The F-35 thread, Mk II
When the loss exchange ratio is 20:1, You would need a large fleet of 4/4.5gen.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/...-in-the-world/
Pilots have raved about the jet’s performance. In its first Red Flag, F-35s scored a 20-to-1 kill ratio against a simulated enemy. In another, it flew 16 simulated offensive counter air missions, eliminating 100 surface-to-air missile sites without losing a plane. That’s not just good performance—it’s unmatched performance.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/...-in-the-world/
Pilots have raved about the jet’s performance. In its first Red Flag, F-35s scored a 20-to-1 kill ratio against a simulated enemy. In another, it flew 16 simulated offensive counter air missions, eliminating 100 surface-to-air missile sites without losing a plane. That’s not just good performance—it’s unmatched performance.
So there's a huge incentive to find ways to reduce that ratio. Who knows what technical changes or ideas there might be out there which could reduce the advantage one day, quite suddenly? Meanwhile, it's in everyone's interest except the tax-payers and other manufacturers to show the aircraft in its best light and since us tax-payers don't understand the complexities of aerial warfare we can be bull****ted quite easily by facile facts.
I'll post the 8:1 when I find it. When it was under the threat of being cancelled. In the sims it was 8:1. From memory it was 12 red against 4 F-35. in 2008: 3:1
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...2b70%2F0000%22
In 2008: 3:1
In 2012 before government 6:1
Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.
Last edited by golder; 13th Jul 2021 at 15:05.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...mber-of-f-35s/
New US Air Force study asks: What’s the right number of F-35s?
WASHINGTON — A new tactical aircraft study underway could make certain what has until now been a suspicion: The U.S. Air Force is unlikely to purchase all of the 1,763 F-35A jets in its program of record.
The service is undertaking the study as it readies its fiscal 2023 budget and grapples with reducing the types of fighters it flies from seven to four main platforms by 2030, as prescribed by the service’s chief of staff……
The idea that the Air Force would buy all 1,763 F-35As “has been the greatest work of fiction in defense budgeting for about a decade now,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. “What we’re really talking about is the real number. It’s not 1,763 [F-35As]. Is it 1,200? Is it 1,400? Is it 1,000? We don’t know.”….
When the U.S. Air Force fought in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, it operated a fleet of about 4,000 fighters. Fast forward to 2021, and that inventory has shrunk to 2,000 aircraft with an average age of 28 years, said Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mark Kelly in an Aug. 16 interview with Defense News.….
Reports vary on how low the F-35 program of record could fall.
Internal documents by the Air Force’s future war-fighting cell indicated a plan to curb orders at 1,050 jets, Aviation Week reported in December. Will Roper, the Air Force’s acquisition executive during the Trump administration, called for F-35 purchases to be capped at about 800 units, CNN reported in May…..
Any changes to the program that result in cost growth could be anathema to lawmakers. F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin has spent more than a decade trying to lower the price of the F-35A to $80 million or less, on par with a fourth-generation fighter. It finally accomplished that goal in a 2019 deal for the 13th batch of aircraft, after years of ramping up production and benefiting from economies of scale.
While Lockheed could argue cuts to the F-35 program might result in higher costs, analysts said the company will have to show its work. Unit costs for the aircraft are unlikely to fall much further than the current price of $78 million per F-35A, Aboulafia said. To keep unit costs stable while reducing the overall buy, the Air Force could simply sustain its current production rate and cut off procurement early, Harrison explained.
Aboulafia added that while the cost of sustaining small aircraft fleets is “ruinous,” there may not be much financial benefit for sustaining 1,763 F-35As compared to a fleet around half that size.….
New US Air Force study asks: What’s the right number of F-35s?
WASHINGTON — A new tactical aircraft study underway could make certain what has until now been a suspicion: The U.S. Air Force is unlikely to purchase all of the 1,763 F-35A jets in its program of record.
The service is undertaking the study as it readies its fiscal 2023 budget and grapples with reducing the types of fighters it flies from seven to four main platforms by 2030, as prescribed by the service’s chief of staff……
The idea that the Air Force would buy all 1,763 F-35As “has been the greatest work of fiction in defense budgeting for about a decade now,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. “What we’re really talking about is the real number. It’s not 1,763 [F-35As]. Is it 1,200? Is it 1,400? Is it 1,000? We don’t know.”….
