JSF no dog fighter

[FlyNavy]

Duelling/Fuelling DogFighter is the CANUCK JSF: (as per briefing for said potential buyers)

[FlyNavy]

Stealthy Jammer Considered for F-35 Jun 15, 2009 By Amy Butler and Douglas Barrie

www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/PARISJAM.xml&headline=Stealthy Jammer Considered for F-35

"Study work has been carried out examining the benefits of fitting a low-observable electronic warfare pod to the Lockheed Martin F-35 to further boost the aircraft’s electronic combat capability, according to a U.S. Marine Corps officer.

The F-35 is a candidate platform for the next-generation jammer (NGJ), though a conventional pod design would impact the aircraft’s radar cross-section. Using a stealthy pod configuration would provide additional capability while minimizing the impact on the aircraft’s low-observable characteristics.

The NGJ has an anticipated initial operating capability in 2018, aligning the development with the Block V F-35, the officer says. The Block IV aircraft, which is now being defined, would, however, have the software “hooks” to include the jammer. The Block 4 design is expected to be locked by the end of the year.

The USMC is looking to the F-35 to provide a successor EW and electronic attack capability to that of the EA-6B Prowler/ALQ-99 combination.

The baseline F-35 will in itself provide a significant EW/EA capability. The aircraft’s APG-81 active electronically-scanned array radar will give a stand-off jamming capability against present and emerging surface-to-air missile threat systems, substantially degrading the SAM system engagement envelope.

Today’s fleet consists of a small number of dedicated platforms. The JSF program calls for EW technology to be embedded into the baseline aircraft, allowing the war planners more freedom in crafting combat operations.

Systems such as the Almaz-Antei S-400 (SA-21 Growler), just entering service with the Russian military, present a capable threat to the present generation of strike aircraft. Derivatives of the S-400 are expected to be exported by Russia.

The USMC is looking to spiral develop the F-35’s electronic warfare and electronic attack capacity as its replacement for the Prowler. It is also looking at the utility of unmanned aerial vehicles as an adjunct to the F-35 in the EW/EA role, the officer says."

[FlyNavy]

LM defends F-35 JSF agility against critics By: Chris Pocock June 15, 2009 Aircraft

www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/lm-defends-f-35-jsf-agility-against-critics/

"Is Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter a “bomb truck,” optimized for the stealthy attack of ground targets but of limited value as a defender of airspace? Critics and rivals of the multibillion-dollar international program have been sniping at the F-35’s air-to-air maneuvering performance for years. But the issue came to a head last August, when a presentation from The Rand Corporation stated that the F-35A “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.”

Coming from a respected think tank that is funded by the U.S. government, the claim provoked a heated response from the Pentagon. “The F-35 enjoys a significant combat loss exchange ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats,” said U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, the F-35 program executive officer. Rand subsequently backtracked on the presentation, but the issue was still reverberating ahead of the Paris Air Show when AIN sought comment from Lockheed Martin F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley.

“I’m not sure I believe some of the Rand figures. They are influenced by the lightweight fighter mafia,” he commented. That’s a reference to a school of opinion that championed the original F-16 concept, and chafed at its subsequent development into a much heavier, multirole combat aircraft. Twenty-five years later, the “mafia” still apparently haunts the halls at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas facility.

But Rand authors John Stillion and Scott Purdue contended that the high wing loading of the F-35 makes it inherently less agile than current fighter aircraft, including Russia’s MiGs and Sukhois, and Europe’s Rafale and Typhoon. Moreover, the F-35’s thrust loading is significantly inferior to that of the F-15, F-16 and F-22, they said. As a result, Rand alleged, the F-35 is inferior in visual-range combat in terms of acceleration, climb and sustained-turn capability. It also has a lower top speed, they added.

Beesley called these comparisons naïve and simplistic. An empty F-35A will weigh 30,000 pounds and have a maximum thrust of 40,000 pounds, he noted. “Even when you add the 1,200 pounds of our air-to-air combat load and the 9,000 pounds half-fuel load with which you would typically begin an air-to-air engagement, then our power-to-weight ratio is still almost 1:1.” Moreover, he noted, the F-35’s half-fuel load is greater than today’s fighters. An F-16 would have only 3,600 pounds.

Beesley also insisted that the sustained turn rate of the F-35 is conquerable [QUE? I think 'comparable' is meant here], despite its higher wing loading. He insisted that there is “a huge amount of thrust available” from the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which is the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft.

