ELPWrongly in your definition of wrongly . Again you mention 270 odd billion when infact 85% of that cost is in recurring expenditure which would be incurred if the services picked up legacy jets as well – the f-18,f-16 and f-15 lines are open but they aint churnin out jets for free you know . Much of the R and D efforts going into the F-35 is non-recurring but over the no.s it falls to not much per aircraft and that is why the F-35 is a good buy – the no. (home and export ) subsidizes the per capita developmental cost . Even if the F-16 G/H costs something like 65 million a pop ( I used the fly-away cost of the SH at 75+ million as a benchmark for producing the top varient of 4th gen fighter) as opposed to what the JSF would cost ( again dont provide GAO figures of testing and LRIP jets as the mighty raptor had close to 260 million first few jet cost .) . I think that according to most estimates ( contact Jacko) the LRIP costs is around 100-110 million mark with the price comming down with Full Rate Production the F-35 looks like providing far more then what a F-16 or F-18E/F sooped up will get you .
Well that is interesting as right now… JSF or no, we would have an F-15, F-16, SPO and depot support for years to come. And then add to that an F-35 SPO and later a depot. Those operations by them self expend other colors of money not mentioned. F-22 is already in production and what ever the final number of jets that the dumb politicians decide it will be far less money than bleeding out gobs of cash on a totally new airframe. An airframe that we don’t really even need. A large integrated air defense can be broken now and into the furture without JSF. And again once the large threats that stealth was created for in the first place ( enemy aircraft and large SAMs ) are subdued, current legacy jets can do the plinking of things and not even be touched. So the war logic there fails me. The political-military-industrial-complex squandering away huge sums of tax money that we don’t have to waste is there in large effect with JSF. It is so rightly labled the largest military aircraft program ever. That is pretty unsound reasoning considering what it brings to the fight that can be done by other methods. And as we can and will into the future, be able to break any integrated air defense, wasting money in this fashion is a crime against the U.S. tax payer, who is floating most of the bill. Troops and commanders in the field aren’t asking for a JSF. They are asking to have all the equipment on their TO&E that was given away in the field and left there for the next unit, to be replaced, and the equipment they have to be properly refirbished for the next deployment. This still is not being done to any effect. We are having trouble fielding troops and don’t have the numbers of leg troops to do the job, all because some McNamara like morons in the Pentagon think it is “too expensive”. Yet numbers of trigger pullers is exactly what we needed to occupy Iraq. And sustaining/feeding troops ( 500k or so ) to do the job wasn’t that expensive compared to all the gold plated toys we are buying now. Kinda late as this should have been planned in a pipeline in 2001-2002 when we decided to go on all these silly crusades. The Army of One just raised the recruit age to 42. :rolleyes: The current ops tempo doesn’t fall into anything that even “The Art of War” can safely predict “victory” with. :rolleyes: That is a large part of our current mission. Not gold plated war toys that don’t bring anything useful to the fight. This same not so smart leadership is also outsourcing every possible war support item that is core to the way we do business. Logistics, Airlift ( way beyond CRAF more like CRAF largess ), our core intel is going corporate because we are too dumb to manage it. The GWOT threat is there to employ corporations now and into the furture. Not secure victory. That would upset the huge gravey train setup now. The military needs resources in-house but it isn’t being done:
A small sample of this kind of thinking here.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13993
You should be very very concerned as we won’t have this core support when we have to fight real war that actually has something to do with defending our nation. Doing things a new way can be a good thing. Doing things an ill advised way is, in this business, in the long run, lethal.
