F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speeches Last Week By the Military-Industrial Complex Participants
TD
Defense Contractors Cite “Benefits” of Escalating Conflicts in the Middle East
Major defense contractors Raytheon, Oshkosh, and Lockheed Martin assured investors at a Credit Suisse conference in West Palm Beach this week that they stand to gain from the escalating conflicts in the Middle East.
Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President Bruce Tanner told the conference his company will see “indirect benefits” from the war in Syria, citing the Turkish military’s recent decision to shoot down a Russian warplane.
The incident, Tanner said, heightens the risk for U.S. military operations in the region, providing “an intangible lift because of the dynamics of that environment and our products in theater.” He also stressed that the Russian intervention would highlight the need for Lockheed Martin-made F-22s and the new F-35 jets.
And for “expendable” products, such as a rockets, Tanner added that there is increased demand, including from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia because of the war in Yemen.
Wilson Jones, the president of the defense manufacturer Oshkosh, told the conference that “with the ISIS threat growing,” there are more countries interested in buying Oshkosh-made M-ATV armored vehicles. Speaking about a recent business trip to the Middle East, Jones said countries there “want to mechanize their infantry corps.”
Raytheon Chief Executive Tom Kennedy made similar remarks, telling the conference that he is seeing “a significant uptick” for “defense solutions across the board in multiple countries in the Middle East.” Noting that he had met with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Kennedy said, “It’s all the turmoil they have going on, whether the turmoil’s occurring in Yemen, whether it’s with the Houthis, whether it’s occurring in Syria or Iraq, with ISIS.”
The last bit of good news for the contractors is the latest budget deal in Congress. After years of cuts following the budget sequester, the deal authorizes $607 billion in defense spending, just $5 billion down from the Pentagon’s request, which DefenseNews called a “treat” for the industry.
“Our programs are well supported [in the budget],” said Lockheed’s Tanner at the conference. “We think we did fare very well.”
Major defense contractors Raytheon, Oshkosh, and Lockheed Martin assured investors at a Credit Suisse conference in West Palm Beach this week that they stand to gain from the escalating conflicts in the Middle East.
Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President Bruce Tanner told the conference his company will see “indirect benefits” from the war in Syria, citing the Turkish military’s recent decision to shoot down a Russian warplane.
The incident, Tanner said, heightens the risk for U.S. military operations in the region, providing “an intangible lift because of the dynamics of that environment and our products in theater.” He also stressed that the Russian intervention would highlight the need for Lockheed Martin-made F-22s and the new F-35 jets.
And for “expendable” products, such as a rockets, Tanner added that there is increased demand, including from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia because of the war in Yemen.
Wilson Jones, the president of the defense manufacturer Oshkosh, told the conference that “with the ISIS threat growing,” there are more countries interested in buying Oshkosh-made M-ATV armored vehicles. Speaking about a recent business trip to the Middle East, Jones said countries there “want to mechanize their infantry corps.”
Raytheon Chief Executive Tom Kennedy made similar remarks, telling the conference that he is seeing “a significant uptick” for “defense solutions across the board in multiple countries in the Middle East.” Noting that he had met with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Kennedy said, “It’s all the turmoil they have going on, whether the turmoil’s occurring in Yemen, whether it’s with the Houthis, whether it’s occurring in Syria or Iraq, with ISIS.”
The last bit of good news for the contractors is the latest budget deal in Congress. After years of cuts following the budget sequester, the deal authorizes $607 billion in defense spending, just $5 billion down from the Pentagon’s request, which DefenseNews called a “treat” for the industry.
“Our programs are well supported [in the budget],” said Lockheed’s Tanner at the conference. “We think we did fare very well.”
Mon cher Touriste, old bean...
You really can't go on about the so-called naysayers (that always sounds like a horse to me) "dishing out abuse" and then talk about internet kiddies posting from their bedrooms.
When I was a kid, we most certainly didn't have an Internet. We had to make do with the adventures of Ms Fiona Richmond in the pages of Men Onl[That's quite enough of that. - Ed.].
