geogenswerve,
I’m sorry but that grossly overestimates the single dimensional simplicity and underestimates the complexity of the issue. I’m sure you would be more careful in pressing full steam ahead with regards to certain other geopolitical hotspot issues around the globe. Frustrations and passions aside… we need to collectively be part of the balanced solution and not the antagonistic problem.
geogenUnforunately, there is some accuracy lacking in these reports and statements made from various program/defence offices in charge with acquiring the F-35.
That is; AUS better have substantial ‘contingency’ on top of that, as this future assessed price figure is unfortunately not sustainable nor reality. (And btw, that is not the full per unit Procurement cost, just an easier to swallow sub-set of the total per unit cost).
I truly wish it were that easy.
geogenThanks for that pricing clarification put in context, Maus92. Worth noting.
geogenI think you’d be better off using the F-2 model’s wing planform with the best features of the block 52+, 60, and the F-16I.
Interesting comment. In terms of any ‘realistic’, hypothetical future F-16 mod, I’d concur that an improved F-2 variant w/CFT (basically making your F-16 ES), as the starting point, would probably be the optimal cost-effective ‘big modernization’ option. An upgradeable, possibly stretched, cranked-delta XL/AT type mod should have been the F-35A though, imo (relevant as ‘Lo’ part of the ‘Hi-Lo’ mix perhaps until 2030 or beyond).
With regards to this nice looking Gripen XL concept (perhaps requiring the EPE upgrade F414 power?)… I’d agree that I’d like to see Gripen NG sales first, but the market-potential for a likely cheaper Typhoon tranche 3B-equivalent(?) jet seems viable?
geogenFuel is chemical energy that can be used to extend range, increase speed and possibly increase operating altitude if the aerodynamics are right. You can never have enough fuel, unless you are on fire.
Both Gripen and F-35 would benefit from the XL treatment.
I’d concur. Perhaps a Super Hornet block IIIx too? What would be the feasibility of such a cranked-delta-canard SH? (with redesigned vert stabs perhaps).
But arquebus – good concept idea ovearll. You get credit for the effort and innovation. BTW, what powerplant would you suggest for your XL-NG? Opportunity to reintroduce the Thrust-reverse ability? How about a couple conformal rail points for Meteor, a la EF?
geogenThe 30 mil. for F 18C and the 55 mil. for the F 18 E are the flyaway prices while the 125 mil is the program unit cost that includes infrastructure, spares, service, R&D.
Which of course is the far-out ‘estimated’ avg price and one based on 2,440 total US buys. So, “…the 125 mil is the estimated program unit cost…”, one which is unable to be banked on and one unfortunately based on unrealistic procurement wishes.
Thus, we will very unfortunately not see close to 2,400+ US F-35s being procured, nor an avg program unit Cost anywhere as low as $125m.
A misconception still and official major miscalculation regarding assumed tacair recapitalization and air combat command planning. ‘Staying the course’ will produce unintended consequences with significant ramifications, by default. (Regardless of how good an actual technical capability will be in an eventual, Fully Operational Capable block V F-35 model, by early 20s).
geogenAs long as tactical aviation remains cockpitted outright, it should be logical to assume some form of collaborative mix between some ratio of 2 seat and 1 seat platforms comprising the force structure depending on AF X,Y,Z’s overall requirements.
Perhaps one of the biggest tradeoffs to have 2 seats operating over the next 10-15 yrs, one could assume, would be cost. The cost to train and maintain that 2nd troop should inevitably (and relatively to one’s budget/strategy) work it’s way into the total number of platforms afforded/operated per LifeCycle cost analysis.
So yes and yes. A mix of the two layouts would seem to be most valid.
geogenIf for any extreme chance the NGAD can be IOC out of the blue by 2025… and designed as a common airframe jointly operated by USAF/USN… then we don’t need JSF. (I’d just recommend modifying name as: Next Gen Advanced Defense – Fighter, rather than relegating to a single role Air Dominance concept)
But design NGAD to be acquisition-sustainable and efficiently produced in annual lots as low as 45-50 a/c… or cancel now before even going there (learning from JSF program).
Upgraded and evolved legacy platforms can recapitalize force structure until 2025’s introduction and phase in of NGAD.
The thought of having NGAD + F-35 + UCAV + EA-18G logistics on a 2025 carrier deck is insane.
geogenIf the hammer drops and the F-35 Abortion project is canned, are there any viable alternatives out there? Or would it be a start from scratch?
There would most likely be 4.5, 4.5+ stopgap policies implemented until a 2025-2030 timeframe could deliver more mature, manned 5 gen follow-on such as a notional F-35E type (by dwightlooi) or even a block VI F-35A,C.
A common-USAF/USN FB-22xx variant should be an option as well, regardless.
Emphasis on force-multiplying stand-off, next-gen munitions development and procurement would likely be prioritized, as well as likely increased support for UCAV program.
geogenHow about trying to purchase the Mitsubishi F-2A from Japan if Taiwan needs more F16 jets and cannot get it from the USA.
How’s their relationship with Japan?
Or maybe consider if an F-CK-1X mod could include a cranked-delta wing(?), the upgraded F125 power (or equivalent make) and perhaps a sub-size, all-moving vertical tail made of appropriate materials? Maybe even replace radar with a dual-set of nose-based IRST and conjoined Litening G4 type aperture? Develop an HMD. Integrate MICA??
geogen…of airborne boost-phase BMD for non-MAD adversaries..
