geogenHey, thanks to mods btw for allowing this respectful style of debate persist on an interesting Topic-related subject even if not exactly on-topic.
Spuds – I was just reading over your particular conjecturing and came across one claim that ALQ-99 cannot jam comms. Well, perhaps some form of comms, such as, data-links in various stages of function could be an example? Just a guess, but perhaps with a double digit+ degree jam cone it could be plausible under certain circumstances.
To Maus92 – regarding current day AESA based jamming, here’s a link to Thales Airborne AESA based EA jamming system http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/238/588341f9-b1a0-4439-9f4d-65df96f34b8d.pdf?LangType=2057 (internal or pod), which would appear to be an effective sys and is at least advertised as adapted for Gripen, EF Typhoon and Rafael. I’ve conjectured here and there on possibility of integrating it as an interim pod for F-15 jamming role? (Maybe possible, and cheaper in short term than developing special NGJ-lite pod).
There could be others (not sure if Rafael Sky Guard has AESA or the Elisra alq-902 (w/360 elec steered phased array coverage claim). Of course, Rafael/Elta are reportedly developing a new SoJ pod which could be integrated into F-35 as well as other airframe potential. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was AESA based as Elta has that radar experience.
And Spud – in closing, let’s remember when discussing NJG that the actual design and capacity is not even finalized yet and still undergoing design evaluation? There are apparently a few different proposed design concepts, at least as of recent, one of which is merely an upgraded ALQ-99 with steering, and other improvements. (possibly aesa). And again, nothing certain yet on how exactly and when/if it would be integrated on F-35.
geogenThe F-16 can hit… but its sensors won’t match up to the F-35’s…
Perhaps the level of Sensor ability and level of fusion on a tactical platform are relative, not an absolute?
A properly equipped, modern F-16 model, in this comparison to the F-35, would arguably have adequate sensors. In some aspect, it would even have ‘superior’ sensors. Take for example: a future F-16 package operating w/ Litening ATP-SE, LW Shadow IRST, HTS and SABR radar (your F-16’ized APG-81). That package of sensors could very easily be argued as an even superior sensing capability than EOTS + APG-81. Add this new Terma pylon kit with multi-spectral, spherical, day/night aperture coverage as a bonus to your adequate SA, too. The savings?? Perhaps apply them to the next-gen top of the line stand-off tools and EW/EA equip.
Furthermore, being in a new era as mentioned, perhaps conceive of UAV employing specialized ground radar as part of the NCW chain… now your package has been force-multiplied with ground/shelter-penetrating SAR vision – some serious tacair situational awareness.
geogenPerhaps the more pertinent question of the incoming Congress, would be if they’d support a 4.5 gen alternative (stopgap) policy for FY12?
As it stands, it appears that Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CAL) is a big ‘stay the course’ F-35 guy. Any potential ‘change’ in Govt thinking on this matter would therefore next stir up probably around summer, ’11.
geogenWill the USAF have a specific electronic attack version of the F-35?
Apparently and this is somewhat murky, but the USAF is not necessarily interested in NGJ per se and there are obviously many years before those decisions need to be finalized. From looking at the future F-15 support jamming mission outline, USAF might be more interested in their own specially optimized pod requirement based on capabilities derived from the NGJ. So would this be an NGJ-lite so to speak, or an equivalent NGJ capability, will have to be seen.
And assuming the NGJ pod (or internal payload configuration) will eventually become integrated on, say the F-35C platform, there might actually be some fancy nickname or other special notation attached to this frame.
For instance, you indeed might theoretically get some distinguishing ‘F-35CE’ or something along the line..
The pre-wiring can be standard to accept NGJ, but there would apparently still be the special mounts, software update, clearance and maybe even special cockpit display modifications to take full advantage of this system?
geogenJess,
The number ‘cutting’ has been inevitable to anyone reading the writing on the walls and making accurate assessments. It’s not a ‘choice’ cut. Simply put, the original buy requirements are substantially unrealistic and unsustainable given the decreasing AF procurement buying power to come. Anyone in power still holding to that game plan should be investigated, imho. (and I’m not the first to be proposing that).
The security and deterrence value projected by USAF’s TacAir capability will already plummet over the next 10 yrs by staying the course with the F-35A. You don’t need GAO to tell you that, as it should be evident to any honest, informed and keen examination.
