The F-35 thread, Mk II
Salute!
BTW the USMC and UK Bees had a good time a year or two ago off our shores and then true interoperability demonstrated last fall:
https://theaviationist.com/2020/09/2...int-exercises/
My point about "combat effective" versus "cost effective" is more about training and tactical use than the $$ of a Maverick versus the $$ of the tank it kills. Ditto for an Aim-9 that kills a multimillion $$ plane.
Ask Mogs about the Lima in the Falklands if it was "combat effective"... Hardly anyone in USAF routinely fires the real things in training. Years ago when the Earth was still cooling and we had evaluation programs that used "old" missiles before their "best by" dates, heh heh, I actually got fire the Genie rocket twice when I was new elltee. But we cannot use up the real things during training, and only we only see how really good they are is in combat. So far, the Slammer and Lima have done better than anything we tried in 'nam or even what the Israeli's used in 1967 or 1973. The LGB's results are legendary, and the GPS bombs have been a very nice surprise. Nevertheless, we would dramatically raise many $$$ metrics if we routinely used them in training versus the captive carraige missiles and such.
Our "U.S." polytickians now in charge have eyes on other things than the F-35 to finance, and we still have many 4th gen platforms that have decades of supply line experience and so forth, until....... we are now at the point where many vendors that provided the original parts are out of business. How much will it cost to have many new "start up" companies? How many widgets do we have back in some warehouse? And the beat goes on.
Gums sends...
BTW the USMC and UK Bees had a good time a year or two ago off our shores and then true interoperability demonstrated last fall:
https://theaviationist.com/2020/09/2...int-exercises/
My point about "combat effective" versus "cost effective" is more about training and tactical use than the $$ of a Maverick versus the $$ of the tank it kills. Ditto for an Aim-9 that kills a multimillion $$ plane.
Ask Mogs about the Lima in the Falklands if it was "combat effective"... Hardly anyone in USAF routinely fires the real things in training. Years ago when the Earth was still cooling and we had evaluation programs that used "old" missiles before their "best by" dates, heh heh, I actually got fire the Genie rocket twice when I was new elltee. But we cannot use up the real things during training, and only we only see how really good they are is in combat. So far, the Slammer and Lima have done better than anything we tried in 'nam or even what the Israeli's used in 1967 or 1973. The LGB's results are legendary, and the GPS bombs have been a very nice surprise. Nevertheless, we would dramatically raise many $$$ metrics if we routinely used them in training versus the captive carraige missiles and such.
Our "U.S." polytickians now in charge have eyes on other things than the F-35 to finance, and we still have many 4th gen platforms that have decades of supply line experience and so forth, until....... we are now at the point where many vendors that provided the original parts are out of business. How much will it cost to have many new "start up" companies? How many widgets do we have back in some warehouse? And the beat goes on.
Gums sends...
Administrator
Unlikely, particularly in the case of the latter.
Further that point it appears to be a systemic problem in many capitals. Difficulty with actually learning lessons is not confined to Washington.
@gums: regarding your point on use of live ammunition. Daesh, in recent memory, has provided numerous opportunities for the final operational testing and evaluation of systems using live ammunition. Should someone from the F-35 program office write them a "Thank You" card?
Fortnight ago Wake Island Avengers return
A fortnight ago I was at RAF Lakenheath when the first five Wake Island Avengers came back to the UK. For some reason they did nit come back to Marham as last September so here are some of my photos.
Then come Sunday and Monday, they all left to go to the QE all bar one which went tech on the Monday so here are my photos.
Cheers
Then come Sunday and Monday, they all left to go to the QE all bar one which went tech on the Monday so here are my photos.
Cheers
Vermont ANG
The Virginia ANG F-35A arrived on the Tuesday here at Lakenheath two weeks ago between the first wave of Wake Island Avengers F-35B arriving on the Monday and the second wave arriving at the dark of night 9n t/e Wednesday,
AFAIK they are the only / Reserve Unit to fly the F-35A anyhow here are my photos apologies for the grainy as it was not exactly perfect conditions.