The F-35 chief test pilot further noted that the F-35 can fly at angles of attack that are just as steep as those of the F-18 or the F-22. “It’s a fully maneuverable 50-degree airplane,” he said. He invited those who had witnessed the F-22’s startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that “the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.”

Moreover, Beesley told AIN, the debate should not be limited to a discussion of visual-range dogfighting. “In a real combat mission, the ability to sneak up on your opponent and be the first to shoot is paramount,” he said.

This is a reference to stealth, of course, and the F-35’s low observability cannot be matched by any of the fighters that were mentioned in the Rand analysis. Opposing fighter pilots will find that the range at which they can detect the F-35, either by radar or electro-optics/infrared means, will be much shorter than they are used to.

But Beesley also had another “non-kinetic” characteristic in mind–the F-35’s mission avionics, claimed to be the most advanced in the world. “The F-35 pilot will have superior situational awareness, by day and by night, and a helmet-mounted display. This will be a great advantage and will allow him to take full advantage of the performance of today’s off-boresight air-to-air missiles,” he said.

Beesley can speak from some experience in the debate. He has more than 5,500 hours of flight time in over 50 different aircraft, including the F-16, F-117 and the F-22. He also flew Soviet-era fighters during a tour with the USAF “Red Hats” squadron in 1979-80."

[FlyNavy]

www.youtube.com/user/F35JSFVideos

[FlyNavy]

Seems to me this complete video has been chopped to fit the minute limit but this segment if you are patient will a few minutes in show a fictional F-35 scenario:

[FlyNavy]

HOT DECK SHUFFLE

www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3afd6afd6b-9176-4003-8ea6-08049291946b

F-35: Keeping it Cool on Deck

"Navy studies warn repeated buckling will cause deck failure at 40% of planned ship life. F-35B exhaust plumes are expected to have a "severe thermo-mechanical impact" on the structure and non-skid surface of the flight deck.

That's according to a new solicitation from the Office of Naval Research, which is looking for new ideas for flight deck thermal management. The solicitation is looking for alternatives to a DARPA/ONR program that is already looking at "cooled heat pipe technologies" to overcome the thermal issues. It's not a trivial problem.

ONR is looking for thermal management technologies that can keep the deck surface temperature below 300ºF when exposed to F-35B exhaust plumes for 2 minutes when landing. And cooling the deck is not enough - any solution has to be compatible with the deck's non-skid coating. It also has to be affordable and capable of being installed below deck or retrofitted above deck. Tall order.

Based on measurements taken during recent hover-pit tests, Lockheed Martin does not believe there will be an issue with deck temperatures. One acknowledged area of concern is the combined auxiliary/emergency powerpack, or IPP, which exhausts downwards on the STOVL aircraft. (It exhausts upwards on the F-35C carrier variant to protect deck crew, but downwards on the F-35B and CTOL F-35A to save weight and gain fuel volume.)

The IPP has two modes: bleed and bleed-and-burn. In bleed mode the exhaust is relatively cool, Lockheed says. In bleed-and-burn, fuel is burned in the IPP to generate more power, and exhaust temperature rises. Because of operator concerns about surface heating, Lockheed says the pilot will have the ability to switch the IPP back to bleed mode if holding on the runway, or deck."

[FlyNavy]

;D You crack me up. ;D [FlyCook has removed 'tart' post.]

[Bruce]

There must be some simpler solution to the hot deck issue - how about ceramics for instance. 1970s technology on the space shuttle created heat resistant tiles -put a non - slip surface on them and use those - if they get damaged glue some more on. Technology has advanced beyond that even, the exhaust pipes on my aircraft are coated with a ceramic spray finish which reduces heat transfer by 60-80%, available in a range of colours and can be sprayed on. It is available in a "wear Resistant" form as well. There are even spray - on coatings for turbochargers that can make them almost cool enough to touch whilst running!. Even allowing for developing such coatings to "Mil Spec" standards, such a solution would surely be cheaper and easier than masses of plumbing?

[FlyNavy]

Bruce, Ceramics sounds like a good idea. Some kind of Space Shuttle Heat Shield Technology. Whatever. The original blog quoted above was probably incorrectly conflating two aircraft (one probably ignorantly because the particular blogger is against that aircraft [or maybe both]). As you can gather I can't speak for anyone other than myself. However disengenuously I omitted the news about the Osprey aircraft which is the main source of 'heating the flight deck' problem in my mind anyway. AND I don't care about that. My concern would be about having F-35Bs on Oz LHDs. Whether the same aircraft perform on USMC ships is of not much interest to me because as I hope has been clarified in earlier posts perhaps on other threads, the operation of a STOVLie aircraft is not as some assume (usually those against such aircraft, especially the JSF-B - otherwise known as "Dave" in the RN FAA).