Only making a drastic stop of F-35A’s course now, and decisive changes to the recapitalization strategy today, will USAF be able to project more capability and sustain more deterrence value by 2020 and beyond. I’m sorry, (and note this has nothing to do with the potential technological capability of an eventual block V F-35A which would indeed be cool if affordable and available near-term).
geogenGeogen – do you think that F-22 (V)35 will be cheaper and more sustainable than the F-35?
I too would be curious of a PUC comparison between, say, 15x F-22 block 35 bought in 2016 as part of the mix vs 15-20x ordered F-35A block V under a similar mix. We both might end up surprised how expensive the block IV and V F-35 would be, if bought under similarly small procurements as the F-22.
To suggest buying 70x F-22 per year would not be the proposal of course.
Forget that operational F-16XL II’s should be in production today recapitalizing the AF’s shortfall – at half the cost of an LRIP F-35A. Going forward, there will NOT be anywhere close to 70+ USAF F-35A produced annually on the back-end to make up the shortfalls by today’s delayed strategy! There is no magical economies of scale to make cheap F-35As or magical USAF procurement budgets to afford mass scale procurements!
Very unfortunately, it is a strategic matter for the USAF to decide how to recapitalize now with smaller and smaller buying power over the course of this decade.
The former dreamland F-35 formula is no longer discussable, I’m sorry. And finally; honest and realistic tacair-related discussions are seeming to be reviewed and reinterpreted in a politically acceptable envrionment today, where careers aren’t threatened by even joking about it.
geogenMadrat, a combined new build F-16, F-15 and even E,F,G 4.5 gen decision, vis-a-vis USAF, would be just as good to the economy and industry if not better, than would a stay the course F-35A policy. I’d be suspicious of such a pro-Mil Industrial complex argument as the main thrust to an issue however.
geogenGeogen do you really think that a development of a new F-22 version (which will take a lot of money and time) is what USAF needs? Do you really think that USAF can afford another F-22 (which will be even more expensive)? Don’t you think that they need cheap(to buy and to operate) replacement of the F-16 now, not another high-tech, twin engine, high-altitude supercruising, with EFMB capability (Extremely Fast Money Burning). I don’t see a reason why the US should kill the JSF.
Exec,
JSF unfortunately is unsustainable given decreasing procurement buying power over the coming years. Possibly as few as 16 LRIP F-35A jets will be afforded under a base defense budget of $520 billion. How many will be afforded under $450 billion, along with increased inflation eating further into the equation? F-35 unfortunately is not sustainable as by design, requires high volume buys to remain ‘affordable’. Absolutely, if USAF is contemplating a new NG aircraft R&D program now for an insufficient F-22 number, then monies should be rather more realistically and strategically be deployed in a nominal mix of high-end F-22 supplemented by proven, affordable 4.5 gen and flexible mix of UAV/UCAV as proven reliable and required.
Unfortunately, the F-35A budget is where the cash is. Although, as you said it’s a matter of the AF needing jets NOW, not in 2017 (when first squadrons are hopefully in IOC and cost-effective condition). It’s been a flawed recapitalization strat for at least the 3-4 yrs, I’m sorry. The proof is in the exceedingly wide tac requirement shortfall, significantly more than expected, by 2020 and beyond. By default, the requirements are going to be reduced to match the capability the AF will have… but if AF will only be affording say 30-35 tac units yr, then imho better they be a flexible mix of strategic high-end and proven, reliable 4.5 gen upgrades. This NG TacAir however, unfortunately only distracts attention, reality and strategic thinking about today. (Hopefully that’s not an admission and the intent).
geogendo you really think that a development of a new F-22 version (which will take a lot of money and time) is what USAF needs? Do you really think that USAF can afford another F-22 (which will be even more expensive)?
Fair question, but can Congress afford the expected FRP F-35A buys per year (along with timely and necessary follow-on blocks?)
imho F-22b (e.g., an exportable, F-35’ized F-22) could possibly be jointly funded, a la a PAK FA business model, too. If not, then Congress can transfer the year over year, long-term (remaining SDD and follow-on block) USAF-portioned F-35 development budgets. The initial re-start wouldn’t necessarily have to a block 50+ whatever, type next-gen F-22 however, start incrementally and minimalist. I would propose a new-era negotiated deal with LM via ‘Fix price’, for a 5-6 yr MYB @ 15 units/yr. Go from there. To supplement that, a combined total of 20 proven and operational units comprising block 50/52++ F-16(w/CFT and AESA) and possibly either Growlers and/or new build F-15E+ to fill a 35 unit per yr stopgap requirement. A multi-year TacAir recapitalization Procurement Budget request should be pre negotiated with Congress now, for say… as a pure example, something like $5.5b. For F-35As next 4 yrs procurement, you’d be lucky to get 30 premature, LRIP block III/yr right off.. and then factor in a Congress thereafter capping procurement spending to 35-40 F-35A/yr? Yes, the plan B just seems less risky, flexible and more reliable.
