F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Cheap or expensive is always relative.
The USAF has a force-structure goal of 1900 fighters in inventory, of which 1100 are primary-mission aircraft (that is, available to operational units). The divestment of the A-10 and other planned cuts would leave them 334 aircraft short, according to 2014 testimony.
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov...s_04-08-14.pdf
The question is whether and when the USAF will be able to buy back fighter squadrons that it cuts today.
Those cuts are very closely linked to the growing fleet of non-combat-ready F-35s, which are drawing heavily on money and maintenance people. So the costs of the program are already drawing down the numbers in the force.
Also, both the F-16 and A-10 were, in their day, explicitly planned as lower-cost than, say, the F-111 and F-15; so while they were not in absolute terms cheap (like a MiG-21) they were relatively so.
The Navy denominates its force structure in TacAir squadrons, with a goal of 40 squadrons to maintain 10 CV Wings with 44 strike fighters. (Growlers not included.) Without a Super H life extension the Navy needs to add >3 F-35 squadrons annually in the 2020s to hold at 40 squadrons, which is unaffordable at $150m APUC.
The result is that the math works like this: each year, the Navy needs to cut X number of F-35Cs from its nominal buy (20 aircraft) until it has enough money to SLEP enough F-18s fast enough to fill its squadrons. Fortunately the equation closes because you can SLEP several F-18s for the price of one F-35C.
The USAF has a force-structure goal of 1900 fighters in inventory, of which 1100 are primary-mission aircraft (that is, available to operational units). The divestment of the A-10 and other planned cuts would leave them 334 aircraft short, according to 2014 testimony.
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov...s_04-08-14.pdf
The question is whether and when the USAF will be able to buy back fighter squadrons that it cuts today.
Those cuts are very closely linked to the growing fleet of non-combat-ready F-35s, which are drawing heavily on money and maintenance people. So the costs of the program are already drawing down the numbers in the force.
Also, both the F-16 and A-10 were, in their day, explicitly planned as lower-cost than, say, the F-111 and F-15; so while they were not in absolute terms cheap (like a MiG-21) they were relatively so.
The Navy denominates its force structure in TacAir squadrons, with a goal of 40 squadrons to maintain 10 CV Wings with 44 strike fighters. (Growlers not included.) Without a Super H life extension the Navy needs to add >3 F-35 squadrons annually in the 2020s to hold at 40 squadrons, which is unaffordable at $150m APUC.
The result is that the math works like this: each year, the Navy needs to cut X number of F-35Cs from its nominal buy (20 aircraft) until it has enough money to SLEP enough F-18s fast enough to fill its squadrons. Fortunately the equation closes because you can SLEP several F-18s for the price of one F-35C.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Downsizer,
Sorry, my bad. Age creeping up on me. I meant the RN and their SE trade. I was one of the Air Engineering team at a Naval Air Station coping with the issues as we learnt more about NVGs, many of which had been introduced 'at the rush' for various ops. I know that the RAF and the Army had similar (but not the same) issues when NVGs arrived.
One thing we did learn was that while getting kit via Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) can be great in the short term (and I've done many tens of them) problems can arise if the kit isn't properly brought into service later on. NVGs were a good example of that. Nobody gets promoted sorting out the 'dull and dirty' stuff downstream.
Apologies once again
Best Regards as ever to those sorting out the stuff
Engines
Sorry, my bad. Age creeping up on me. I meant the RN and their SE trade. I was one of the Air Engineering team at a Naval Air Station coping with the issues as we learnt more about NVGs, many of which had been introduced 'at the rush' for various ops. I know that the RAF and the Army had similar (but not the same) issues when NVGs arrived.
One thing we did learn was that while getting kit via Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) can be great in the short term (and I've done many tens of them) problems can arise if the kit isn't properly brought into service later on. NVGs were a good example of that. Nobody gets promoted sorting out the 'dull and dirty' stuff downstream.
Apologies once again
Best Regards as ever to those sorting out the stuff
Engines
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, I think that I was trying to say that if it is taken as read that 5th generation planes are so much better than 4th or 4.5 generation aircraft, with an 8:1 kill ratio over non 5th generation, then you are as I read it suggesting that any country not training pilots for 5th generation is wasting time, as they will be pure cannon fodder, albeit expensive cannon fodder?
Last edited by KenV; 19th Aug 2015 at 13:16.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure what the hand wringing is about concerning the F-35 HMD. All the 4+ gen aircraft (basically any aircraft that has HOBS missiles) already have HMDs. The procedures and logistics are already in place to issue, fit, maintain, service, calibrate, etc etc such helmets. The F-35's HMD is just a further development of this already well established concept that enables the elimination of the HUD. Why is this so terrible? What am I missing?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
The idea of "cheap air fleets" seems to be a myth with zero examples to support it.
A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) | Info, Budget/Costs, Retirement, Specs
F-35 Lightning II JSF | Info, Variants, AN/APG-81, Costs/Budget, Specs
"coughs"
The idea of "cheap air fleets" seems to be a myth with zero examples to support it.