The other eight went to Spang.
cheers
AFAIK they are the only / Reserve Unit to fly the F-35A anyhow here are my photos apologies for the grainy as it was not exactly perfect conditions.
The other eight went to Spang.
cheers
466th FS Air Force Reserve - within 419th FW Air Force Reserve - at Hill AFB, Utah - also operates the F-35A.
https://www.airforcemag.com/hill-con...elephant-walk/
https://www.airforcemag.com/hill-con...elephant-walk/
Salute!
Yeah, the Rattlers down the flightline from the 388th Fighter Wing got their F-35's same time as the USAF wing folks. Was same way almost back in early 80's, but the active duty wing got theirs first. I volunteered and got to help the 466th Rattlers check out in the Viper 1983-1984. A good bunch, mostly from Thuds and a good group from the Sluf that I knew from Myrtle Beach in early 70's.
Gums recalls...
Yeah, the Rattlers down the flightline from the 388th Fighter Wing got their F-35's same time as the USAF wing folks. Was same way almost back in early 80's, but the active duty wing got theirs first. I volunteered and got to help the 466th Rattlers check out in the Viper 1983-1984. A good bunch, mostly from Thuds and a good group from the Sluf that I knew from Myrtle Beach in early 70's.
Gums recalls...
Hi gums, think you and I are really talking the same thing really re "cost" and "operational" effectiveness. My take is, if a weapon does not kill as required as demanded in the OR Spec, it ain't "cost-effective" no matter what! And, as you say, next gen technology (the Lima as quote for '82) moves things along. All agreed!
It's when you can achieve the same tactical result by different means for less money that "cost-effectiveness" comes into play and, tbh, that seems to be a biggy now. I think it's this which is causing a re-think on F35 costs. Perhaps a good example is WW 1 and the use of Mustard Gas against the use of Artillery bombardment. Same end result (soldiers removed from the fight) just achieved by different means and different costs of delivery...... I think the next 20 years will see a huge shift with Swarm technology, "Loyal Wingmen" etc, etc. Quite where it will lead to, well, if I knew that I'd not be here!! I'd be making £Squillions!
Still, returning to the near-future and overall UK F35 programme, the link here is the first fairly tangible evidence (that I've seen!) as to the desired way forward. Of course, just a small issue of getting such plans past HM Treasury - and no dates given. Let's hope the plans work out tho but nice to see some more concrete thoughts from "on high"! Anyway, just my view! Cheers, H 'n' H
It's when you can achieve the same tactical result by different means for less money that "cost-effectiveness" comes into play and, tbh, that seems to be a biggy now. I think it's this which is causing a re-think on F35 costs. Perhaps a good example is WW 1 and the use of Mustard Gas against the use of Artillery bombardment. Same end result (soldiers removed from the fight) just achieved by different means and different costs of delivery...... I think the next 20 years will see a huge shift with Swarm technology, "Loyal Wingmen" etc, etc. Quite where it will lead to, well, if I knew that I'd not be here!! I'd be making £Squillions!
Still, returning to the near-future and overall UK F35 programme, the link here is the first fairly tangible evidence (that I've seen!) as to the desired way forward. Of course, just a small issue of getting such plans past HM Treasury - and no dates given. Let's hope the plans work out tho but nice to see some more concrete thoughts from "on high"! Anyway, just my view! Cheers, H 'n' H
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-to-...-defense-plan/
USAF to Cut F-35 Buy in Future Years Defense Plan
The Air Force will propose about a 10 percent cut in its planned F-35 purchases in the upcoming future years defense plan, citing sustainment costs for the jet well above what was expectd, and because the service prefers to wait for the more advanced Block 4 model.
Budget talking points obtained by Air Force Magazine appear to show the USAF giving the F-35 program an ultimatum: Get costs under control over the next six to eight years or the overall buy will be sharply reduced……
The Air Force set an operating cost goal of $4.1 million per airplane per year—in fiscal 2012 dollars—early in the program, expecting the cost would be in line with that of the F-16. It has failed to hit those marks, however, and Air Force leaders have recently expressed hard skepticism that the goal can ever be achieved.
