Interesting. Thanks for the updated schedule estimates as they pertain to RAAF, Peter G.

Pretty much as some Program followers have assessed over the past couple yrs at least (e.g., IOC and FOC and weapon integration estimates, etc), but this better confirms the latest trending of things.

I’d personally support RAAF funding for the C1’s internal clearance, per an initial stand-off maritime capability. I’d also support the acquisition of a successful JSM, especially if it’s cleared for internal carry, prior to the C1?

Any word on RAAF interest in the AGM-154-ER?

And in terms of the AIM-120D, I’d seriously hope RAAF would acquire at least this advanced variant for the Super Hornets, prior to the currently anticipated 2018 F-35 IOC date??

Finally… with regards to legacy hornets retiring per the reported date given (2018) and F-35 squadron level FOC expected by 2021, one could guess the time to invade AUS would be around late 2018, early 2019?? 😀

Sounds like a reasonable swap, but a next gen Super could have some further upgradeable legs justifying a longer than currently calculated service life. Any further-out NGAD type program in all irony though, should/could be a justified international ‘JSF’ collaboration out of necessity, imho.

Personally, I don’t think the RN super-carrier strategy is a wise plan from the get go and actually have objected to it in favor of more subs and perhaps a couple more destroyers. (from an outside perspective). If truly required to operate these, EU needs to push kicking and screaming, due to necessity and transform to a joint-carrier operating naval force operating a common tactical a/c imho.

As a stop-gap alternative, maybe a 10-15 yr lease for the SH-international variant(?) which in extreme requirements could jointly operate from USN carriers – in part helping to address USN’s future empty deck conundrum?

Fly away cost-
SE- $100 million
Block 60- $80 million
F-35A- $60 million

Reminder:

The popularly envisioned and widely quoted avg F-35 cost of $60m ea is the unfortunately mythical advertised cost – one based on high rates of procurement as originally scheduled and apparently still expected..

Hence, an important heads up:

There will not be year over year increasing DoD budgets for the indefinite future – that which would be a necessary condition to sustain the original F-35 procurement rates (or otherwise high rates). In fact, there will be highly reduced F-35 procurement rates and total buys (even under an all around best case scenario) due to inability to afford such fleet sizes given the decreasing defense buying power and overall impacting financial reality, long-term.

The entire F-35 Program is of course fundamentally unsustainable, information which very unfortunately not yet been comprehended by Congress as a whole. The F-35 Program (as most aviation watchers are starting to understand, if not already) is about to be radically downsized – thus deserving strategic recalculations, ASAP (if not already being done in secret). To what extent will the Program face imminent downsizing and to what affect on costs? That is the 60 gazillion dollar question.

2015 sounds like a fair entry date for this proposed affordable, next gen ‘International’ system.

I actually have a ‘block III yes or no survey’ thread previously posted over on F16.net, if anyone would wish to contribute there too, or review the vote count. 🙂

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14107-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-15.html

The CFT would seem to be a long anticipated ‘must have’ next gen option. Good for them to finally draw it into a concept. Same goes for the internal IRST… (I’m OK with the centerline IRST tank in the interim, but it’s one fat tank that would probably be better off dropping given any worst case combat scenarios)?

One could also contemplate a EO/MAWS cued-TADIRCM system integrated by around this 2015 date. But I guess I’d support a lower-drag, Low Observable centerline tank to best complement the CFT, even before any investment in a hypothetical LO pod. My 2 cents.

Why would you want China to fight the US? That would be the end of the global economy as you know it, and your mom will lose her job.

Good point. Kinda provocative line of contingency planning in public view, imho.

Maybe armchair generals (of any nation’s squad) could be more general and posture in more generic ‘us vs them’ examples yet still get the point across? Hmmm.

Having read lots of your posts on various topics you… nearly always will say black is white if the majority say its black :rolleyes:

Well, there’s at least one blog where you might find me mostly in agreement on many of the topics. So there you go 🙂

However, it’s likely human nature I guess to take an interest in formulating counter-points and other perspectives on subjects which perhaps one finds neglecting certain aspects of thought.

And imho it’s possible that each and every one of us can at some point at least, be guilty of fanboy syndrome or be over-critical/extremist in one’s opinions and assertions.

So was this particular F-22 demo one of the best flown to date, imho? Yes and credit to the pilot and crew. Did I potentially fly off the handle so to speak in expressing some unsettling perspectives with regards to a prematurely killed procurement in addition to being coupled with a high-risk, budget-cannibalizing recapitalization gamble affording no apparent plan B?

But yes, put me in the catagory countering both the policy and view in which insistently assures: ‘everything will be OK’ and ‘steady as she goes’. :confused:

Cheers.

It’s not particularly conservative for aircraft that don’t have a lot of hours though. It still wouldn’t work out to losing 12 aircraft by 2025.

Now figure in 83 combat coded block35, not 87 and figure in that one a/c per 3 years could eventually be conservative.

Furthermore, figure in no such congressional support as of yet at least, to fund all block 30s to increment 3.2, let alone full 5th gen increment 3.3.

FYI: all available funds going to the all-or-nothing, stay-the-course F-35A plan.