FBWMitchell Institutes recommendations to the new GOTUS. There are some talks of Mike Wynne getting the number 2 post at the Pentagon, if so the F-22B chances, though slim, may look better than they did a few weeks ago 🙂
100 F-35A per year+ X F-22B per year+ 18ish B-21 per year….. The USAF combat aircraft procurement budget was 5.7 billion in FY 2016. Unless they have a plan to roughly triple it by the early 2020’s (in 2016 dollars), that is a list of completely unrealistic recommendations.
By 2020, even the current plans to ramp up the F-35 to 60 per year, and inital B-21 production would require a substatial budget increase.
FBWBtw, accidently learned that some “stealth” US aircraft was shot down during exercises by friendly fires due to the lack of interoperability (L16?). Any idea of the advancement of the future datalink that was to be studied by DARPA in 2012?
?That sounds suspicious. Fratricide in these exercises isn’t so rare that examples would be noted. The F-22 can recieve Link 16 so should have been aware of friendlies. Did source specify who the friendlies were? Sounds like an IFF, target recognition failure on the part of the shooter.
Talon Hate is being fielded as we speak to solve the IFDL/ MIDS/Link-16 compatability. Are you refering to DARPA’s DyNAMO?
FBWif you drop F-35 once you sold them to foreigners there will be money for a new PCA fighter
Not practical, nor preferable. The USAF needs new aircraft now, not 15 years from now. Not to mention, neither a restarted F-22, nor the PCA (based on requirements) would allow for the recapitalization of the 1,000+ aircraft due to leave the service circa 2030. The F-35 is priority one for the next decade plus.
FBWChances are PCA or whatever they are calling the program now won’t be entering service anytime soon. Even accounting for the time spent upgrading the aircraft and reestablishing the production line new F-22s could be in service long before the first PCA prototypes which I’d be surprised to see before 2030 at this rate. I’d imagine that all of the work done for the F-35 could prove useful when designing such an upgraded F-22. Surely they don’t have to start from scratch this time with the software.
Never said entering service, I said the PCA would be firming up, small correction. For all intents and purposes, we are looking at 2017 before any recommendations/reports will come in. If we look at the two possible avenues for an F-22 restart:
1. They unpack the tooling and plan to build block 35 F-22’s right where they left off in 2011-12. The problem is that increment 3.2B will not be ready until 2018, I doubt they would build new F-22’s until 3.2B hardware/software upgrade is available (considering the expense of upgrading the Raptor). It would likely take 2+ years to set up a production line, replace components from subcontractors no longer in business, or capable of making said components, receive long lead items. Not to mention P&W supplying F119 engines (last one was completed in Jan 2013). All told, first F-22 would probably roll off assembly line in 2020.
2. The USAF implemented a modernized F-22B (or C whatever they would call it). The F-22 and -35 software are in different languages, likely they would use the empty avionics bays to “drop in” new CIPs. Adding cheek arrays and IRST, upgrading MLD to AN/AAQ-37 or an equivalent, would also require software/testing. Likely, producing an upgraded F-22B would push the first example to 2022 or later.
Looking at the timeline of the PCA, that would mean that new F-22 squadrons would start to be available and eating up budget just as the PCA project would be entering testing (assuming the 2028 IOC).
FBWI Right now you can buy an F-15, F-16, F-18, Rafale or Eurofighter, and store them straight away on most existing base infrastructure and hangars. with F-35, even the RAF and RAAF are being forced to level existing hangars and build from ground up massive new hangars, to meet “sensitive technology standards”. Plus the LO coatings needing constant fixing, ****** all warload with out externally stores…
This actually isn’t true. The “new hangars” myth is part of the Don Bacon garbage. All you need to do is look at the bases where the F-35 is/will be bedded down (or F-22 for that matter). The LO coatings do not need constant fixing either.
Addition/Edit- Most of the commentary on “New Hangars” are based on the assumption that the F-35 needs special infrastructure based on fragility of the system. Reality: they are building new maintenance hanger/AMU for support of the F-35 meant to streamline the process, consolidate equipment, provide the 400v power for new aircraft systems. The Hangar/AMU (some with Squadron ops) cost between 20-30 million. The global hawk hangar for Anderson AFB costs more.
