JSF.

This is coolbert:

 Making comparisons between a WW2 combat aircraft and a modern-of-the-soon-to-be-future aircraft such as the JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] is difficult. But the discerning reader should be able to determine where we are now with combat aircraft development as compared to the WW2 era.

To see a web site giving a description of the P-47 of WW2 fame, click here

Go to here to see a good site for the Joint Strike Fighter [JSF].

Or go to this site to see more about the JSF, click here.

I have chosen the P-47 fighter-bomber as a good choice for comparison between a WW2 aircraft and the modern-to-be aircraft that fulfills a role roughly similar to what the P-47 fulfilled. Of course, the technology of sixty years or more ago is vastly different from what it was when the P-47 was first designed. In a previous post, I mentioned that the design team for the P-47 sat in a hotel room for three days working out all the equations for the P-47, and that was that. Try to work like that today and they would think you daft [and probably right too].

Some obvious comparisons can be made. Range, speed, operational ceiling, ordnance, payload, day/night operability, cost, serviceability, etc.

Now, for the P-47, I have heard that the cost to build one aircraft during WW2 was $40,000. In the web site previously referred to, the cost of $85,000 per plane was mentioned. For the purpose of my analysis, let us consider the former figure to be correct, and that is the one I will go with. Normalized to today's dollars, that would approximate to about $1 million to $2 million per plane, figuring that the rate of inflation doubles the cost of a product about once every ten years.

The cost for a copy of the JSF mentioned in the web is about $38 million per plane. This is probably a conservative estimate, when the assembly line is up and running at full steam [it will be the figure I will use for my comparisons]. Now, assembly line is somewhat of a misnomer. These modern combat aircraft are built more or less by hand by a team of assemblers. And figure about eighteen months from start to finish per copy!!??

Just in cruising speed and in service altitude the JSF is of course clearly superior to the P-47. Cruising speed and service altitude both for the former is about twice that of the latter. Max speed for the jet would probably be more about three times as great as the prop plane, but this type of speed, due to fuel consumption, would be achieved only during rare moments. Again, absolute altitude would not a great concern, these type of altitudes being reached only on rare occasions. Range of the JSF is about 1400 miles, versus about 1000 miles for the P-47. So the range of the jet is about 40 % more than the prop job. Amount of ordnance is much greater for the JSF over the P-47. The former can carry a payload of 17,000 lbs. versus the latter 2,500 lbs., a difference in favor of the jet of about seven times as great. A wider range of payloads of much greater lethality can be carried by the JSF. But this will not be a consideration in this evaluation. Payloads and other factors will be touched on later. The JSF can operate day or night, fair or foul weather, and this would probably give in an advantage of two over the P-47, which was restricted to mostly fair weather flying, except in the most extreme of circumstances.

Taking the above into account, we have factors that are 2 X 2 X 1.4 X 7 X 2 greater for the JSF than for the P-47. This is equal to roughly eighty times the capability for the JSF over the P-47. Since the JSF costs about forty times more than the P-47 would in 2004 dollars, can we say that the JSF gives us twice as much for the money? Well, yes, considering only the factors listed above.

There are many more imponderables that would be hard to take into consideration when evaluating the capabilities of the two aircraft. The stealthiness of the JSF would be undeniably an advantage over the P-47. But in the day of the P-47, stealthiness would not have played as great a role as it does now. As mentioned previously, not only the absolute weight of payload but the lethality of the payload would be much greater for the JSF than for the P-47. The latter could fire .50 caliber rounds, rockets, or drop bombs. The former will have a rapid fire cannon on board, and in addition will have: Weapons to be cleared for internal carriage include: JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), CBU-105 WCMD (Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser) for the Sensor-Fuzed Weapon, JSOW (Joint StandOff Weapon), Paveway II guided bombs, AIM-120C AMRAAM air-to-air missile; for external carriage: JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), AIM-9X Sidewinder and Storm Shadow cruise missile. To allow precise targeting of the weaponry, a variety of avionics to include radar, targeting, and countermeasures are integral.

Another consideration that would seem to indicate that the JSF offers a much greater bang for the buck is the longevity factor over the P-47. As I have said in a previous post, the P-47 was more or less obsolete the moment the first plane came off the assembly line. Newer, and more powerful planes were being planned to be brought on line within a short time period, a few years. This sort of thing will not occur with the JSF. Consider the life expectancy and effectiveness of the JSF to be in decades, not years. Newer, more potent variants of the same plane will be developed over the years, newer power plants, weapons, weaponry, software, etc. A much more long-lived and robust and versatile aircraft.

coolbert.