When the U.S. Air Force fought in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, it operated a fleet of about 4,000 fighters. Fast forward to 2021, and that inventory has shrunk to 2,000 aircraft with an average age of 28 years, said Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mark Kelly in an Aug. 16 interview with Defense News.….
Reports vary on how low the F-35 program of record could fall.
Internal documents by the Air Force’s future war-fighting cell indicated a plan to curb orders at 1,050 jets, Aviation Week reported in December. Will Roper, the Air Force’s acquisition executive during the Trump administration, called for F-35 purchases to be capped at about 800 units, CNN reported in May…..
Any changes to the program that result in cost growth could be anathema to lawmakers. F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin has spent more than a decade trying to lower the price of the F-35A to $80 million or less, on par with a fourth-generation fighter. It finally accomplished that goal in a 2019 deal for the 13th batch of aircraft, after years of ramping up production and benefiting from economies of scale.
While Lockheed could argue cuts to the F-35 program might result in higher costs, analysts said the company will have to show its work. Unit costs for the aircraft are unlikely to fall much further than the current price of $78 million per F-35A, Aboulafia said. To keep unit costs stable while reducing the overall buy, the Air Force could simply sustain its current production rate and cut off procurement early, Harrison explained.
Aboulafia added that while the cost of sustaining small aircraft fleets is “ruinous,” there may not be much financial benefit for sustaining 1,763 F-35As compared to a fleet around half that size.….
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Sums seem to converging on the same total - about 800, half the current planned buy.
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defe...t-constraints/
Top US Air Force general supports proposed F-35 cost constraints
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Air Force’s top general backs proposed legislation that would cap the number of F-35s the Defense Department can buy unless it meets affordability goals for operating and sustaining the jet.
The House Armed Services Committee’s version of the fiscal 2022 defense policy bill — approved by the committee last Thursday — would require the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps to meet targets for “cost per tail per year,” which measures the average cost of flying, maintaining, and upgrading the jet.
Asked about the provision during the Defense News Conference on Wednesday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown indicated he would support the proposed cost constraints.
“The language from Congress is really in line with what we’re trying to get done,” Brown said. “One of our goals is to actually make this [program] affordable, and to make the sustainment costs affordable,” he said, calling it a “focus” for the service.
The Air Force plans to buy 1,763 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing models throughout the program of record. However, the total lifecycle cost of supporting that number of aircraft remains more than what the service projects it can afford.
In FY20, it cost the Air Force about $8 million to operate and sustain each F-35A — about twice the target cost per tail per year of $4.1 million…..
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defe...t-constraints/
Top US Air Force general supports proposed F-35 cost constraints
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Air Force’s top general backs proposed legislation that would cap the number of F-35s the Defense Department can buy unless it meets affordability goals for operating and sustaining the jet.
The House Armed Services Committee’s version of the fiscal 2022 defense policy bill — approved by the committee last Thursday — would require the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps to meet targets for “cost per tail per year,” which measures the average cost of flying, maintaining, and upgrading the jet.
Asked about the provision during the Defense News Conference on Wednesday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown indicated he would support the proposed cost constraints.
“The language from Congress is really in line with what we’re trying to get done,” Brown said. “One of our goals is to actually make this [program] affordable, and to make the sustainment costs affordable,” he said, calling it a “focus” for the service.
The Air Force plans to buy 1,763 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing models throughout the program of record. However, the total lifecycle cost of supporting that number of aircraft remains more than what the service projects it can afford.
In FY20, it cost the Air Force about $8 million to operate and sustain each F-35A — about twice the target cost per tail per year of $4.1 million…..
“In 2008: 3:1
In 2012 before government 6:1
Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.”
I seem to recall the SHAR ratio in 1982 was Zero to 21 in a fight with 21 SHAR ranged against c140 comparable fast jets. I guess a lot has changed in the last 39 years!
OK, I know - apples and pears.
Mog
In 2012 before government 6:1
Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.”