The recent election result is going to bring significant changes to the USAF and US aircraft manufacturing. Already being costed is 48 more F/A-18E’s, 72 new F-15’s to replace the oldest airframes, 48 F-16’s, advancing KC-46A production by 2 years, a version of the P-8A modified to do the E-8 JSTARS mission, the possible replacement of the E-3 aircraft with new build E-7’s, accelerated C-130H replacement with C-130J’s… even evaluation of restarting F-22 production and offering it for export to a few select customer (Australia, Israel and Japan and South Korea spring to mind)…
S Hornet production is needed to fill the strike fighter shortage of the Navy. Problem is the Navy has quite a few unfunded needs (continuing 2 SSN per year production during the Ohio replacement SSBN production being paramount).
There really isn’t a need to buy 72 new F-15’s. The existing force can be modernized to fill the gap until PCA program. Flying F-15’s into the 2040’s is not a viable strategy, why spend 7+ billion on an interim solution. Ditto with any F-16 production.
The F-22 restart is somewhat of a wet dream. The production tooling was SUPPOSED to be preserved intact (reports suggest that mislabeling and missing tooling is a pervasive issue). You can’t just start building F-22’s without a hardware technology refresh, entirely new software (imagine adding new sensors and trying to update ADA software). By the time new F-22’s were rolling, the PCA program would have firmed up. But if it were viable to restart the F-22, it would be a welcome addition.
FBWDepends on how many foreign orders.
If France only gets 225 planes instead of 286, it’s still 309 planes built including foreign orders.
The deal with the Rafale program was that the industry would pay 25% of the development cost & recoup the investment with export sales.
Nic
And that would partially explain the cost differential when discerning the quoted senat flyaway price of 68 million (2011 Euro) with what customers are paying. Some of the dev costs must be baked into the these contracts. In the end, doesn’t really matter what Fr. flyaway price is for the Rafale, what export customers are paying is different.
FBWBut aren’t the first Block 40/50 F-16s approaching 8,000 hours, like the F-15Cs? Younger doesn’t mean less flight hours…
Apart from that, F-16 or F-35 can’t do everything the F-15 can do.
Exactly, and besides those considerations, the vipers have been flogged. They train for AtG missions as well, low level flying, carrying bombs, targeting pods. Airframe fatigue isn’t just flight hours, what those hours have entailed has to be considered.
FBWThis cost isn’t the fly away cost.
€142,3 Mln / plane is the total program cost, & €101 Mln is the total production cost including research & development. IE total cost per plane without operating for x number of years (contrary to 142,3 which is total cost of ownership).
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a14-110-8/a14-110-818.html#toc288
Nic
Program cost according to the senat was 43.6 billion euros (2011) based on the production of 286 Rafale (152 million euro per aircraft). Since France isn’t planning on a total force of 286, procurement costs will be lower but dev costs per airframe will be higher.
FBWI would have to get a look at the dates but I’m quite sure that when the practical possibilities of those system became evident, F-117 and B-2 were long time in service and F-22 on advanced stages of deployment.
.
Actually the USAF was studying the effect of VHF/UHF radar systems on stealth shaping and detection in the mid-to late 80’s. There are references to those internal studies and literally nothing released from findings or recommendations. Yet the ATF project was continued, JSF followed, and LRS-B in the near future.
A betting man would infer that those studies concluded that LO techniques were still viable then, and are still viable now.
FBWI picked up on that F-15MLU contract. When the first “golden Eagle” contract was handed out, it was only for a small figure, for some ANG units.
Source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-15s-looking-for-the-aesa-edge-04044/
Then it got increased in the last years. Now it contains all but 200 F-15C/D
This is part of the issue. You have to get the information correct, which you are not. The “Golden Eagle” upgrade was to be applied to 179 F-15C. The entire F-15E fleet was always going to be upgraded with the APG-82 and retained post-2030. The current plans for the F-15C fleet are 196 because 17 F-15C/D which were to be pulled from UK and replace ANG aircraft are being retained. So, two things changed since the early 2000’s: F-15C will operate at least another decade longer than planned and 17 that were to be retired are being kept.
Hardly a sesimic change. Again, the problem is that you had the incorrect information from the start.
I pointed out it has a direct link with how the F-35 program has evolved.
People didn’t like it; -how dare i come in here with such claims! -The F-35 program is doing just fine, in fact its doing better! Its at a all time best!
