacy in 10-20 years. Will we be able to knock down anything any potential adversary might put up?

Yes, as far as I know, says Beesley. There would have to be some quantum step in technology beyond anyones imagination for it to be otherwise. Some of it is just basic physics and these things are very hard to do.

Does that mean it [the F-35] can presently defeat anything that we can see? Yes.

Can we defeat anything we can project they can do? The answer is also, yes.

Can it defeat anything anybody else could imagine? Probably not. But thats because people have wild imaginations. Still, its very hard to build low-observable fighter airplanes. Without that capability it does in fact become something like a High Noon-fight situation. But remember, air combat is when you cant see anybody until youre in a phone booth with them.

The F-22 Raptor became operational in 2005.

The F-35 was officially christened the Lightning II in 2006. The first Lightning was the old P-38 Lightning, also a Lockheed-built airplane, of World War II fame. That Lightning shot down more enemy planes (including the plane transporting Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto over the Solomons) than any other U.S. warplane in the Pacific theater.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34173



When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

Thanks for the post Eric, awesome read. Further reassures my confidence in the F-35 despite all the negative feedback it gets here on WAFF!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this just another stealth is the best thing since sliced bread rant? If so I'll save my 10 minutes of article reading


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

in about 10-15 years you are going to see fighter radars that output at peak powers of 50+kW. So, what freaking stealth is going to exist then? If the thing has an RCS of a grain of sand it will be trackable at BVR ranges. Electronics are progressing faster than material sciences ever will.

Well, to that, stealth materials and applications are advancing as well.  It's a cat-and-mouse game of one-upmanship.

As I recall, the B-2 fleet recently went through a stealth coating update to further increase their LO qualities so stealthy coatings can be updated and improved in many cases.  I don't know who's going to win the LO vs. detection contest (and I include IR, visual, sound, etc. in the LO category) but there is no doubt that each will continue to advance against each other for the forseable future. 

Well, to that, stealth materials and applications are advancing as well. It's a cat-and-mouse game of one-upmanship.

As I recall, the B-2 fleet recently went through a stealth coating update to further increase their LO qualities so stealthy coatings can be updated and improved in many cases. I don't know who's going to win the LO vs. detection contest (and I include IR, visual, sound, etc. in the LO category) but there is no doubt that each will continue to advance against each other for the forseable future.

The upgrade was probably with the new easier to maintain stealth coating as used on F22/F35, rather than a more stealthy version. I doubt there will be any improvement in stealth materials (its not just coatings), any gains are more likely to come from improved shaping or more accurate cutting and joins. Either way, electronics as Irkut stated is moving at an incredible pace. Firstly you have the improvements in the power outputs and efficiency but there is also the processing of the returning signals that is improving at an amazing rate too which means it will be much easier to detect smaller returns.


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

So will these super planes be built with Russian titanium?

--------------------------------------------

Okay, then why does anyone..........U.S., Europe, Asia, etc.........invest in any type of LO technology?  Why are they all developing more aircraft/missiles/UAVs incorporating LO tech?   If electronics can always easily defeat LO advancements so obviously...........you must suppose that they are all stupid. 

As I said above, it's a constant battle between the two and neither have definitively beaten the other.  Both are about gaining a measureable advantage against their opponent in an ever evolving game. 

Okay, then why does anyone..........U.S., Europe, Asia, etc.........invest in any type of LO technology? Why are they all developing more aircraft/missiles/UAVs incorporating LO tech? If electronics can always easily defeat LO advancements so obviously...........you must suppose that they are all stupid.

As I said above, it's a constant battle between the two and neither have definitively beaten the other. Both are about gaining a measureable advantage against their opponent in an ever evolving game.

They are developing them because they are useful. Take ground based SAMs, not all are new and capable, a low RCS can give a pilot a major edge in a battle with a SAM. Its always better to have, than not, but this doesn't mean that electronics won't be able to massively degrade stealth because it's almost certain they will be able to. Theres no constant battle like there is with ECMs and radar that goes back and forwards. Its not as if F22 and F35 improve upon the stealth of the B2 is it?


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

they are developing them because the most deployed SAM outside of Russia and China, with whom you will never go to war, is still the S-125! Most countries have air defense networks comprised of 30 and 40 year old junk against which STEALTH will do just fine.

You both prove my point. 

The F-22/-35 are dramatic improvements in LO vs. the B-2 or F-117...........both of which were developed using 25-35 year old stealth technology.   So are the current generation of UCAVs and missiles from Europe, etc.

 

 

You both prove my point.

The F-22/-35 are dramatic improvements in LO vs. the B-2 or F-117...........both of which were developed using 25-35 year old stealth technology. So are the current generation of UCAVs and missiles from Europe, etc.

The F22 and F35 are less stealthy than a B2 per meter and quite probably in gross terms too. The only improvement I've heard of is the new, easier to maintain stealth paint... thats not an RCS reduction though! Stealth is not the silver bullet some people like to think it is, its useful yes, but not the only thing that matters.


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

Stealth is not the silver bullet some people like to think it is, its useful yes, but not the only thing that matters...

 

Again, you make my point while trying to disagree......

Again, you make my point while trying to disagree......

Oh, I'm not trying to disagree with you

My point really is that the aircraft needs to have a balance of everything, there are aircraft with extremes but they perform well in some areas and very poorly in others. The E-3 for example shows what you can do with a big RCS and a insanely powerful radar, the B2 by contrast shows what can be done with no active radar and a tiny RCS. Both are equally rediculous. If we are talking about all aspects of stealth, it would be very useful to know if the ECMs of aircraft such as Typhoon can detect the F22s radar on LPI mode... of course everyone has an opinion each way.


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."