Air Combat Command boss Gen. Mark D. Kelly said in February he was not “brimming with confidence” about reaching F-35 support cost goals, and he reiterated that sentiment after a late March tour of F-35 sustainment facilities.
In fact, according to the USAF talking points, the service expects sustainment cost per tail per year to be $7.8 million in 2036 (again, in 2012 base year dollars).
“This is an unaffordable sustainability model, if the F-35 were to become the majority of [the Air Force’s] fighter fleet,” the document said. “The Air Force needs the F-35’s advanced capabilities, [but] in affordable capacity.”
The service expects to retain the F-16 into the 2030s and needs to backfill it with something to perform “missions short of high-end warfare,” the document said. If the F-35’s operating and support costs could be “brought significantly lower,” the USAF would prefer to buy it for this mission, reducing the number of logistics tails and expanding operational flexibility.
“Otherwise, the Air Force will have to look for an alternative platform,” according to the talking points. It added that this “decision point is at least six to eight years away.”
The service further noted that the Marine Corps and Navy—which have more complex versions of the F-35—set a cost per tail per year of $6.8 million and $7.5 million, respectively, “which are more realistic but likely still unachievable.”
The Air Force noted that the F-35’s procurement price has come down steadily over the last decade, now below $80 million a copy, but that sustainment “will be the overall cost driver.”……
USAF to Cut F-35 Buy in Future Years Defense Plan
The Air Force will propose about a 10 percent cut in its planned F-35 purchases in the upcoming future years defense plan, citing sustainment costs for the jet well above what was expectd, and because the service prefers to wait for the more advanced Block 4 model.
Budget talking points obtained by Air Force Magazine appear to show the USAF giving the F-35 program an ultimatum: Get costs under control over the next six to eight years or the overall buy will be sharply reduced……
The Air Force set an operating cost goal of $4.1 million per airplane per year—in fiscal 2012 dollars—early in the program, expecting the cost would be in line with that of the F-16. It has failed to hit those marks, however, and Air Force leaders have recently expressed hard skepticism that the goal can ever be achieved.
Air Combat Command boss Gen. Mark D. Kelly said in February he was not “brimming with confidence” about reaching F-35 support cost goals, and he reiterated that sentiment after a late March tour of F-35 sustainment facilities.
In fact, according to the USAF talking points, the service expects sustainment cost per tail per year to be $7.8 million in 2036 (again, in 2012 base year dollars).
“This is an unaffordable sustainability model, if the F-35 were to become the majority of [the Air Force’s] fighter fleet,” the document said. “The Air Force needs the F-35’s advanced capabilities, [but] in affordable capacity.”
The service expects to retain the F-16 into the 2030s and needs to backfill it with something to perform “missions short of high-end warfare,” the document said. If the F-35’s operating and support costs could be “brought significantly lower,” the USAF would prefer to buy it for this mission, reducing the number of logistics tails and expanding operational flexibility.
“Otherwise, the Air Force will have to look for an alternative platform,” according to the talking points. It added that this “decision point is at least six to eight years away.”
The service further noted that the Marine Corps and Navy—which have more complex versions of the F-35—set a cost per tail per year of $6.8 million and $7.5 million, respectively, “which are more realistic but likely still unachievable.”
The Air Force noted that the F-35’s procurement price has come down steadily over the last decade, now below $80 million a copy, but that sustainment “will be the overall cost driver.”……
Buy Tempest...
Salute!
I do not know what costing model they are using, but sounds like the ones that the greenies use to justify reverting to the stone age.
Other than inflation, about every plane I can remember since the 60's got cheaper to operate until the suppliers of parts went away 'cause the company went outta business. The maintenance procedures were refined and became more efficient each month! I saw this firsthand in the A-37, the A-7D and the F-16. The most amazing one was the F-16.