I have talked to those who conceived, argued for and designed the JSF. I talk to people who love it. I talk to people who know what they are talking about and who think it's a strategic mis-step.
On balance, I believe that the F-35A can be a competent stealthy light bomber in the face of today's fielded and deployed (see: Syria) air defense threat. It will be in more trouble as multi-band fused radars come on line, and some way will have to be found to deal with these. The F-35B has troublingly short legs and the F-35C is slow, and both are very expensive.
I think those who praise the F-35's fused avionics and sensors are sincere, but most of those are USAF or Marine guys coming off 1980s-technology aircraft. Some are from Typhoons, and the Typhoon hasn't got its fusion together yet.
Nothing I've seen convinces me that the F-35 will do well in A2A except by staying out of the threat's way. By the way, the senior ACC guy at the Fighter Conference, the one who talked about a new F-15/16 buy, said flat-out that it can't stay with an F-16 in BFM...
You really can't go on about the so-called naysayers (that always sounds like a horse to me) "dishing out abuse" and then talk about internet kiddies posting from their bedrooms.
When I was a kid, we most certainly didn't have an Internet. We had to make do with the adventures of Ms Fiona Richmond in the pages of Men Onl[That's quite enough of that. - Ed.].
I have talked to those who conceived, argued for and designed the JSF. I talk to people who love it. I talk to people who know what they are talking about and who think it's a strategic mis-step.
On balance, I believe that the F-35A can be a competent stealthy light bomber in the face of today's fielded and deployed (see: Syria) air defense threat. It will be in more trouble as multi-band fused radars come on line, and some way will have to be found to deal with these. The F-35B has troublingly short legs and the F-35C is slow, and both are very expensive.
I think those who praise the F-35's fused avionics and sensors are sincere, but most of those are USAF or Marine guys coming off 1980s-technology aircraft. Some are from Typhoons, and the Typhoon hasn't got its fusion together yet.
Nothing I've seen convinces me that the F-35 will do well in A2A except by staying out of the threat's way. By the way, the senior ACC guy at the Fighter Conference, the one who talked about a new F-15/16 buy, said flat-out that it can't stay with an F-16 in BFM...
Mon cher Touriste, old bean...
You really can't go on about the so-called naysayers (that always sounds like a horse to me) "dishing out abuse" and then talk about internet kiddies posting from their bedrooms.
When I was a kid, we most certainly didn't have an Internet. We had to make do with the adventures of Ms Fiona Richmond in the pages of Men Onl[That's quite enough of that. - Ed.].
I have talked to those who conceived, argued for and designed the JSF. I talk to people who love it. I talk to people who know what they are talking about and who think it's a strategic mis-step.
You really can't go on about the so-called naysayers (that always sounds like a horse to me) "dishing out abuse" and then talk about internet kiddies posting from their bedrooms.
When I was a kid, we most certainly didn't have an Internet. We had to make do with the adventures of Ms Fiona Richmond in the pages of Men Onl[That's quite enough of that. - Ed.].
I have talked to those who conceived, argued for and designed the JSF. I talk to people who love it. I talk to people who know what they are talking about and who think it's a strategic mis-step.
It will be a multi role fast jet.
I believe that bumping up Grosler numbers isn't a bad idea -- and I agree, the electronic threat only gets tougher with each passing year -- and the USAF may even get in on that, as they finally got with us in EA-6B when EF-111 was retired.
Meanwhile, back on the test range ... Senator McCains point on the projected buy and the buy rate is one worth taking some thought on. 'Twould take twenty years from now to get them all bought. (I suspect a few upgrades and AFC's in progress as the program matures ...)
What is the production line's "surge" capacity to up the annual production if the Pentagon want to increase numbers a few years from now? That may be a classified or FOUO number, but it points toward the "in for a pinch in for a pound" approach to this acquisition decision.