To clarify the heat problem is more to do with Osprey operation. This part of the world is not likely to need to know much about them except perhaps if they 'cross deck' on an RAN LHD.

Now to 'Dave'. For some reason 2 minutes of vertical lift is thought to be some kind of standard for JSF vertical landings. Now this may be so but that would include most of the time in vertical mode BUT NOT OVER THE DECK ITSELF. Now I don't claim to know how to operate 'Dave' in any mode but extrapolating from earlier posts by those knowledgeable in these matters (Old Navy is onesuch) it could be surmised that likely a JSF (Harrier) pilot will return with minimum fuel to allow the most thrust to weight for a quick vertical landing on the deck. No 'Dave' or Harrier is going to hover for two minutes over the deck to melt a great hole in it. However the aircraft may spend some time in hover mode or near hover mode to get to that position (but over water).

Often forgotten also is that a carrier deck is moving through space creating wind. It may appear that a STOVLie is hovering but it is really flying into the wind at whatever the Wind Over the Deck (WOD) is at that time. That is quite a rush of air to take away any heat either from jet exhaust or heat impacting the flight deck.

The RN are working on 'Dave' actually making 'running landings' on their new large flight decks to maximise the 'bring back' potential of the JSF-B. That extra weight can be fuel or expensive unexpended weapons. Makes for cheaper operating costs. These 'runny landings' will be done with help of computer systems onboard both ship and aircraft. Likely the pilot will carry them out in good weather anyway to get that practice. Remember even for a vertical landing there is an aspect of a 'running landing' anyway, just that the relative motion of ship and aircraft happen to be equal temporarily, while a so called vertical landing is carried out. Meantime the WOD is howling. FlyCookie has mentioned other aspects of Harrier landings in his post above.

So a runny landing is easy enough to do with some extra IAS on Dave translating to some groundspeed on the very long runway deck of the RN new Carriers. Brakes will take care of the stopping aspect with no reverse thrust needed. So where is the problem for JSF-B? There is none.

Yep the Osprey has a problem but I don't care. ;D

Also to add: I would guess that any vertical takeoffs would be for demonstration purposes only (with special provision for them) but otherwise runny takeoffs would be made down the long decks OFF OF the ski jumps (wot the USMC does not have). So if anyone mentions long engine full power runups for vertical takeoffs then go whack'em on the ear. ;D As Old Navy has 'tyrelessly' reminded me - STOVL = Short Take Off Vertical Landing. VERTOL ops are for the birds.

These runny takeoffs with or without a Jet Blast Deflector popping up from hidden under deck position would present little problem for heat on the deck; with exception of that thingamebob 'IPP' mentioned on 'Dave'. It will get worked out. So the 'harumscarum' about excessive heat for the Osprey (probably true) is totally NOT TRUE for 'Dave' as it will be operated by RN FAA, and potentially by RAN on LHDs (at least allowing 'Daves' to crossdeck from RN). BTW Ospreys are likely to be few in our part of the world.

[FlyNavy]

Another old look at runny landings for JSF-B DAVE on new RN crarriers:

www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/08/21/314976/uk-to-extend-rolling-carrier-landing-research-for-jsf.html
&
www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/24/319189/uk-prepares-for-carrier-operations-with-jsf.html

[FlyNavy]

This video is more than one year old - what is interesting (not heard by me before anyway) are the comments from 7 minutes 35 seconds in by the test pilot (ex-RN Harrier pilot of reknown) that the JSF-B will easy to fly (we assume in STOVL mode also) so that pilot's will not be concerned with how to fly it by how to OPERATE all the good stuff inside:

F-35 Test - STOVL First Flight

"F-35 Test STOVL First Flight - June 11, 2008."

[FlyNavy]

Lockheed gets $442 million Navy F-35 contract (Reporting by Jim Wolf) Thu Jul 2, 2009

www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE5616GI20090702

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) has won a $441.9 million modification to a previously awarded U.S. Navy F-35 fighter contract, the Pentagon said on Thursday.

The modification changes a low-rate initial production "advance acquisition" contract to a "cost-plus-incentive-fee/award-fee contract," the Pentagon said in its daily contract digest. Under a cost-plus contract, the contractor is compensated in a way that equals its expenses plus a profit.

