i know this talk is hypothetical, but can i ask how the costs of giving the f-35 a full air superiority upgrade compare to the cost of keeping the F-22 production line open, at present many people are unsure of having the 3 version already in development.

No complaints though, great thread, i will enjoy the responses of those in the know

I think you sir hit the nail on the head. Getting the F-35 up to F-22 air to air capability would be prohibitively expensive. Keep the Raptor in production and get some payback on the $200+ Billion already spent would be much more cost effective. The development money is already spent. It can’t be gotten back. All that can be done now is to try and take advantage of the dollars spent in order to get enough capability out of it in return to justify some of the expenses.

The only way to lower the cost for the Raptor going forward is to increase the production rate. Exporting the Raptor to Japan/Israel/Australia would be another way to increase the production rate as well.

1) Lighten the load – get the extraneous bits of air to ground kit off the airframe.

2) Rear quarter stealth… If possible make the airframe more stealthy from the rear quarter. A 2-D vectoring nozzle perhaps?

3) Bubble canopy – Find some way to raise the canopy to give the pilot the level of view from current F-15/F-16/F-18/F-22 platforms.

4) Larger radar. A larger nose would allow a larger AESA antenna to be installed, increasing first look-first shoot-first kill odds.

Remember the airframe is already planned to have significant air to air functionality out of the box and will provide it with significant capability. My contention however is that the compromises being made so that the plane can fulfill a myriad of roles in multiple air forces means that tradeoffs are taking place that impact it’s potential for stepping into the F-22’s role.

F-35 cannot provide what the F-22 can bring to the table. Whether the Air Force needs F-22 is another issue entirely.

Here you are wrong. It is the demand of Malaysia, that no Israeli contend is incorporated. 😉

“The main difference between the MKI and MKM versions is the replacement of Indian and Israeli avionics, ECM, and LITENING pods with Russian, French and South African equipment. This includes original Russian equipment, Thales HUD, NAVFLIR, and Damocles surveillance and targeting pod; Avitronics South Africa missile approach warning sensors and laser warning sensors.”

With all due respect, my point was that the offending pieces had to be removed, not who requested them to be removed. I am sure that Israel would have not exported to Malaysia anyways, but be that as it may the question of India allowing the PAK/FA being exported to for example China or Pakistan looms. Would Russia allow itself to be hamstrung in this fashion?

Does the UK have a veto on American produced F-35? 😉

No, but Sukhoi could not export the baseline Su-30MKI to Malaysia due to the fact that Israeli components were ingtegrated into the design. They had to be replaced before the planes arrived in Malaysia. Would India allow their technology to be exported to a country they see as a potential rival?

We don’t know what has really happened there – so that makes anybody here unable to judge on this matter.
The suicide and murder rate has nothing to do with this topic, open new thread somewhere else if you want to point that out.

I respectfully disagree. You can’t seperate the two things. The rate of violence speaks to discipline and motivation problems. It also speaks to problems within the chain of command. All of these things when looked at wholistically certainly paint a picture of an organization that still has a long way to go before they can reach the current state of the art.

As djcross said, but this is an example of what the U.S. defense infrastructure can expect under Obama. Putin must be smiling.

With due respect you make it sound like Obama has a choice. He is’nt the one who has essentially broken the American military and bankrupted the country at the same time.

Obama is faced with a list of bad and worse choices…..all due to Dubya.

Either you have carriers or you do not. And if you have carriers you need deployable fixed wing assets to put on them. That means Harriers for now. If you are looking for savings, can the F.3 force (much as I think they have potential and are underutilized and underrated).

Killing Nimrod MRA4 and streamlining the procurement process to avoid debacles like Chinook HC.3 would be a start as well.

Maybe, but that is not taking into account the degrading effect of the last two decades on the Russian shipbuilding industry.

Agree fully.

Kirov is big. Kirov is complex. But she is nowhere near as complex as a carrier! That is like saying that a Ticonderoga Cruiser is as complex as a Nimitz Carrier is.

Russia has constructed to their credit some innovative aircraft carrying ships since the 1960’s but that is no substitute for America having at least one carrier on the slip at Newport News in some stage of comstruction virtually every day since the second world war. Russia has had way too many breaks in their shipbuilding programs and in the actual construction of hulls to keep up in a serious manner. That is to me the root of the problem with the Vikramaditya project. Too much of a gap in the construction of carriers led to the yard underestimating the cost and complexity of the refit.