What is the production line's "surge" capacity to up the annual production if the Pentagon want to increase numbers a few years from now? That may be a classified or FOUO number, but it points toward the "in for a pinch in for a pound" approach to this acquisition decision.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burning The Candle From Both Ends At The Same Time
Take a look at this marketing material from L-M:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...-34324h001.pdf
Now, take a look at this:
Gen. Mark Welsh sounds alarm on undermanned Air Force
It seems to me, General Welsh is a day late and a pound short in sounding the alarm for the USAF manpower situation. Besides that, there is no real solution offered. It also seems to me that bringing on the F-35As in the quantities being promoted will only add to the manpower problem. Unquestionably, the F-35As are going to require more manpower to service and maintain than F-16C/Ds. Since we seem to be stuck in the Middle-East for the foreseeable future, why is there the need to rush to buy more and more F-35As at high procurement costs and then pay to fix all the deficient items that crop up as the testing programs drag on? Why isn't the USAF procuring new F-16s at reduced procurement, manpower requirements, operating and maintenance costs?
The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. The F-16 has now undergone 6 major block changes since its inception in the late 1970s, incorporating 4 generations of core avionics, 5 engine versions divided between 2 basic models (P&W F100 and GE F110), 5 radar versions, 5 electronic warfare suites, and 2 generations of most other subsystems. Moore’s Law applies as well, albeit more slowly: the latest F-16’s core computer suite has over 2,000 times the memory, and over 260 times the throughput, of the original production F-16.
For the Syrian, Libyan, Iraq missions the only real thing missing between the F-35As and the F-16C/Ds or EFs is the F-16s don't have a stealth capability. We aren't fighting an enemy with an air force, why is stealth that important and is it worth the added costs? Maybe we do need the F-35A or a fast jet like it (an improved iteration) in the future to maintain the future technological advantage, but I think at the moment we have enough demos to play around with.
Also, it is curious the manpower comparison years chosen by General Welsh. Does anyone remember the year of Desert Storm? It was 1990.
Some technical & cost comparison stuff F-35As to F-16C/Ds:
Lockheed-Martin Data October 2015
USAF F-35 Planned Quantities: 1763
LRIP Aircraft Costs (not including engine):
o 23 F-35As CTOL - $103 million/jet LRIP 6
o 24 F-35As CTOL - $98 million/jet LRIP 7
o 19 F-35As CTOL-$94.8 million/jet LRIP 8
Standard Internal Weapon Load
• 25 mm GAU-22/A cannon
• Two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles
• Two 2,000-pound GBU-31 JDAM guided bombs
USAF Data, Sept. 23, 2015
F-16C/D Total USAF Inventory: 1017
Unit Cost in 1998 (Fiscal ’98 constant dollars): $18.8 million ($27.4 million in 2015 dollars, 45.9% cumulative inflation) Add another ~$10 million to get E/Fs
Payload: two 2,000-pound bombs, two AIM-9, two AIM-120 and two 2400-pound external fuel tanks
Speed: 1,500 mph (Mach 2 at altitude)
Range: more than 2,002 miles ferry range (1,740 nautical miles)
TD
Take a look at this marketing material from L-M:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...-34324h001.pdf
Now, take a look at this:
Gen. Mark Welsh sounds alarm on undermanned Air Force
It seems to me, General Welsh is a day late and a pound short in sounding the alarm for the USAF manpower situation. Besides that, there is no real solution offered. It also seems to me that bringing on the F-35As in the quantities being promoted will only add to the manpower problem. Unquestionably, the F-35As are going to require more manpower to service and maintain than F-16C/Ds. Since we seem to be stuck in the Middle-East for the foreseeable future, why is there the need to rush to buy more and more F-35As at high procurement costs and then pay to fix all the deficient items that crop up as the testing programs drag on? Why isn't the USAF procuring new F-16s at reduced procurement, manpower requirements, operating and maintenance costs?
The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. The F-16 has now undergone 6 major block changes since its inception in the late 1970s, incorporating 4 generations of core avionics, 5 engine versions divided between 2 basic models (P&W F100 and GE F110), 5 radar versions, 5 electronic warfare suites, and 2 generations of most other subsystems. Moore’s Law applies as well, albeit more slowly: the latest F-16’s core computer suite has over 2,000 times the memory, and over 260 times the throughput, of the original production F-16.