In addition, the change provides for logistics support and hardware for the sustainment of seven U.S. Air Force and one Dutch conventional take-off and landing aircraft; and seven U.S. Marine Corps and two UK short take-off vertical-landing aircraft, among other things, the Pentagon said.

The radar-evading F-35 is in the early stages of production."

[FlyNavy]

HairForceMagn in-depth article about JSF:

www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/July%202009/0709Fighter.aspx

Download a small PDF (400Kbs) of the same article:

www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2009/July%202009/0709Fighter.pdf

Excerpt:
"Maneuverability Is Irrelevant”

"For all of the Pentagon’s recent claims, the F-35 was always intended to be a complement to the F-22 in the Air Force.

The F-22 would be the high-speed, very stealthy high-end guarantor of air supremacy, while the F-35 was cast as the lower-cost backbone fighter that could hold its own in a dogfight and swing to a variety of missions, but have special strengths in ground attack.

The F-35’s air-to-air capabilities were developed to give it an edge against the most maneuverable of foreign fighters, since it will be the primary aircraft for most allied air forces.

The Air Force version of the F-35 will have the ability to sustain a nine G turn—equal to that of the F-15 and the F-16. The Navy and Marine Corps models will have 7.5G turning power, and a Lockheed Martin official said those versions will shine in the “low speed” dogfight.

However, according to Northrop Grumman, which supplies major sensor systems on the F-35, “maneuverability is irrelevant” for the F-35. The AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System, which projects a 360-degree image of surrounding air and terrain on the F-35 pilot’s helmet visor, helps the pilot see and target air and ground threats with high fidelity. It eliminates the need for night vision goggles, which have limited field of view and must be compatible with cockpit lighting. With the DAS, the F-35 pilot can literally look “through” the airframe structure—even beneath the aircraft—and shoot at targets that aren’t in front of him. Air-to-air missiles can actually be fired at targets to the rear. According to Northrop Grumman, instead of having to slug it out in a turning battle, “the F-35 simply exits the fight, and lets its missiles do the turning.”
______________________

JSF AESA RADAR story

www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=168340

F-35 Radar's Electronic Protection Capabilities Validated During Northern Edge 2009 Exercise

"LINTHICUM, Md., July 3, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has announced that it successfully demonstrated key electronic protection capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II's AN/APG-81 radar during the recent Northern Edge 2009 (NE09) joint military exercise.

The Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar was flown on board the company's BAC 1-11 test aircraft and was integrated into what is considered the United States' largest and most complex airborne electronic warfare (EW) exercise to date. Northrop Grumman demonstrated the electronic protection (EP) capabilities of the AN/APG-81, by successfully countering advanced electronic attacks (EA), which are intended to degrade, neutralize, or destroy friendly combat capability......"

[FlyNavy]

Good overview of the JSF as a nonnonnonnondogfighter (work it out):

www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12556-start-45-sid-cd4d42014b2591453cf458cfb75853d6.html

SpudmanWP: (quoted)

"To have an effective HOBS shot, a few things can make life easier.

1. Situational awareness -- If you know exactly where everybody is around you, the decision of what to fire at can be made faster.

2. A good Lock On After Launch (LOAL) missile will save precious seconds no waiting to lock onto the AC prior to launch.

3. Data Link -- This will allow the launching Ac to make sure the missile is heading in the right direction.

4. A missile with decent legs and maneuvering will make it harder for the enemy AC to escape.

5. A missile with an advanced IIR seeker will not be fooled by flares.

Now, lets look at how the F-35's systems fit 1-5 above.

The F-35 will have the world's premier system for enabling SA (Situational Awareness) in the WVR rangeband. That system is the DAS. It will track every airborne object around the F-35 in real time. There is no need to turn the HMD around and look at the target AC in order to take the HOBS shot. Just select the target in the LCD and let the missile loose.

By way of the DAS, the F-35 can also update the missiles via data link to ensure they are heading in the right direction. This enables LOAL to be a safer option.

Lastly, the F-35 is scheduled to get a DIRCM in it's planned Block 5 upgrades (2018). This will provide an extra layer of protection against IR missiles.

Now comes the missiles themselves.

The main F-35 missile is going to initially be the AIM-120D. It will have an increased HOBS capability over it's current ability. It will have a better INS/GPS guidance package that will make HOBS shots better and easier. It also has very long range and should not have a problem with any HOBS WVR shot.