ELPInteresting article about them looking at, and setting NCW goals. They may find out that all the different systems they have are going to require additional patching. NCW would be a little less painless for them to get up and running faster as a method to use, if they didn’t have so many diverse weapon systems spanning so many years. Not that they can’t all be patched together for NCW…. they can. Just that the initial investment in ( our definition of NCW ) NCW is a large amount of money. Just so many airframes now spanning so many generations of technology that are costing additional money to keep going. They can of course keep the various airframes going for years, but the logistical drag from supporting so many systems is less money that can be spent to get NCW methods and equipment into workable frontline operations. Very very interesting and exciting times for that air force. Of course with the NCW tour, I am sure they will get the tour of how the U.S. aircraft in the competition are very NCW plug and play. However the double edge sword on that is yet another aircraft type. It isn’t just about plugging in a certain kind of node topology you want, it is about how much of the pie you want to bite off and impliment over years. Too much at once and the training pukes will be overwelmed. We were fortunate in setting up “a” certain kind of NCW method that works for us. Of course we got to make all the numerous stupid mistakes in operations over the last few years. Many of the NCW baby steps in Allied Force 1999 were quite comical. :p
ELPJust as a parlor game, the big motor F-15K without the CFTs is lots of fun.
ELPNo one ever suggested dropping F-22 production and doing the job with J-UCAS. However some, have ( wrongly ) suggested ( spending giga-dollars ) and making do with JSF only. Pointing to “waste” in F-22 spending…suggesting dropping it now stating how much cheaper JSF is…. where lots of the F-22 is paid down ….yet failed accounting and want to flush $275+ Billion on JSF. If someone is so so concerned with saving money, they would suggest the U.S. goes with the current F-22 buy and build more legacy jets that are still in production.
ELPSpeaking of which, some critics ask, why can’t we cut the expensive Raptor in favor of the cheaper Lightning? While a fine bomb-hauler and (one hopes) a good multi-service airframe, the F-35 is a mediocre performer. Said 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field, “The problem with the F-35 … is speed. It doesn’t have the capability to supercruise. Speed lets us get inside the decision cycle of the bad guy.”
For the most dangerous air battles and attack missions, F-35 squadrons will rely on F-22s for support. That’s an unavoidable state of affairs when you design an airframe to replace slow- and low-flying Lockheed Martin A-10 Warthogs and Boeing AV-8B Harriers as well as light and flexible F-16s and Boeing F/A-18 Hornets. The F-35 is a compromise. Potentially a very successful compromise, but still …
ELPYeah, I read it on an internet forum. That still doesn’t play with a news paper parroting it as fact with no hard information. Until then, the rumor is about as useful as a tabloid paper. Better go to page 3, where the only useful facts, are. :p
ELPPart of it is lack of funds. Buying crashomatic V-22s and dubious value-overly expesive combat jets. Although one only has to look at the whole airlift picture the past several years to see that our airlift roadmap, needs help. Mental help… the answer isn’t always more new airframes…. Funny how USAF doesn’t seem to hang their hat on how much airlift weight is moved for the DOD per year. Reason being; we are outsourcing a lot of it out. And USAF crews aren’t flying those airframes. And not just to Ukranian companies that fly the AN-124s.
Not to mention the foot dragging of getting upgraded C-5s into service. ( Not all jobs need the C-5 , but the C-5 can only do certain jobs. ) That all by itself is going at a snails pace. More-the lacsidazical way in getting the old E model C-130s taken care of…. dorking around with the cockpit upgrade or buying more C-130Js that can hardly do all the hardcore dirt portions of the original C-130s job. But wait, theres more…. a total confusion of how to use theater airlift in a war. Where in Iraq, in 2004, it was splashed all over the press on how C-130 missions carrying supplies in the Iraq AOR would get bumped so a VIP could be shuttled around or a general have his “fini” flight that day. So someone telling me we need more than the current buy of C-17s when the brainiacs running the airlift plan don’t seem to have a clue on how to use airlift, isn’t convincing. And finally, not all cargo, even in theater, requires roll-on-roll-off ramp work. Whole portions can be done with conventional convertable cargo/pax airliners. We will have enough airlift airframes under the current buys/upgrades. Our biggest problem are the PowerPoint warriors and temporary help ( Sec USAFs ) that come in and don’t have a clue, yet are way to chummy with industry. Kind of a joke really. We may buy more C-17s above the current buy, not because we need them, but because the current system of kickbacks by any other name is well in effect in this war. The goal of industry and the politicians isn’t what is good for a practical defense but what is good for stock prices and/or getting re-elected.