For the Syrian, Libyan, Iraq missions the only real thing missing between the F-35As and the F-16C/Ds or EFs is the F-16s don't have a stealth capability. We aren't fighting an enemy with an air force, why is stealth that important and is it worth the added costs? Maybe we do need the F-35A or a fast jet like it (an improved iteration) in the future to maintain the future technological advantage, but I think at the moment we have enough demos to play around with.
Also, it is curious the manpower comparison years chosen by General Welsh. Does anyone remember the year of Desert Storm? It was 1990.
Some technical & cost comparison stuff F-35As to F-16C/Ds:
Lockheed-Martin Data October 2015
USAF F-35 Planned Quantities: 1763
LRIP Aircraft Costs (not including engine):
o 23 F-35As CTOL - $103 million/jet LRIP 6
o 24 F-35As CTOL - $98 million/jet LRIP 7
o 19 F-35As CTOL-$94.8 million/jet LRIP 8
Standard Internal Weapon Load
• 25 mm GAU-22/A cannon
• Two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles
• Two 2,000-pound GBU-31 JDAM guided bombs
USAF Data, Sept. 23, 2015
F-16C/D Total USAF Inventory: 1017
Unit Cost in 1998 (Fiscal ’98 constant dollars): $18.8 million ($27.4 million in 2015 dollars, 45.9% cumulative inflation) Add another ~$10 million to get E/Fs
Payload: two 2,000-pound bombs, two AIM-9, two AIM-120 and two 2400-pound external fuel tanks
Speed: 1,500 mph (Mach 2 at altitude)
Range: more than 2,002 miles ferry range (1,740 nautical miles)
TD
There is an element of "how do we get from here to there?" in the AF/Navy force planning dilemmas.
Even if the F-35 eventually lives up to its promises in terms of acquisition cost, availability and op cost/manpower demands, it is now so late, and the airplanes it was supposed to replace are so old, that you face the Valley of Death.
For example: every new F-35 that gets delivered takes the support manpower of >1 F-16 or A-10. But today it delivers no capability at all. Even at IOC, given the current availability levels, you need >1 F-35 to generate as many sorties as one F-16.
As Bogdan has noted, F-35s being delivered now need a lot of work to get to 3F. Those updates hog more maintenance time.
The F-35 acquisition overruns have already eaten the budget for F-16 upgrades. Without them, sometime in the mid-20s, the F-16s become useless for anything except a permissive environment - but the USAF can't afford to replace them all by then.
But as I add F-35 squadrons, I have to shut F-16/A-10 squadrons at a higher rate. And then where are my experienced people to man the next F-35 squadrons after 2025, when the new jets arrive?
The Navy has the same issue with the F/A-18C (remember, that's what the F-35C is supposed to replace, not the Super). It has to fill its bucket with Slep'd SHs. But to Slep jets I have to pull them out of the line for a year or more, exacerbating by shortfall.
Even if the F-35 eventually lives up to its promises in terms of acquisition cost, availability and op cost/manpower demands, it is now so late, and the airplanes it was supposed to replace are so old, that you face the Valley of Death.
For example: every new F-35 that gets delivered takes the support manpower of >1 F-16 or A-10. But today it delivers no capability at all. Even at IOC, given the current availability levels, you need >1 F-35 to generate as many sorties as one F-16.
As Bogdan has noted, F-35s being delivered now need a lot of work to get to 3F. Those updates hog more maintenance time.
The F-35 acquisition overruns have already eaten the budget for F-16 upgrades. Without them, sometime in the mid-20s, the F-16s become useless for anything except a permissive environment - but the USAF can't afford to replace them all by then.
But as I add F-35 squadrons, I have to shut F-16/A-10 squadrons at a higher rate. And then where are my experienced people to man the next F-35 squadrons after 2025, when the new jets arrive?
The Navy has the same issue with the F/A-18C (remember, that's what the F-35C is supposed to replace, not the Super). It has to fill its bucket with Slep'd SHs. But to Slep jets I have to pull them out of the line for a year or more, exacerbating by shortfall.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason I have taken on this role is because I think it matters.
The Military Forum is nowadays anything but.