I seem to recall the SHAR ratio in 1982 was Zero to 21 in a fight with 21 SHAR ranged against c140 comparable fast jets. I guess a lot has changed in the last 39 years!
OK, I know - apples and pears.
Mog
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Excuse a stupid question, Mogwi … does that mean, in that scenario, 21 SHAR kills for Zero loss? Everyone gets one kill, and we watch them all come back? 😎
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I well remember being sent on detachment as a Master Controller/Fighter Allocator to RSRE Malvern to do simulator trials comparing the results of the F4 vs incoming Soviet bombing raids including heavy ECM and the Tornado ADV (as it was then termed) against the same.
Inwas responsible for scrambling the fighters, raid matching, allocating tankers etc etc.
The results for the ADV were miraculously better with hardly a bomber or missile getting through, proving what a stupendously better fighter it was and justifying its purchase.
GIGO as they say. Proving nothing except what those setting up the trial wanted it to prove.
Inwas responsible for scrambling the fighters, raid matching, allocating tankers etc etc.
The results for the ADV were miraculously better with hardly a bomber or missile getting through, proving what a stupendously better fighter it was and justifying its purchase.
GIGO as they say. Proving nothing except what those setting up the trial wanted it to prove.
These claims were confirmed by the other side - unlike WW2. In fact we only claimed 20 but later research found another Skyhawk that was only claimed as damaged, but was so badly damaged that the pilot ended up under the ‘chute.
Mog
Mog
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
No disrespect was intended, Mogwi ... I just found those stats rather surprising! I now have more clarity on where your numbers came from ... but how many of the opposition were A2A capable? Mainly mud-movers with guns or ASM/Bombs, surely?
Salute!
How many kills with the gun pod in the Falklands?
How many with the Lima? and it did not have the slave function we had at the time with our "dogfight" mode in the Viper.
Any kills with the other missile?
Gums asks....
How many kills with the gun pod in the Falklands?
How many with the Lima? and it did not have the slave function we had at the time with our "dogfight" mode in the Viper.
Any kills with the other missile?
Gums asks....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I think we are diverging from the original point which was about dubious computerised kill ratios.
We can go down the hole about how representative the SHar kills in the Falklands were, being against mainly non-radar equipped GA aircraft operating at the limit of their range and without AEW support - but that in itself just reveals the figures can’t be looked at as an assessment of performance against peer fighters of the era.
We can go down the hole about how representative the SHar kills in the Falklands were, being against mainly non-radar equipped GA aircraft operating at the limit of their range and without AEW support - but that in itself just reveals the figures can’t be looked at as an assessment of performance against peer fighters of the era.
Salute!
Good point, old man, but I was pointing out actual stats from Falkland with the predominant Brit membership here. The models were a good representation, IMHO, of good training and a new missile with capabilities and performance unseen during our 'nam experience.
+++++++++
Back to the the original issue - down range support costs and final fleet numbers.
As with most high tech planes I am/was familiar with, the fancy gizmos need replacement and the techs need to be well trained. There is an economy of scale when you add one or two planes to the squad. You do not need more techs, and just adjust sortie rate a small amount. Ditto for the pilots. All I hear from the 35 folks is lack of parts, as there is not a lotta soldering connections and such in the back shop anymore. Long are the days of fixing the waveguides for our radar or even replacing a circuit board. It is plug and play, and ya need many boxes to plug!
Secondly, some of our present systems are using cannonball parts because the original manufacturer has gone outta bidness. Go ask USN sub dudes about the Trident missile guidance unit. So THAT is an area of concern in the tech industry which is moving at Warp 3 or faster.
My not so humble opinion is the anti-35 folks are akin to the never-crump folks... find any pissant issue and make a big deal of it rather than attacking the problems and fixing them.
I hate to see discussion about reducing the buy, and went thru it with the F-22, then the B-2, and the beat goes on. Even with poor maintenance of the stealth features, the F-35 has more capability for most missions than anything else now flying or even being tested. If I loose half my cloaking device, I am still better off than in a Viper or Mudhen or Tiffie or Flanker or .........
Gums sends...