ELPI know this is not informed journalism but is there any truth in the second from last paragragh in the attached BBC article re the Typhoons performance against the F22 ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1818077.stm
Anyone seen anything to back up such a sweeping statement ? :confused:
Clueless-
—–
Critics argue that the UK’s Royal Air Force (RAF) and its European allies no longer need a top of the range fighter.
They point out that conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan require infantry and helicopters, not sophisticated fighter jets that will take up a huge chunk of the hard-pressed defence budget.
—–
That = amateur thinking. Not all wars are going to be bug hunts turning over rocks on useless dirt.
—-
Also, designing a fighter to be stealthy brings its own set of problems not least because stealth aircraft cannot carry out tight dogfight manoeuvres at high speed.
—-
Huh? What?
—
What makes it special?
The Eurofighter’s engines, made by Rolls-Royce, give enormous power in relation to the aircraft’s weight.
This allows the Eurofighter to fly at supersonic speeds without burning excess fuel, a revolutionary feature in a modern fighter.
The fighter jet is controlled by computers that feed instructions into the wings and tail far faster than a human pilot could manage, allowing the pilot to throw the plane around the sky and use entirely new tactics.
—-
The product of those words has less value than what comes out the south end of a north bound mule.
—-
This is very stealthy but costs twice the price of the Eurofighter, and reports suggest that RAF’s Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US.
—-
Looks like the Baathist Broadcasting Corporation is putting out it’s usual string no fact checking.
ELPConsidering the customer, those will still be low hour jets when they are retired years from now. :p
ELPWell Phantom, while it is a tradition to poke a bit of fun at o-1s, the ones that USAF gets are almost always sharp people, so congrats on that.
I can live with a JSF if we had funding on the order of what we had in the cold war. Unfortunately we have so so many things that need dollars. The USAF isn’t just about having small shooter airframes. Stating the obvious,
It has to oversee secure military aspects of space systems, R&D shops of many many flavors, forecast weather on a global scale to support ops, do lots and lots of airlift per day, tanking to support all services, lots and lots of training from beginner to recurrent, ( we have also been cutting flying hours in an unwise fashion on the last few budgets ), sustain rescue ops, all kinds of signals intelligence, intelligence collection of other flavors, train foreign allies, help provide tech support for foreign weapon systems FMS ( corporations don’t do all of this ), ( nuclear deterent and nuclear safety, war on drugs support, ship-store-program manage all kinds of munitions, flight test numerous sytems, test other non-flying weapon systems, interact with other services providing GFAC support, run many non war related deployments and exercises per year,… Homeland defense which comes in many many forms, disaster aid relief, ( not just the airlifters you see but numerous AFSCs are involved, othe humanitarian aid ( medcial types, CE types ). An insane amount of logistics support and program management including the “3”, in Three level maintenance ( lots of people and office space). This is the very very short list. All of the things except I think the Thunderbirds, have had their budgets cut in bad ways to help pay for the war in Iraq and other unwise items, that some people think we need. The things I mentioned above are the canary in the coal mine. When they start to hicup, we have challenges. Iraq isn’t going away anytime soon unless something dramatic happens. It wil be a money pit for years to come. What people don’t realize is that it is a multiple color of money effort just for that, not one fundsite.
We can beat down an integrated air defense without JSF. Need a new car smell? F-16 and F-18 are still in production. So is F-22.
What you need to understand about munitions is that an air op doesn’t live or die by using the 2000lb weapon class. Fraggers have already said that 75% +/- of target types will die just the same if they are hit by an SDB as a 2000lb ‘der. Including the penetration of SDB is the same as the forged pointy tip BLU-109 ! BLU-109s smaller cousin, the BLU-110 forged steel 1000lb ( GBU-35 in JDAM trim ) partner to the Mk83 ( GBU-32 in JDAM trim )iron bomb is no slacker either. BLU-110 will kill a lot of target types where not every target requires a broach warhead from an expensive cruise missile.