The AIM-9x Blk2 missile is going to be the F-35's secondary missile. While they are to be carried externally from the beginning, plans are in the works to place them internally also. The Blk2 upgrade gives them a data link among other things.

The real icing on the cake, however, will be the JDRADM

www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-11533-highlight-jdradm.html

that should be in DT&E with 10 years. This missile will provide for both a BVR and WVR missile in one package with a tri-mode seeker that uses radar and IIR in the seeker."
____________________

Q: "Isn't the JDRADM also supposed to be good for A2G SAM hunting?"

A: "Yes, JDRADM does SEAD/DEAD too."

[FlyNavy]

And ELP comes up with a good idea IMHO for the USN which may jog some RAN types:

www.f-16.net/news_article3602.html

"July 5, 2009 (by Eric L. Palmer) - Will a successful development of the F-35B short take-off and landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) variant force small aircraft carriers on the U.S. Navy? This is a fair question with a debtor U.S. federal budget in turmoil from the global economic meltdown.

The question of small carriers for the U.S. Navy has come up before. Given the current situation it should be looked at again - not as a replacement for big carriers but as a supplement. For a capability that provides low cost of operation and global presence, there should be an opening for a dedicated and small F-35B aircraft carrier.

The U.S. Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates has been suggesting transformation of military forces since he came on board. The worsening state of the U.S. economy may force drastic measures by the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). While many worry about the 2010 fiscal year defense budget, the budgets for FY2011 and FY2012 offer nothing but uncertainty and pain. There will be even more hard choices about existing big-dollar weapons projects.

Don’t we already have small carriers in the form of the United States Marine Corps amphibious support ships ? Yes and no. “Yes” in that they look sort of like aircraft carriers and can perform some fighter aircraft-like missions and “no” in that their naval aviation ability is hobbled. For example, none of the USMC flat deck ships - current or on the drawing board - have a ski-jump for launching STOVL aircraft like the Royal Navy. The ski-jump is important because a STOVL aircraft launched with this method uses less fuel - which means more range and on-station time for the jet.

Second, USMC flat tops have to support all kinds of gator navy operations and not just flight-ops. A ski-jump configured small aircraft carrier in U.S. Navy service with a squadron of F-35Bs can provide so much more flight-op capability than a gator-navy flat-top because it is completely dedicated to flight operations. This means it will have the ability to carry more aviation fuel, munitions and other flight-op specific consumables. Substituting gator-navy flat-top designs for carrier-only naval aviation operations offers serious limitations.

Todays carrier aircraft can hit more targets per flight-ops period in more kinds of weather than they could 20 years ago due to the advent of GPS assisted/kitted munitions (and now affordable multi-mode guidance kits for bombs). Today, a flight of four aircraft can hit more targets in one mission in near any weather, than a whole squadron of aircraft could in the era when dumb munitions were dominant. If 4 F-35 aircraft go out on a strike in the low observable mode where all munitions are carried internally, anywhere from 8 to 32 ground targets can be hit.

What about air-borne early warning support for the small ski-jump carrier? There are studies to give the V-22 Osprey this ability. The Royal Navy has used a helicopter solution for years. This would be a must-have capability for the ski-jump carrier.

What should power the small carrier - nuclear or fossil fuels? This needs serious consideration given potential crisis over the price and availability of fossil fuels. During the last spike in fuel prices last year, world navies were forced to cancel deployments and even put ships dead in the water for part of the day while on cruise to save fuel.

The concept of a small F-35B ski-jump carrier isn’t something that has to be rushed into today. After all, the F-35B has to prove it can fulfill its STOVL design requirements. Once that is been shown in a reliable manner, the U.S. Navy may be facing a solution not of its choosing. It will be hard for some to say “no” to this concept when the service has been putting unrealistic and gold-plated solutions forward in the form of a corvette with a destroyer price tag known as the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the Zumwalt class DDX which will has all the makings of a battleship. Something that was gotten rid of when air power became the dominant striking method for the U.S. Navy.

Spending on the U.S. Defense budget is going to get worse before it gets better. Will the U.S. Navy be able to turn itself around and start buying sensible and affordable ships? Is a small ski-jump aircraft carrier with a squadron of F-35B’s part of that solution?"

[FlyNavy]

My reply to above post here: www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12631.html

Repeated here for your convenience: ;D

"Interesting ideas there ELP. Perhaps you overlooked that the RAN may have the potential (with two new LHDs in future) to carry JSF-Bs (if only crossdecking RN or USMC JSF-Bs). The RAN LHDs have ski-jumps. It has been made clear already that the RAN has no intention of using this ski jump (yeah right) however it would also be a useful spare deck for any Harrier operations from RN or USMC, until their respective JSF-Bs come online.