There is barely a thread that has any relevance to current military events or matters, and even fewer actual serving members who post.
There are many reasons for this, some of them very good i.e. we have been in conflicts for 15 yrs and people correctly don't want to discuss anything that can help the enemy.
This thread however is sometimes everything that is good about Pprune. It contains posts from the knowledgeable articulately explaining points of interest (both positive and negative) about the F35 project.
I don't tend to post here, because I essentially know nothing first hand for myself about it apart from some general aviation knowledge and knowledge of carrier ops.
I do however read it because I have a not unreasonable wish to know what the future holds for aviation in the RN.
Posts from the naysayers without reasonable explanation are equally as annoying as the fanboy fantasies, but the simple "you are an idiot" posts are worse yet.
If somebody is telling lies/living in a dream world, then post articulately explaining where they have gone wrong with references.
If there are no references, then it is just your opinion and no more valid than the fanboys opinion.
If you think your opinion has validity based solely on your background, then justify that. Say who you are, or at least what you do.
If you are a journo, say who you are before defending yourself. To do otherwise is disingenuous.
This thread contains jewels of interesting info from some great posters who know what they are talking about. Either their posts establish their credibility from their well explained points or references (Engines etc) or their name carries the same weight (Farley etc)
For those of us who have no name, the post should contain more than just simple abuse.
I get banned reasonably regularly from a variety of threads. Usually I know and understand why. I do have a combative debating style.
It is odd on here however that people call for the banning of the people who get the abuse by the abusers.
That makes no sense.
Dare we move back to the F-35?
In the next few years we are adopting an aircraft that will form the backbone of western airpower. Even without the cost and fleet size debate the aircraft remains controversial as the core aircraft has a lower performance than any contemporary aircraft. It does not accelerate particularly well, shoots its missiles from a much shorter range, has relatively poor agility, bleeds energy rather quickly and (when utilising its USP) does not carry much.
The USP of stealth remains the prime selling feature (avionics and sensor fusion can be developed on any aircraft). Optimised (or limited by physics and size) to reduce its radar signature in a limited cluster of frequencies, only time will tell how long this will provide an advantage. Radars operating outside of the optimised band will already have the ability to track the aircraft, perhaps at a reduced range, leaving only the targeting puzzle to be solved by modified RF techniques, data links, EO and IR.
Everyone appears to accept that without effective low-observable characteristics the core aircraft would not be a particularly capable platform. So just how long do we have left on the low-observable clock and its relentless ticking?
In the next few years we are adopting an aircraft that will form the backbone of western airpower. Even without the cost and fleet size debate the aircraft remains controversial as the core aircraft has a lower performance than any contemporary aircraft. It does not accelerate particularly well, shoots its missiles from a much shorter range, has relatively poor agility, bleeds energy rather quickly and (when utilising its USP) does not carry much.
The USP of stealth remains the prime selling feature (avionics and sensor fusion can be developed on any aircraft). Optimised (or limited by physics and size) to reduce its radar signature in a limited cluster of frequencies, only time will tell how long this will provide an advantage. Radars operating outside of the optimised band will already have the ability to track the aircraft, perhaps at a reduced range, leaving only the targeting puzzle to be solved by modified RF techniques, data links, EO and IR.
Everyone appears to accept that without effective low-observable characteristics the core aircraft would not be a particularly capable platform. So just how long do we have left on the low-observable clock and its relentless ticking?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone appears to accept that without effective low-observable characteristics the core aircraft would not be a particularly capable platform.
And regarding the F-16 Block 60+/F-16V which is currently available to many Air Forces, many of those Air Forces are choosing the F-35 instead. I'm reasonably confident there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is not the oft repeated claim that LM lies thru its teeth and the various national procurement authorities are just too naive to see it.
It [F-35] does not accelerate particularly well, shoots its missiles from a much shorter range, has relatively poor agility, bleeds energy rather quickly and (when utilising its USP) does not carry much.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-RP
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV,
Hopefully, the reason you allude to is this: The original F-16E/Fs sold to UAE came about because it was a low cost alternative to the F-35A. But LM, under pressure with losing sales internationally for the F-35As, conveniently upped the price of the F-16E/Fs to near the goal for the F-35As.