A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) | Info, Budget/Costs, Retirement, Specs
F-35 Lightning II JSF | Info, Variants, AN/APG-81, Costs/Budget, Specs
"coughs"
Downsizer,
Sorry, my bad. Age creeping up on me. I meant the RN and their SE trade. I was one of the Air Engineering team at a Naval Air Station coping with the issues as we learnt more about NVGs, many of which had been introduced 'at the rush' for various ops. I know that the RAF and the Army had similar (but not the same) issues when NVGs arrived.
One thing we did learn was that while getting kit via Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) can be great in the short term (and I've done many tens of them) problems can arise if the kit isn't properly brought into service later on. NVGs were a good example of that. Nobody gets promoted sorting out the 'dull and dirty' stuff downstream.
Apologies once again
Best Regards as ever to those sorting out the stuff
Engines
Sorry, my bad. Age creeping up on me. I meant the RN and their SE trade. I was one of the Air Engineering team at a Naval Air Station coping with the issues as we learnt more about NVGs, many of which had been introduced 'at the rush' for various ops. I know that the RAF and the Army had similar (but not the same) issues when NVGs arrived.
One thing we did learn was that while getting kit via Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) can be great in the short term (and I've done many tens of them) problems can arise if the kit isn't properly brought into service later on. NVGs were a good example of that. Nobody gets promoted sorting out the 'dull and dirty' stuff downstream.
Apologies once again
Best Regards as ever to those sorting out the stuff
Engines
You might not get a cheaper aircraft to substitute for all your F-35s, but you could certainly get a cheaper substitute for some of them. Depending on relative O&S costs, that might well outweigh the disadvantages of a less common fleet and less flexibility.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although it didn't work out that way. Australia wanted to get away from having two fast jet platforms, with the purchase of the original 100 to replace the f-111 and fa-18ab. It's more cost effective to have one platform. UK is headed in that thinking too isn't it?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USN has been necking down to as few jets as is reasonable. The Hornet (classic and Super) effectively replaced the F-4, A-7, A-6, KA-6, and F-14. And the Prowler has been replaced by the Hornet based Growler, and the Viking retired without a replacement. USN is buying F-35 so they have a "first day of the war" stealthy jet, but for the foreseeable future there will always be more Super Hornets than F-35s.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Although it didn't work out that way. Australia wanted to get away from having two fast jet platforms, with the purchase of the original 100 to replace the f-111 and fa-18ab. It's more cost effective to have one platform. UK is headed in that thinking too isn't it?
That would allow a cut in the F35 procurement to equip a single F-35B OCU/wing for maritime ops.
It's not cost-effective if you standardize on something ridiculously expensive, so that you end up doing counter-insurgency CAS or homeland air defense with something that's designed to go up against S-400s.
Look at it this way: Suppose you need a family wagon and something to haul the boat, but you want something that's fun to drive. You can buy a Porsche Cayenne GTS but for the same money you can buy a Ford Explorer and an MX-5. What's cost-effective?
Aircraft support & logistics, too, have become much more efficient with computer networks, supply-chain-management tools and worldwide delivery. Result: savings from commonality may not be as important as they used to be.
Look at it this way: Suppose you need a family wagon and something to haul the boat, but you want something that's fun to drive. You can buy a Porsche Cayenne GTS but for the same money you can buy a Ford Explorer and an MX-5. What's cost-effective?
Aircraft support & logistics, too, have become much more efficient with computer networks, supply-chain-management tools and worldwide delivery. Result: savings from commonality may not be as important as they used to be.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They say they need x numbers of "ridiculously expensive" platforms anyway. Coming second in an air campaign costs about the same and isn't much fun.
They can park those "ridiculously expensive" and buy another fleet of something else and all the expenses that go with that. If they can afford it.
Among the platforms doing CAS, The USA are doing CAS with F-16, F-15, FA-18, B-1, B-52.
I would speculate that the logistics is why Australia wanted to go with one platform and why they initially wanted to retire the FA-18e after 15 years in 2025, to be replaced with F-35. It may be why with the addition of the extra 12 growlers to 36. It has become cost effective to keep them.
They can park those "ridiculously expensive" and buy another fleet of something else and all the expenses that go with that. If they can afford it.
Among the platforms doing CAS, The USA are doing CAS with F-16, F-15, FA-18, B-1, B-52.
I would speculate that the logistics is why Australia wanted to go with one platform and why they initially wanted to retire the FA-18e after 15 years in 2025, to be replaced with F-35. It may be why with the addition of the extra 12 growlers to 36. It has become cost effective to keep them.
Last edited by a1bill; 20th Aug 2015 at 00:27.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USA are doing CAS with F-16, F-15, FA-18, B-1, B-52.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft support & logistics, too, have become much more efficient with computer networks, supply-chain-management tools and worldwide delivery. Result: savings from commonality may not be as important as they used to be.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "fitted helmet" issue is being slightly over-stated here. It's only the liner that is moulded, it can be removed and replaced. This can be done at unit level (and, hopefully, on board ship). In fact it will need to be because the liners do deform over time. It's not that big a deal.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It's not that big a deal.
My mind drifts back to $74,165 aluminum ladders and $284 door rings....
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this helmet a one size fits all outer, so that all the attachments are interchangeable with size defined by the liner?
This would suggest that there may be a maximum and minimum head size for an F35 pilot.
This would suggest that there may be a maximum and minimum head size for an F35 pilot.