So the F-22 not being able to carry a 2000lb class weapon internally, doesn’t ruin my day. For the few targets on the first nights of a war that need that, we have the B-2. Where in Desert Storm it took a whole squadron of F-16s with iron bombs in daylight, getting shot at by SAMs to reduce a SA-2 complex…. The same target type could be killed by 2 F-22s with SDB. Kill and not even be engaged by the threat, at night. Again, once large SAMs and fighters are killed off, I don’t need yet another type of stealth jet just to be fashionable. Legacy jets can do the rest, and have near complete contempt of engagment, including if they need to, kill something with a 2,000lb ‘der.
CAS- We still need the A-10. Not my favorite jet but as a niche product, we still have a use for it. Any claim of it being “replaced” by anything else is unrealistic and a dream. The latest SLEP means it is good for another 25 years. At that time we will probably do it again. The latests precision engagement stuff being put on it at the depot, means a much much better use of PGMs. While you could have a war without the A-10, we have it and should use it.
Back on the topic of money. As the saying goes- Money is policy. The needs of all the things I listed above (and much much more) that need their funding tuned up better is real. We were already a boney greyhound before OIF and OEF. Some PowerPoint warrior suggesting more thining out of things = a need for a drug test for suspected crack use. While you are counting airframes look at the airlift, tanker, ISR situation in detail. These are the things that win wars and they are being funded on a shoestring. One of many sad stories that may interest you is that the USAF is involved in supporting the National Reconnaissance Office. Time is starting to drag on needed funding to replace our crown jewel ISR satellites. So, there are many canary in the coal mine scenarios. We don’t have any cash to play around with. Every pennie is needed to do what is demanded by our leaders ( no matter how inept some of them may be).
ELPSomeone want my opinion of unmanned F-35 prices??
Just kidding.
Question: how does an unmanned F-35 or J-UCAS defend itself against hostile fighters?
Thats what F-22 is for. Also, at night, as part of a team. J-UCAS is of course stealth so first you have to find it. An air defense will already be over-tasked with other things- Decoys, JASSM, F-22 kicking down the door and clearing a path. No problem.
Back to the J-UCAS for a bit. It has much lower cost. For us…. the “S” in JSF is for strike. We don’t need a fighter platform when F-22 has that handled. For years we have had no problem sending cruise missiles out and hope they find their way. Where at least J-UCAS is reusable. So where, many important targets are fixed during the first few nights of a war, a J-UCAS going along very high at Mach 0.75 or so, is good enough. The internal payload will be close to JSF for at least the things that count: Cheap PGMs. Part of the mission for J-UCAS did include SEAD-DEAD. So when you have a few of these covering a geographic area, no problem. Anything that emits will be at risk.
It will be fielded with the ability to boom refuel. So something that can boom refuel and have a (public consumption) radius of 1300 miles +/- isn’t so terrible.
NCW means it can be retargeted enroute with the same methods we are testing with JASSM, SLAM-ER and a few other things. It for the most part is a SEAD/DEAD/basic strike platform. Much less aircrew risk. Manned aircraft aren’t going away. However, we should use every ( practical ) weapon system available that lowers aircrew risk. The first few nights of a war while an integrated air defense is being beat down qualifys for this kind of tool from the bag.
Again after the high threat ( enemy aircraft and large SAMs ) part of the integrated air defense is down, I don’t need a stealth fighter. Mobile high end SAMs? They will have to try and exist in an environ where a few J-UCAS are loitering waiting for any pop up threats like that to show themself. 24/7 coverage of an area of interest. No tanker drag means when I am drawing down some of them to go back stateside, they are purged, broken down, packed up into a container and put on to a C-17 to head home.
From sea? Still being figured out, however an F-18 did do some basic tests on automated landings specifically to support R&D for the J-UCAS program. Not too comfortable with mixing manned and unmanned on the same deck? Fine. Take something like the JFK and before it is retired, convert it into a J-UCAS only test bed and go from there. A J-UCAS only carrier ( that could be used for other things ) of some form, wouldn’t be such a bad idea.