Don’t you think that they need cheap(to buy and to operate) replacement of the F-16 now, not another high-tech, twin engine, high-altitude supercruising, with EFMB capability (Extremely Fast Money Burning). I don’t see a reason why the US should kill the JSF.
Um yes sir, that’s the whole point made by most of the critics right off the bat. We’re over the whole USAF should have 600 supercruising F-22s argument. A proportionate strategic, high-end mix however, (there’s obviously not enough if we need another NG Tac replacement R&D program ASAP) supplementing ‘Cheap’ and proven F-16++ is the less risky and more expedient policy choice. For the past 3 yrs, well-intentioned F-35 fans have consistently said in defense of F-35A, ‘we need F-16 replacements now!’ Well, no, you’re NOT likely going to get F-16 replacements in squadron level IOC numbers until 2017, staying the course! See? The whole perception, very unfortunately, is a huge disconnect from reality and what is and what is not a prudent and balanced recapitalization plan. If USAF ‘needed’ jets 3 yrs ago, 2 yrs ago, today, next year, etc… then USAF/Congress should have bought and should be buying ASAP a mix of proven and affordable jets to supplement high-end F-22 procurements.
Yet, possibly as few as 16 F-35A procured now, for FY11, under a base defense budget of $520 billion is NOT a strategy! I’m sorry. Flat out, how many units will USAF/Congress be able to afford when the base budget is $450b and increased inflation eats more and more, probably by FY13 at the latest? Time for decision makers to step up, be honest vis-a-vis the program reality going forward and accept a necessary strategic paradigm shift. imho.
geogenGood points as always, D-man, but to follow up on some core positions put forth…
True, ideologically, it has long been not only incumbent, but necessarily required by PRC top mil brass to be brazen in tone outward, or at least capable of it. That too needs to be corrected today on par (toned down, jet’s cooled), no doubt, and on a mutual scale sure, not unilateral per se by this side or that.
The media can be a good starting point however (I guess on all sides, fair enough), prompted by the leaderships imho. 🙂
Regarding a specific 2020 count down strategy (vs inter-galactic intruders for all I care), this is something I challenge. Why not 2015 or 2016 instead? No, a general military deterrence and superior capability (big stick) requiring regular equipment updates and full recapitalizations is a normal and responsible business unfortunately still in this world today. However, someone at the top has goofed on a massive and dangerous scale, if all of a sudden we’re in scramble mode (for any reason) to make up for massive shortfalls caused by yes, the JSF strat.
That is not a responsible, competent or strategically-formed plan and an acquisition process which should never be encouraged again (nor necessarily continued if still not making accurately assessed headway). Quite arguably, it (the going JSF programme) should be cut off at the head the sooner the better, if such uncertainties (and significant gambles) remain. Otherwise, either this model for a definitive 2020 set readiness, or mine for a continuous readiness, go out the window via even more disadvantaged consequences — pushed by the very uncertain JSF.
But I would concur with your near-term, evolved naval-capable F-22B concept as more prudent and in-line with such a planned progression and credible capability. Unfortunately, I just see no way at all to develop/procure that, plus the F-35C, let alone any mid-term F/A-XX/NGAD. Thus, given the reality of the expanding Carrier deck shortfalls which you project, staying the course will only increase that by let’s say, 2020 (a random number). The solution? Max out next block Super Hornet production (w/CFT, incremental system/component upgrades and NG ‘standoffs’ being the advance) starting FY12 and continue this maximal budget-provided acquisition of an affordable, spiral-upgraded aircraft until a supplemented by evolved next gen platforms – e.g., UCAV (would come more at a cost to F-35C, than SH), joint-naval F-22B/and or FB-22. imho.
What is utterly contradictory however (not of you), with regards to this NG-Tac 2030 though, something on which I think many would agree, is that F-22 line was killed just as it was becoming mature and the blocks produced being the uniform, upgradeable and more growth-oriented. Why? Because it was too exquisite to engage in the COIN conflicts of the day, or to counter any current day tactical aircraft threat? Oh, and now 5-9 yrs later, btw, there will be ‘other’ tactical capabilities in the field which will then justify a new $gazillion 6th gen development to push forward and replace the out numbered and out-gunned F-22 and F-35, ASAP? Sorry, bad strat, imho, I’m sorry. Not sustainable. :confused:
geogenC’mon gents, I think it’s time for the F-35 boys and Udaloys to get along.