Ain't no way to get a new plane operational in ten years that will be cheaper to operate in then-year-dollars than today for the F-35.
I am very confused and do not know where these folks are going. I wanna see all the factors they are using to calculate the unit maintenace and whatever. Once you have more than two or three on the ramp, the cost per platform goes down in a hurry. I do not need another troop to refuel the plane next to me. The same guy that replaces a box can do it on the next plane over just as easily if he has the box.
These guys seem to be calculating the cost per plane as if it is the only one on the planet, and all suppliers and parts and such are dedicated to the one plane.
Gums sends...
I do not know what costing model they are using, but sounds like the ones that the greenies use to justify reverting to the stone age.
Other than inflation, about every plane I can remember since the 60's got cheaper to operate until the suppliers of parts went away 'cause the company went outta business. The maintenance procedures were refined and became more efficient each month! I saw this firsthand in the A-37, the A-7D and the F-16. The most amazing one was the F-16.
Ain't no way to get a new plane operational in ten years that will be cheaper to operate in then-year-dollars than today for the F-35.
I am very confused and do not know where these folks are going. I wanna see all the factors they are using to calculate the unit maintenace and whatever. Once you have more than two or three on the ramp, the cost per platform goes down in a hurry. I do not need another troop to refuel the plane next to me. The same guy that replaces a box can do it on the next plane over just as easily if he has the box.
These guys seem to be calculating the cost per plane as if it is the only one on the planet, and all suppliers and parts and such are dedicated to the one plane.
Gums sends...
Gums - I suspect that all the changes (still on-going) and the need to keep updating airframes in service on the F-35 make each one almost unique - there's no sign of a decent "learning curve" here because the "learning" changes monthly
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And, of course, the price for upgrading the hardware in early block aircraft may be prohibitive - meaning, as with those so far bought by the UK, they may never be upgraded and be relegated to training or limited roles.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-of-its-f-35s
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-of-its-f-35s
And, of course, the price for upgrading the hardware in early block aircraft may be prohibitive - meaning, as with those so far bought by the UK, they may never be upgraded and be relegated to training or limited roles.
Ebbing ANGB selected to host F-35 training center for FMS participants, RSAF F-16 training
The Department of the Air Force selected Ebbing Air National Guard Base, Fort Smith, Arkansas, as the preferred location to establish an F-35 Lightning II training center for Foreign Military Sales participants and the new location for the 425th Fighter Squadron, a Republic of Singapore air force F-16 Fighting Falcon training unit currently based at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
This decision comes after several U.S. ally and partner nations showed interest in conducting F-35 training at a U.S.-based F-35 training facility. Ramp and airspace capacity constraints at Luke AFB limit expansion. This new training center will have capacity for up to 36 fighter aircraft.
The F-35 provides next-generation stealth capabilities to the U.S. and many U.S. ally and partner nations with its aerodynamic performance, advanced integrated avionics, enhanced situational awareness and increased survivability.
“The F-35 program is a multi-service, multi-national effort that dramatically increases interoperability between the U.S. and other F-35 partner nations,” said Acting Secretary of the Air Force John P. Roth. “We are fully committed to the F-35 as the cornerstone of the U.S. Air Force’s fighter fleet and look forward to building stronger relationships with nations who want to work by our side.”
Foreign Military Sales is a security assistance program authorized by the Arms Export Control Act. The act allows the U.S. to sell defense equipment, conduct training and provide services to a foreign country when the president deems that doing so will strengthen U.S. national security and promote world peace.
Following this decision, the Department of the Air Force will conduct an environmental impact analysis to confirm Ebbing ANGB can support the new F-35 and F-16 missions. This selection also establishes Selfridge ANGB, Michigan, as an alternate location in the rare case the environmental impact analysis determines the preferred location unsuitable. The Department of the Air Force anticipates making the final basing decision in spring 2023.