I’m curious of any feasibility of an air-launched IRIS-T SL (AAM-intercept) variant – (an air-air variant of the extended-ranged, surface launched TBMD variant, of the standard air-launched IRIS-T missile) and if such a nasty thing has already been proposed, or how plausible it would be if at all?
With enlarged booster, data-link, jettisonable drag-reducing nosecone, although perhaps w/ the base IRIS-T IIR seeker (in lieu of the reported SL’s radar seeker)… such a CMD/BMD (booster phase), plus all around passive guided air intercept missile would appear to be a formidable option? A poor-man’s NCADE with passive-Meteor capability? If not already conceived, I’d propose it as the ‘IRIS-T A-ER’. A for active.
Thanks for any response.
geogenmatt –
I’ve always thought the QE class carrier policy was inherently flawed and even likely to cause unintended catastrophic consequences UK-defence-wide. I’d have to favor this kind of development in terms of re-evaluating policy and strategies going forward (before too much is sunk, financially).
My latest consideration for EU-wide tacair policy with regards to the whole F-35 – seemingly damned if we do, damned if we don’t – fiasco, contemplates whether a sort of F-35 specific ‘Joint-EU Air Defense/Security’ Wing could be studied for feasibility? Perhaps 75-100x Euro F-35A block IV/V could jointly-procured (or leased) as a commonly operated, shared unit, perhaps similar to how OTAN/NATO co-operates E-3 aircraft and e.g., even shares the Baltic air policing mission? Consider 3-4 bases across Europe could operate the jointly-piloted F-35 at one active squadron each, plus an OCU training/reserve base? Every 2-3 yrs the ‘Active deployed’ base could possibly rotate to another location to share the mission?
Each participating partner EU member could donate and budget between 2-15 pilots (as example), plus support crew in order to best maximize the pooling of resources and enable some form of proportional, future F-35A capability once the system is mature? Under this scenario, I could imagine the F-35A block IV/V as potentially acting as a ‘Quarterback’ for Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen… while also acting with the EU-wide capacity to independently intercept and interrogate, etc, if/when need be?
Would this be any more cost-viable for a potential EU operator X,Y,Z, while ensuring some kind of actual deployed fleet being acquired for the future? Or is it simply not realistic (or rational), being too complex and whatnot… leaving possible customers simply relegated to a pure thumbs up or thumbs down approach to possible future acquisitions? Thanks for any reply.
geogenFair counter post, YF.
…
geogenThanks for bringing the thread back on topic.
I would opine that perhaps Taiwan should look towards a “new” fighter, with the FCK1/IDF as it’s leap-off or departure point. I’m sure that the expertise realised by AIDC with it’s IDF programme could be translated into something a bit more updated. As long as it is not too ambitious and reasonably competitive with selected cutting edge technologies, it is perfectly do-able IMHO. As I stated before, propulsion may perhaps be the biggest stumbling block, but this can be overcome with bought-in, licence produced technologies, and the fact that there is free movement in the labour market. The lead designer of South Africa’s Carver being a case in point. (previously from Dassault on the Mirage 2000 programme)
A follow on, updated IDF with some LO features, updated avionics, and upgraded engines in the 5400kg class, as was originally mooted for the IDF would be a most handy vehicle IMHO, and perfectly within the capablilities of AIDC.
Interesting viewpoint. Perhaps some element of that is the most realistic recapitalization scenario going forward. Time will tell – perhaps shortly – where the wind will blow.
Heck, maybe something along the economical lines of an stopgap M-346 license-production would be plausible? Not sure if something like MICA and Mavs could be integrated to couple w/HMD and IRST pod. Anyway… they’ll (ROCgovt) will be deciding whatever it is (or isn’t). Regards-
geogenDon’t be fooled into thinking that today’s economic problems… will last forever.
This is a popular myth with regards to assumed, sustained positive growth Defense spending, granted. Unfortunately though, while the economic situation will hopefully stabilize and limp along, perhaps via ‘2-step forward, 1 3/4-step backward’ type positive growth over the mid-term and beyond, the actual ‘Financial’ realities of tomorrow will have a separate impact of their own.
By FY16 at the latest (conceivably starting as soon as FY12), it is most likely that substantial Federal Budget cut-backs – across Mandatory and Discretionary spending – will be necessary to counter the NatDbt ratio. Defense spending will by default be affected as part of a national strategy to counter the Debt and regardless of which party/apparatus is in power. (note: this will be relative, dependent on degree of mild or severe Financial contingencies)
There will unfortunately not be anywhere close to the current total estimated USAF F-35 procurements therefore, nor will estimated annual buys in FY15, FY17, FY20, etc, be the case. While F-35 Program from inception was not designed to be ‘affordable’ under highly reduced FRP rates… it will by default, learn to be sustainable via a much more expensive than planned, limited procurement air vehicle (if it wants to survive). Moreover, DoD will by default need to reduce it’s National Strategy requirements accordingly, with the overall deterrence posture/balance of power being reflected likewise.
This is what critics have been realizing and assessing all along, nothing more. I.E., doing the calculations and concluding the inherent flaws which unfortunately the DoD and Congress may come to comprehend only too late.
Sign In