So if GM decided to up the price of a Chevy close to that of a Cadillac, which would you buy if you had those two choices? It's as simple as that.
TD
And regarding the F-16 Block 60+/F-16V which is currently available to many Air Forces, many of those Air Forces are choosing the F-35 instead. I'm reasonably confident there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is not the oft repeated claim that LM lies thru its teeth and the various national procurement authorities are just too naive to see it.
So if GM decided to up the price of a Chevy close to that of a Cadillac, which would you buy if you had those two choices? It's as simple as that.
TD
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if GM decided to up the price of a Chevy close to that of a Cadillac, which would you buy if you had those two choices? It's as simple as that.
The idea of a new version of the F-16 “has come and gone over the past decade,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at the Teal Group in a telephone interview. “The F-35 is no one’s idea of a mass market fighter given its current price point. Even in the elite market of a maximum of a dozen countries, you’re seeing a lot of pushback against the F-35 because of price. The company [Lockheed Martin] is good at hedging its bets against F-35 and marketing major upgrades.” The F-16V will be attractive, Aboulafia said, because “it’s less than half the price” of a JSF.
Oh my.
I've read quite a few accounts about the F-35's wonder electronics providing an entirely new capability and synergistically providing increased capability/lethality to legacy platforms.
As have we all. It's called "marketing".
In other words, there appears to be more to a 5th gen aircraft structure than just stealth, with many sensors and systems apparently needing to be integrated into the airframe and not just scabbed on.
This is true to a point, but misleading. At a certain target level of RCS it is necessary to make all apertures conformal or semi-conformal and ensure that their "windows" or radomes are stealth-compliant. There is no other benefit from such things being "not just scabbed on" - it's expensive, heavy and makes it difficult to add or upgrade capabilities.
And regarding the F-16 Block 60+/F-16V which is currently available to many Air Forces, many of those Air Forces are choosing the F-35 instead. I'm reasonably confident there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is not the oft repeated claim that LM lies thru its teeth and the various national procurement authorities are just too naive to see it.
The reason (as stated on this thread a few times), in the case of the partner nations, is that they signed on (in 2001-02) for an airplane that was much cheaper to buy and to operate, several years earlier and 2700 pounds lighter, when there appeared to be no organized alternative at all, and that (except for Denmark) none has formally evaluated any alternatives since.
It can therefore be stated as fact that they don't know what the alternatives can do, in full detail, because no competitor will provide a classified-level brief if they have no chance of a sale.
However, there's also a well documented history of statements by LockMart, JSFPO bosses and paid consultants that can be kindly described as optimistic.
I've read quite a few accounts about the F-35's wonder electronics providing an entirely new capability and synergistically providing increased capability/lethality to legacy platforms.
As have we all. It's called "marketing".
In other words, there appears to be more to a 5th gen aircraft structure than just stealth, with many sensors and systems apparently needing to be integrated into the airframe and not just scabbed on.
This is true to a point, but misleading. At a certain target level of RCS it is necessary to make all apertures conformal or semi-conformal and ensure that their "windows" or radomes are stealth-compliant. There is no other benefit from such things being "not just scabbed on" - it's expensive, heavy and makes it difficult to add or upgrade capabilities.
And regarding the F-16 Block 60+/F-16V which is currently available to many Air Forces, many of those Air Forces are choosing the F-35 instead. I'm reasonably confident there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is not the oft repeated claim that LM lies thru its teeth and the various national procurement authorities are just too naive to see it.
The reason (as stated on this thread a few times), in the case of the partner nations, is that they signed on (in 2001-02) for an airplane that was much cheaper to buy and to operate, several years earlier and 2700 pounds lighter, when there appeared to be no organized alternative at all, and that (except for Denmark) none has formally evaluated any alternatives since.
It can therefore be stated as fact that they don't know what the alternatives can do, in full detail, because no competitor will provide a classified-level brief if they have no chance of a sale.