The Osprey apparently has deck heating issues (which I don't think should ever be linked to any JSF-B issues) which may be problematic. Designing/building a new small STOVL dedicated ski jump carrier would allow any potential problems operating the Osprey to be overcome. Suitably equipped helos (similar perhaps to RN helos) may be a stop gap solution for EW and other related duties.

Of course already it is assumed that any new small ski jump carrier for the US would be designed specifically for the JSF-B."

[Leyland P75]

An interesting article on the effectiveness of JSF that I read elsewhere (and will try to dig up) makes the argument that the USAF is so confident on the A2A of F-35 they were not that upset at the prospect of cutting back on F-22. The article pointed the the fact that the F-22's main capabilities over JSF would be supercruise, weapons load and maneuverability, all of which are considered secondary to cost and number advantages of F-35.

Two thirds of the capability with ten times the numbers so to speak.

I'm pretty bust at the moment (hence why I haven't be jibbering on here), but I'll try to find the article. I have a sneaking suspicion it was on our DID subscription so it might be restricted. See what I can do.

[oldnavy]

Hey Leyland! Hope you get well soon.

The logic you talk about stands to reason. We talked about this on the Supa Dog thread as well. F18E/Fs are turning out sustained mission availability and serviceability rates previously unheard of (percentages up in the high 90s), and the F35 (admittedly still to be proven) will be angled that way as well. F22 on the other hand is not getting anywhere near that. The old problem is that the best fighter in the world is actually just expensive scrap if it is stuck on the ground...sadly. (Wish I could have had a go anyway. ;D)

[Leyland P75]

This in't the article I was referring to but I did find it in my diggery. I'll keep digging for the article I originally referred to. It is hinted at in this article where it says (to the effect of) that the military is opposed to further F-22 purchases. $369 million for 12 planes is a big chuck 'o change you could spend elsewhere , non? Especially, as others have mentioned, if they spend most of the time being targets on the ground.....

From Defence Professionals

www.defpro.com/daily/details/342/

About the Senate's controversial 2010 defence authorisation bill proposal

06:41 GMT, June 29, 2009 defpro.com | The US seems to be solidly divided on a decision as to whether its Air Force needs additional F-22 Raptors or, as proposed, should accelerate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme. Intensive discussions at several forums and conferences ended in early April when Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed phasing out production of the Raptor by fiscal year 2011. Gates further proposed to limit F-22 production to 187 planes and to accelerate testing of the F-35, which is designed to become the new airborne workhorse.

However, the Raptor story did not end with Gates’ decision, as many assumed. Discussions continued and lawmakers from states such as Georgia and Connecticut, which have major F-22 production facilities, have begun to fight for continuing F-22 production. Additional support was found among those lawmakers who believe that additional F-22 aircraft are needed for the Air Force and this group achieved much last week when the House Armed Services Committee voted to include $369 million in extra funding for the advanced procurement of 12 F-22A fighter jets.

The committee proposal was seen as a direct attack on Gates and Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget proposal and immediately came under scrutiny by the White House. Both Gates and President Obama decided not to include any funding for the F-22 in the 2010 budget and Obama threatened to veto such expenditures proposed by the committee. The Office of Management and Budget said the funding for more F-22 fighters runs counter to the "collective judgment" of the military's top leaders and that the president will veto bills that do not meet his standards.

However, despite the veto the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) on Thursday also chose to oppose Secretary Gates and President Obama when they voted to authorize $1.75 billion for seven more F-22 Raptor aircraft. Beyond that, the committee requested that the Pentagon explore creating an export version of the F-22 that could be sold to Japan and other allies.
The Senate committee also joined the House in voting to develop an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, adding $438.9 million for the F-136 program, which is another program the White House seeks to eliminate.

The committee’s mark up also included a very interesting point: The committee proposed cutting $146 million on JSF research and development to eliminate excess management reserves in the program. This can be seen as an attempt to raid JSF funds for the purchase of more F-22.

Both the Senate and House bills now have to go through the appropriations committees.

[FlyNavy]

The story above and other reading suggest to me that with limited resources (strangely - with heaps of money being spent elsewhere - but that is the business of the USofA) money needs to be saved to be spent on ensuring the timely production of the JSF (workhouse). Looks like a good idea to me.