Ebbing ANGB selected to host F-35 training center for FMS participants, RSAF F-16 training > U.S. Air Force > Article Display
The Department of the Air Force selected Ebbing Air National Guard Base, Fort Smith, Arkansas, as the preferred location to establish an F-35 Lightning II training center for Foreign Military Sales participants and the new location for the 425th Fighter Squadron, a Republic of Singapore air force F-16 Fighting Falcon training unit currently based at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
This decision comes after several U.S. ally and partner nations showed interest in conducting F-35 training at a U.S.-based F-35 training facility. Ramp and airspace capacity constraints at Luke AFB limit expansion. This new training center will have capacity for up to 36 fighter aircraft.
The F-35 provides next-generation stealth capabilities to the U.S. and many U.S. ally and partner nations with its aerodynamic performance, advanced integrated avionics, enhanced situational awareness and increased survivability.
“The F-35 program is a multi-service, multi-national effort that dramatically increases interoperability between the U.S. and other F-35 partner nations,” said Acting Secretary of the Air Force John P. Roth. “We are fully committed to the F-35 as the cornerstone of the U.S. Air Force’s fighter fleet and look forward to building stronger relationships with nations who want to work by our side.”
Foreign Military Sales is a security assistance program authorized by the Arms Export Control Act. The act allows the U.S. to sell defense equipment, conduct training and provide services to a foreign country when the president deems that doing so will strengthen U.S. national security and promote world peace.
Following this decision, the Department of the Air Force will conduct an environmental impact analysis to confirm Ebbing ANGB can support the new F-35 and F-16 missions. This selection also establishes Selfridge ANGB, Michigan, as an alternate location in the rare case the environmental impact analysis determines the preferred location unsuitable. The Department of the Air Force anticipates making the final basing decision in spring 2023.
Ebbing ANGB selected to host F-35 training center for FMS participants, RSAF F-16 training > U.S. Air Force > Article Display
Salute!
I like the Ft Smith venue for a few reasons. If you have visited there, or have flown there with the existing unit, feel free to jump in.
The base and the surrounding area are very reasonable for $$$ to live and endure for the months when training. Ditto for the permament party folks that live there for a few years. The people have been used to fighter ops since I was a student back in1965, so no complaints about noise and endless environmental impact studies and....
Plenty of good training areas up there with low mountains, fairly level farming areas plus changes of weather you do not get at some desert base USAF has in Arizona or Nevada or...
Gums sends...
I like the Ft Smith venue for a few reasons. If you have visited there, or have flown there with the existing unit, feel free to jump in.
The base and the surrounding area are very reasonable for $$$ to live and endure for the months when training. Ditto for the permament party folks that live there for a few years. The people have been used to fighter ops since I was a student back in1965, so no complaints about noise and endless environmental impact studies and....
Plenty of good training areas up there with low mountains, fairly level farming areas plus changes of weather you do not get at some desert base USAF has in Arizona or Nevada or...
Gums sends...
Last edited by gums; 5th Jun 2021 at 12:58. Reason: date correction
Bit Sleepy Hollow but an area that is less likely to complain than many others
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...eral-says.html Is an interesting read as to the US current F-35 thinking. Personally, I don't think it bodes well for us.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmmm,
Interesting snippet in the above article.
As F-22 procurement was ended because of the F-35, so F-35 because of the NGAD?
https://themoderatevoice.com/a-facto...-lightning-ii/
I also can't help but notice the following remark - now that the F-15EX seems set fair for many more orders in place of the F-35........
https://defensereview.com/f-22-rapto...iew-weighs-in/
..Perhaps the greatest tragedy is the F-22 program’s suppression of evolutionary 4th-Gen. figher aircraft design concepts. The F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE) is a perfect example. What, you think Boeing just came up with Silent Eagle in the last few months? Anyone reading this who doesn’t think that significant capability and performance upgrades haven’t been available for the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, and F/A-18 Hornet–including low-observability/stealth upgrades, thrust vectoring, canards, and upgraded flight software and systems, (for supermaneuverability), conformal fuel tanks (CFT), integrated flight and fire control (IFF) and ramjet missiles with tail control, just to name a few–for the last 20-25 years while the F-22 Raptor has been ravenously and rapaciously eating taxpayer dollars, well, let’s just say I’ve got some swamp land in Florida I’d like to sell you. All of a sudden, just as the Raptor is getting cancelled, here it is (Silent Eagle)! As the Church Lady might say, “Well…isn’t that convenient!”