Well, because the truth is that since 2012, the F-35 is doing well.
Then i pointed out the A-10 also still are in service cause of the F-35 program hick-ups. But nah, lets blame the A-10 for stealing resources from the F-35 program.. it has nothing to do with F-35.
And people got furious calling it flame bait, Dragging F-35 into this.
That is flat out wrong. The A-10 is in service mostly due to two influential senators who have blocked any attempts to divest the A-10. The decision to keep the A-10 (forced on the USAF), has nothing to do with the F-35.
Funny.. why are US F-15 and A-10 used out from Turkey, and not F-35 then..?
I just called you on your BS.
I would take a wild guess that it would be due to the F-35A only declaring IOC a couple of months ago.
Called me on B.S.? Haavarla, you are delusional. Literally, everything you posted on this thread was B.S.; either in the form incorrect information, or unimformed and frankly wrongheaded opinion.
FBWAl-Nusra has been formed by Mohammad al-Julani in Syria in 2011 at the request of Bakr al-Baghdadi. Yes, the same al-Baghdadi who has become leader of Da’ish.
Effectively, semantics aside, Al-Nusra = Da’ish
First part true, second part not so much. Al-Nusra came out of AQI just like Da’ish. They were trained by and sheltered the Khorasan group who were straight up Al Qaeda terrorists tied to leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The ideological break between Al Qaeda and AQI led to Al-Nusra rejecting the control of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The two groups even fought each other in Syria. Al-Nusra is/was more of an offshoot of Al Qaeda in terms of beliefs, Daesh came out of AQI with it’s far more violent ideology and toward treatment of Shiite and those Sunni that do not support them. But terrorists they are whatever their current name.
FBWFunny I never posted there, but you did and got banned. Keep the whine to yourself, your P.O.V. is welcome, but just like everyone else if you are going to post off topic or flame expect to be called on it. Personally, I dont care if you were here the day this forum was created. Does not give you the right to be obnoxious, read the title of the thread…..
FBWDid F-35 reach 9G?
Are you refering to testing or operational squadrons? Block 3F (with full envelope) isn’t due in operational fleet until 2018.
@haavarla
Carefull.. bringing up F-35 in this thread might set off the conquistadors again
No offense, but your content and intent was the issue. This thread has been remarkably clear of flame wars, there are enough threads on this forum to engage in mudslinging.
FBWThe Rep have now the Majority in every house I think. Congress, Senate etc.
But what every US President find out very quickly.. Their freedom of manuveres are somewhat exaggerated 😉 It doesn’t matter much what he think of F-35 program, Trump has enemies in both Democrat and Republicans camp.
And thank goodness for that; just to think that I was shocked over Brexit. Looks like the American cousins one upped the Brits this year.
F-35B fire; https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/articles/marine-f-35-fire-flight was this posted in news thread yet?
FBWGuess I was right but the asshurtness part.
Are you finnished with you rant?
I posted an article about PCA in Usaf(not f-35) thread. And then you go highwire about That I should post in F-35 thread..
No I will not post in F-35, thread. Not even on your command.Oh and the F-15 upgrades was about its status and place in USAF, cut me some slack for bringing up F-22 and F-35 too. It was about the broader picture anyway.
And other brought it up as well.
Utter B.S., go look back a page and read off your posts. Here:
So this will most likely end up with F-35S capability being late in the game as the Anti-Air systems has been enhanced.
On a more seriously note, perhaps, this is a necessity that has emerged over the last eight years cause of the F-35 program, and there is simply no other choice.
Oh! And where are those foul comments on the A-10 delayed retirements.. they even blamed the A-10 extended deployment on F-35 program setbacks.Now its F-15C/D/E turn i guess.
Please, you’ve added nothing substantive to the discussion on the PCA, nor seem to get why the F-15C had it’s retirement date pushed out past 2030. None of it has anything to do with the F-35, and yes, your thinly veiled agenda is apparent here. Again, if you want to add anything to the discussion, it would help to know what the h*ll you are talking about. And I bring up the F-35 thread as a suitable place for your rants, not on the “not F-35 thread”. Apparently, you are the one so b*tthurt over your country choosing the aircraft that you can’t discuss USAF news without taking trollish digs.
P.S. everything in that article was covered in here had you read back in the thread.
Sign In