Good point, old man, but I was pointing out actual stats from Falkland with the predominant Brit membership here. The models were a good representation, IMHO, of good training and a new missile with capabilities and performance unseen during our 'nam experience.
+++++++++
Back to the the original issue - down range support costs and final fleet numbers.
As with most high tech planes I am/was familiar with, the fancy gizmos need replacement and the techs need to be well trained. There is an economy of scale when you add one or two planes to the squad. You do not need more techs, and just adjust sortie rate a small amount. Ditto for the pilots. All I hear from the 35 folks is lack of parts, as there is not a lotta soldering connections and such in the back shop anymore. Long are the days of fixing the waveguides for our radar or even replacing a circuit board. It is plug and play, and ya need many boxes to plug!
Secondly, some of our present systems are using cannonball parts because the original manufacturer has gone outta bidness. Go ask USN sub dudes about the Trident missile guidance unit. So THAT is an area of concern in the tech industry which is moving at Warp 3 or faster.
My not so humble opinion is the anti-35 folks are akin to the never-crump folks... find any pissant issue and make a big deal of it rather than attacking the problems and fixing them.
I hate to see discussion about reducing the buy, and went thru it with the F-22, then the B-2, and the beat goes on. Even with poor maintenance of the stealth features, the F-35 has more capability for most missions than anything else now flying or even being tested. If I loose half my cloaking device, I am still better off than in a Viper or Mudhen or Tiffie or Flanker or .........
Gums sends...
18 kills with the Lima, including a Herc that copped a L and then 30mm. We could slave the head to the radar and have it scan around that point. Also had a “Superscan” mode which did a rapid rectangular scan to quite a long way above LFD and +/- a couple of degrees laterally. Unfortunately it had been developed in a few days and sent down in someone’s Burberry pocket and when we trialled it, we discovered that it was ground stabilised - ie in a hard left turn, it scanned out of your right ear!
Ho hum,
Mog
VMT Uncle Sam.
Mog
Salute!
TNX, Mog s for the update, and our brief from a RN Harrier dude implied all you had was a point, tone and shoot implementation due to rapid infefgration. The slave capability is super, although the air defense folks from Canada, Britain and we colonists had it early 60's with other missiles....
============
Back to the recent thread.....
One must realize that all the future costs and assumptions are BS. As Einstein and Berra said, "predictions are hard, especially about the future"
The real big $$$$ involve basic airframe problems and the engines. Thus far, the airframe seems durable, even with the LO maintenance, and even with less stealth, the plane has capabilities that were not in the original requirement documents and has surprised many of we old farts. A second source process for the engine is well under way, same as we did with the Eagle and Viper.
To be careful about the ROE here, most of us in the colonies feel there is more influence from the ignorant folks that wish to spend $$$ on things other than defense. Secondly, there will be a good debate about required forces...... project power? defend the homeland? help allies and others? you name it....
Finally, this crapola about the NGAD platform is like fusion power plants one day in the future maybe, but sounds good huh?...as with my opinion about the $$$ I smell the many (poly) $$$ sucking insects at work ( ticks).
Gums sends...
TNX, Mog s for the update, and our brief from a RN Harrier dude implied all you had was a point, tone and shoot implementation due to rapid infefgration. The slave capability is super, although the air defense folks from Canada, Britain and we colonists had it early 60's with other missiles....
============
Back to the recent thread.....
One must realize that all the future costs and assumptions are BS. As Einstein and Berra said, "predictions are hard, especially about the future"
The real big $$$$ involve basic airframe problems and the engines. Thus far, the airframe seems durable, even with the LO maintenance, and even with less stealth, the plane has capabilities that were not in the original requirement documents and has surprised many of we old farts. A second source process for the engine is well under way, same as we did with the Eagle and Viper.
To be careful about the ROE here, most of us in the colonies feel there is more influence from the ignorant folks that wish to spend $$$ on things other than defense. Secondly, there will be a good debate about required forces...... project power? defend the homeland? help allies and others? you name it....
Finally, this crapola about the NGAD platform is like fusion power plants one day in the future maybe, but sounds good huh?...as with my opinion about the $$$ I smell the many (poly) $$$ sucking insects at work ( ticks).
Gums sends...
Lakenheath firsts