Interesting snippet in the above article.
CNN reported that some Air Force officials have expressed a desire to cap the total number of F-35s in inventory, reducing a projected procurement of 1,763 of the conventional takeoff and landing A-variant to 800 maximum to make room for NGAD.
https://themoderatevoice.com/a-facto...-lightning-ii/
I also can't help but notice the following remark - now that the F-15EX seems set fair for many more orders in place of the F-35........
https://defensereview.com/f-22-rapto...iew-weighs-in/
..Perhaps the greatest tragedy is the F-22 program’s suppression of evolutionary 4th-Gen. figher aircraft design concepts. The F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE) is a perfect example. What, you think Boeing just came up with Silent Eagle in the last few months? Anyone reading this who doesn’t think that significant capability and performance upgrades haven’t been available for the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, and F/A-18 Hornet–including low-observability/stealth upgrades, thrust vectoring, canards, and upgraded flight software and systems, (for supermaneuverability), conformal fuel tanks (CFT), integrated flight and fire control (IFF) and ramjet missiles with tail control, just to name a few–for the last 20-25 years while the F-22 Raptor has been ravenously and rapaciously eating taxpayer dollars, well, let’s just say I’ve got some swamp land in Florida I’d like to sell you. All of a sudden, just as the Raptor is getting cancelled, here it is (Silent Eagle)! As the Church Lady might say, “Well…isn’t that convenient!”
Salute!
In all fairness, I feel curtailing the F-22 procurement was not due to the F-35 or any other acquisition.
1) The contract for the doggone thing was awarded in 1991 or so, right? Then first flight 1997, and production models a fewe years later
2) The cost kept going up and up.. compare to the F-35 which today, in today dollars, cost about half of the Raptor back 15 years ago!
3) The F-16 went from a flyoff prototype in 1974 to contract award in 1975 to operational jets at Hill AFB in 1979, and I was in the cadre.
4) I am mystsified by any USAF military official talking about reducing the F-35 buy to afford development of the " next grenration air dominance " machines that won't be around for another ten years. The Raptors are exotic and can do things you will not believe if you have not seen a demo. They have super avionics, but not as super as the F-35, and amazing aero performance for a big plane. But the govment couldn't take the price tags and the threat was a bit different than 15 years before....
5) I have yet to see the "founding" papers for the NGAD machine - the statement of operational need, the required operational capabilities, the threat environments the thing has to face, and the beat goes on..... The phrase sounds good, but the phrase used to justify the F-15 and F-16 40 years ago was more realistic and we got two really good planes.
Gums sends...
In all fairness, I feel curtailing the F-22 procurement was not due to the F-35 or any other acquisition.
1) The contract for the doggone thing was awarded in 1991 or so, right? Then first flight 1997, and production models a fewe years later
2) The cost kept going up and up.. compare to the F-35 which today, in today dollars, cost about half of the Raptor back 15 years ago!
3) The F-16 went from a flyoff prototype in 1974 to contract award in 1975 to operational jets at Hill AFB in 1979, and I was in the cadre.
4) I am mystsified by any USAF military official talking about reducing the F-35 buy to afford development of the " next grenration air dominance " machines that won't be around for another ten years. The Raptors are exotic and can do things you will not believe if you have not seen a demo. They have super avionics, but not as super as the F-35, and amazing aero performance for a big plane. But the govment couldn't take the price tags and the threat was a bit different than 15 years before....
5) I have yet to see the "founding" papers for the NGAD machine - the statement of operational need, the required operational capabilities, the threat environments the thing has to face, and the beat goes on..... The phrase sounds good, but the phrase used to justify the F-15 and F-16 40 years ago was more realistic and we got two really good planes.
Gums sends...