Again, this way of spending money, frees up money to put toward a bunch of other things we need. Yes the not so smart expeditionary warfare we are doing is burning through about $100 Billion +/- per year in different colors of money. However we are also using money on gear we really don’t need. Not every war is going to be bug hunts. So people implying we should shape our whole force to that kind of war are dumb. We have to have a mix in ability. Not spending huge sums on JSF frees up money for things like R&D for a real no peer group F-22_like performance jet off the carrier deck in small numbers. USAF for small shooters can get along with F-22, F-16 block 6x 7x etc whatever you want to call it in new builds. Also a low rate production of F-22 to get it up to what ever number is really needed. I don’t have a problem with 181 but it might be slightly higher. A J-UCAS wing for USAF and a J-UCAS boat for the USN isn’t a bad thing. ( where your “Wing” can be any number of airframes, as you will have x amount of kits to assemble to make up for war attrition or whatever. The cost of ownership of these things over years is going to be low_cost_high_capability.
That same boat after a big war is done can be used as a floating Specfor base as in OEF, be on alert for other uses like emergency relief ( as proposed post Katrina, aircraft carriers need to be more convertable and versatile for a variety of things. Read a large report on this recently, might have been GAO, I forget. ) etc.
Do I have all the answers? Of course not. But neither do the “experts” in the pentagram that are bought off and owned by the miltary industrial complex and are a bunch of “yes” men to any big dollar idea that comes down the pike, so long as they have a nice fat job after retiring from the military. So much cash is burned through in a year by these chumps with so little gain, it is frightening.
ELPmy other vision of strike warfare
Lol I got a good laugh out of that……it’s like you’re under the impression that you’re some expert on knowing what the DoD should be spending money on and what it shouldn’t.
Perhaps they should give you five stars on your shoulder and you can lead all of us idiots in the U.S. military toward the proper future that we should have…a future free of F-35’s and various other systems that ELP has deemed unecessary……
Somebody needs a reality check it seems…….never seen somebody which such a vendetta against a fighter plane before the thing has even entered service, much less proved what it will be capable of in operational evaluations of the first production standard aircraft…….
As I tell all the Super Hornet bashers……move on with your life….the F-35 is a reality and nothing you can do or say will stop that.
Never seen anyone so clueless on the very very small USAF budget re: all the things that need to have money spent on them that JSF funding will eat up.
ELPWell considering we are buying another uniform change, during a war where money is better spent else where, renaming wings and squadrons at an alarming level, finding yet, more busy work jobs for the glut of O-6s, and O-7s, etc etc etc, securing a production line to replace 50 year old tankers looks kinda normal for once. :p BTW… the “new” ( funny how I think of them that way having seen old A models.. CFM56 high bypass engines on our 135’s are starting to show some age. ( They are for the most part ’80s tech )… where engine guys are having to replace blades and stuff more in ISO etc. So if we don’t get new tankers, I think it is time again to get new tech CFMs put on the 135s. This field fixing of CFMs is nonsense. If it fails an oil sample or routine test metric, pull it, pack it, and ship it back to the vendor, and pop a spare on. This is the “new” air force with super thin manpower…. well except in the HQs :p
ELPThose DD Rascals. 😀
Does anyone have the original clip of Arizona blowing up?
What woke me up is that the scene before, with the srafing of the train moving right to left and the rocket attack/strafing of the factory, I belief are from WWII footage of Mustangs in the last, last days, hitting some locale on mainland Japan. :p
ELPsoon there will be no pilots at all 😡 😡 😡
Doubt it. And I don’t think any of us would even want that, or think it makes practical sense.There are situations where you have to have pilots or at least have UCAV on a very very short leash. F-22s or Eurofighters at night, with a flocks of J-UCAS quality UCAVs each armed with two 1000lb or even 2000lb PGMs or 6-8 SDB like weapons way in front of them is a scary killer force for first nights of the war targets, that will go away. Not to mention, J-UCAS buddy-SEAD/DEAD work. That is a pretty good way to clear a path.
Sign In