Keep the sportsmanship, gloves on.
That being said, it will be very interesting to see what any revised FY11 buy will do to the F-35C’s PUC price and could raise questions (hints) about underestimated future price revisions, contingencies, realities, plan Bs?
geogenUS prods industry for F-22 fighter successor ideas
Air Force wants new manned fighter ready in about 2030
* Eyes power to counter missiles, directed energy weapons
Personally, I wish the US Media would be more strongly coached by US Admin and Congress to go slow and chill out on the hyping up specific ‘US vs China’ conflict, as a means to sell their advertising space.
This story by J Wolf is just one example — ‘hinting at China’ stuff, media needs to go slow on this under-estimated, named ‘us vs them’, counter-productive sensationalist rhetoric. imho.
Defense modernization, incl necessary airframe recapitalization can go ahead normally as a function of natural defense planning and responsibilities of basic deterrence/force structure, e.g. in keeping with balance of power, etc, just as diplomats do their respective work to best stabilize things. It doesn’t need unnecessary medling by the media to pump it.
That aside, What the presolicitation DOES hint at, under close inspection, is actually more of an unrealistic, do-it-all, F-22 and F-35 replacement – requiring capabilities down to CAS and BAI.
Given that requirement, with a suggested IOC target of 2030, it’s better to kill F-35 now, redirect that procurement into stopgap 4.5, UAV and potentially re-start an F-35’ized F-22a line and decide what best can be slotted from a mid-20s F-22 line transition into a spiral upgrade. A far more flexible, less risky and more fiscal-friendly approach. imho.
geogenA most interesting NG TACAIR (F/A-xx?) presolicitation for purpose of conducting market research for feasibility of a 2030 IOC target, has been posted by AF on Nov 3rd.
imho, US Congress needs to put a notice out to DoD/USAF that F-35A LRIP procurement will be suspended in FY12 (allowing development to continue) until DoD decides one way or another on feasibility of pressing ahead on a 2030 IOC NG TACAIR. Very simple and straight forward.
Yes, the information we’ve assessed leads us to believe that NG TACAIR with a target IOC of 2030 should proceed = cease USAF F-35A procurement but continue F-35A development with existing jets, store tooling, commence FY12 long-lead procurement of combined F-22 (restart line with perhaps 15/yr target), F-16 block 50/52++ AESA/CFT, if not F-22 restart then new-build F-15E+ (even if Boeing can squeeze in 5/yr) and imho, EF-18G. Total combined buy @ 35-45/yr, indefinitely, until mature decision on NG TACAIR development (or alternative/block V F-35 restart, etc) can be made.
No, the information we’ve assessed leads us to believe that the 2030 NG TACAIR as it is currently envisioned is not a feasible program at this point and will be re-examined at a later time = play it one year at a time with F-35A and ramp up F-15C/E and now F-16 b40/50 upgrade and life extension funding in the meanwhile. Develop a stopgap new-build plan B contingency if F-35 becomes unsustainable and unaffordable in near-term in fulfilling minimal recapitalization requirements.
Any thoughts? I’m just totally against staying the course with our F-35A, continuing to buy massively expensive LRIP units in smaller and smaller batches and sinking unknown spiral block development funds indefinitely, all to be replaced by a new 5.5 gen buy, starting around 2026.
Some Congressional/DoD/USAF fix on tac strategy and a plan would be good about now, imho.
geogenEuroFighter tranche 3B. :confused:
F414 EDE installed in the EF?
geogenAD, thanks for that perspective.
imho, the Israeli sale issue is not an accurate portrayal of a market based PUC cost as it is a special case, preliminary foreign sale.
A far as the cost discussion goes however, I usually tend to focus on DoD procurement costs. And in the case of LRIP IV, are you privvy to those figures? Most of us are awaiting the figures.
But I’ll disagree with you in that FY11 PUC costs (FY12 too) will likely come in far more than JPO estimated back in Feb08 and yes, likely even higher than JET originally estimated for said lot’s final costs.
It’s more about JET underestimating (miscalculating) the looming financial and budgetary impacts on future defense/procurement budgets, which unfortunately will in part, force far fewer than previously/currently expected annual buy orders by default. 🙁
Sign In