However, there's also a well documented history of statements by LockMart, JSFPO bosses and paid consultants that can be kindly described as optimistic.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine D
With the USAF struggling to get funds for the 300 odd f16 and f15 upgrades With the USAF going F35 IOC next year and a f-15 costing over $100m in 2006. With the sequester, I really can't see new orders for the USAF. best case is they get funding for their 300 upgrades
U.S. Air Force Faces Capability Decision On Urgent F-16 AESA Upgrade | Defense content from Aviation Week
"The Air Force planned an AESA-centered upgrade for 300 Block 40-52 F-16s under the Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite (Capes) program. But this, along with a service life extension to increase structural life to 10,000 hr. from 8,000 hr., was canceled under sequestration budget caps."
The USN is a different horse and are 2019 IOC. There is a political motive to keep the fa18 line open. It is more conceivable that the possibility exists for some more tails, as I said on the last page.
With the USAF struggling to get funds for the 300 odd f16 and f15 upgrades With the USAF going F35 IOC next year and a f-15 costing over $100m in 2006. With the sequester, I really can't see new orders for the USAF. best case is they get funding for their 300 upgrades
U.S. Air Force Faces Capability Decision On Urgent F-16 AESA Upgrade | Defense content from Aviation Week
"The Air Force planned an AESA-centered upgrade for 300 Block 40-52 F-16s under the Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite (Capes) program. But this, along with a service life extension to increase structural life to 10,000 hr. from 8,000 hr., was canceled under sequestration budget caps."
The USN is a different horse and are 2019 IOC. There is a political motive to keep the fa18 line open. It is more conceivable that the possibility exists for some more tails, as I said on the last page.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV
It would be interesting to see what the F-16v, 50% less price of the f-35 is based on. I wonder if they have given a flyaway price?
I googled that quote to see if there was more on the price, It would be suitable for the second tier air forces next couple of decades. The USA didn't sound too keen on it
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/s...ighter-market/
The air staff and the Air National Guard have consistently opposed acquisition of “new build” F-15 Eagles, F-16s or F/A-18E/Fs for U.S. forces, insisting that only the capabilities offered by the F-35 will work for the long-term future.
It would be interesting to see what the F-16v, 50% less price of the f-35 is based on. I wonder if they have given a flyaway price?
I googled that quote to see if there was more on the price, It would be suitable for the second tier air forces next couple of decades. The USA didn't sound too keen on it
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/s...ighter-market/
The air staff and the Air National Guard have consistently opposed acquisition of “new build” F-15 Eagles, F-16s or F/A-18E/Fs for U.S. forces, insisting that only the capabilities offered by the F-35 will work for the long-term future.
Last edited by a1bill; 8th Dec 2015 at 14:55.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exchanges with you are clearly pointless, so this will be my last reply in this exchange.
You completely ignored my very next sentence. "And many of those accounts are from USN, which is MUCH less committed to the F-35 than USAF." USN a shill for LM? Yah shur.
Your statement, even though you make it sound certain, is pure assumption/speculation on your part. Of course you have access to hard data no on else on this thread has. Yah shur.
Yet more assumptions, and in this case false ones. I was not referencing "partner nations" and I was not referencing 2001-02 decisions but 2014-15 decisions. And along those lines, we all know that Israel, Japan, and S. Korea all have long and storied histories of making scandalously naive fighter procurement decisions. Yah shur.
As have we all. It's called "marketing".
There is no other benefit from such things being "not just scabbed on"
The reason (as stated on this thread a few times), in the case of the partner nations, is that they signed on (in 2001-02) for an airplane that was much cheaper to buy and to operate....
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV. It would be interesting to see what the F-16v, 50% less price of the f-35 is based on. I wonder if they have given a flyaway price?
The air staff and the Air National Guard have consistently opposed acquisition of “new build” F-15 Eagles, F-16s or F/A-18E/Fs for U.S. forces, insisting that only the capabilities offered by the F-35 will work for the long-term future.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USN is a different horse and are 2019 IOC. There is a political motive to keep the fa18 line open. It is more conceivable that the possibility exists for some more tails, as I said on the last page.