your mistake was not saying 2035-40
if the f-22 is irrelevant in 2020-25, where does that leave the gen 4’s ?

A sufficient number of ‘modernized’ 4.5+ gen aircraft (sufficient number being your mistake) in 2020-2025 is not irrelevance. Ask anyone planning to deploy or currently actively deploying them. And please note that a sufficient number of F-35A will not be flat out plausible for the Program to be sustainable! (my main point, if you’re following along).

It’s about devising asymmetrical measures and cost-effective counter-balancing. This will always be the requirement… regardless of the party in question be they blue or red force.

They are big enough to operate F35A or other conventional alternatives, it would just need the outlay for Cats and wires (and training etc) but the ships are more than capable of operating other types, they are bigger than the French CdG.

Go ahead! We are all ears!:)

Personally, from the start I have at the very least implored UK to convert any ‘must have’ super-carrier-centered defense budget going forward, to one that properly modifies the capability to operate navalised EF Tyhpoon, Rafale, Super Hornet or yes, a F-35C. Either that, (if you can truly afford them including operations and maintenance) or seriously reconsider an entire strategic doctrinal rethink otherwise and cost-effective deterrence force going forward.

What aircraft do you envision, that will be available in any tactically significant number existing in 2020-2025, that will make the 187 Raptors irrelevant?

I’m pretty sure this is a rhetorical question.

USAF will have at most 80 modern block35 F-22s (the block originally conceived to be the future air superiority deterrence force), after attrition, by 2020-2025. Hence, irrelevant by 2025, yes.

By default, the ‘stay the course’ F-35A procurement scheme will not be producing anywhere close to the expected annual acquisition rates (hence all acquisition models hyped up today should be thrown out the window…)

Other than that, with all due respect, I unfortunately disagree with your fundamental assumptions on this topic and general position on USAF’s optimal tacair recap policy.

Jonesy,

In my humble opinion what DoD and joint-services need to be seriously looking at now, are cost-effective, modern air-launched ERAM variants.

Perhaps DoD should consider both an AGM-88E seeker based munition (with a properly modified, A2A-based, passive-radar, plus dual-active-millimeter-wave terminal guidance), as well as a dual-seeker based active guidance munition perhaps, such as with an active AMRAAM seeker, plus the added IIR seeker from the SM-2 IIIB and that which was originally designed for the AIM-7R dual heat-seeker concept??

That imho, would be serious, game-changing, Off-the-Shelf-Systems exploitation and a justified asymmetrical sys development..

A quick reply to the thread would be: (As I’ve held for around the past 3 yrs): Unfortunately the UK is proceeding ahead with a QE super Carrier which can only operate the STOVL ‘B’ variant F-35B at best. While I’ve personally promoted an entirely different strategic vision for RN over the past 3 yrs or so, I could not object enough to sticking with the current plan, as tragic and costly as it is.

Ask, and I’ll be happy to provide an alternative emergency contingency view.

Respects to UK –

F414 is actually about $4m per piece, while average price for F135 for FY2010 is $14.3m per piece.
If you’re referring to USN FY 2010 budget, it’d be good to make a distinction between propulsion unit and single engine.
The price of $7.9m (in 2009), or $9m (in 2010) is for the F18E’s propulsion pack, which consists of a pair of engines.
So, the F414 is about 3-3.5 times cheaper than F135.

Exactly why I for one have been promoting the concept of a potential 3x F414 EPE powered FB-22xx (navalised), instead of a 2x F135 powered (fat boy) long-ranged platform. For cost savings alone.

Cheers, Cola 🙂

With so many customers heavily invested into the program and with 3 different variants the economies-of-scale will ensure the F35 remains the most commercially successful venture for atleast a few decades.

Although, for the economies of scale to kick in, it has recently been reaffirmed that if buy schedules are significantly reduced from original plan, then pricing models too go out the window. And most should comprehend by now that buy schedules are unfortunately going to be significantly reduced in the near-future.

There are serious issues ahead, (substantial order reductions) which the organic business model was not designed to sustain. Hence a very unfortunate vicious cycle ahead, worth noting.

The scaled wing design could be a worthy concept for an FB-22xx-type, ‘ngb alternative’.

Maybe substitute 2 small, inward canting stabs (possibly with aerolastic control, or simply fixed) instead of the vertical stab, placed about where the outer wing humps sit? My 2 Yuan.