|
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... |
Originally Posted by Turbine D
(Post 11036527)
Gums,
Hopefully the Pentagon brass and politicians have learned from the F-35 program what not to do in the future. 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? :eek: |
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. https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4eb9a491e.jpeg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....69b9c3748.jpeg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b50ece119.jpeg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5bf1ccd00.jpeg 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/ |
4th FS F-35As currently at Mont-de-Marsan, France
|
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... |
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 |
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.”…… |
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... |
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
|
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 |
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 |
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... |
Bit Sleepy Hollow but an area that is less likely to complain than many others
|
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.
|
Hmmm,
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........ :cool: 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... |
Criticism of F35 is unfair. As a military procurement programme it has exceeded all reasonable expectations, at least in terms of meeting its objective.
I think the problem lies with our understandinmg of the objective.... Some of you seem to think it is to bring into service a multi role stealth fighter than can take on any opposition, or something on those lines. However, you're wrong. the objective is to be a sink hole for money. Objective met with 100% success. If, at the end of the project, you get a useful bit of kit..... Well, consider that a bonus. |
Salute!
Someplace in there, Anglian, I missed /sarc notation. Gums sends... |
5) I have yet to see the "founding" papers for the NGAD machine - the statement of operational need, the required operational capabilities |
Salute!
Great point, ORAC, and the F-35 naval variant has more range than anything we have had in the U.S. since the Intruder. I compare with the one I flew in 'nam, and it beat the hell outta the A-4 and F-4.... the lowly Sluf. But range is not the biggie WRT operational capabilities the attack jet must possess now. When I see the unit cost of the F-35 today, I am surprised. To see a $$ per plane half of what an F-22 cost 15 or 20 years ago is impressive. Oh, BTW, latest numbers show the USAF F-35 mission capable number highest of our fighter/attack inventory. An even bigger surprise. The logistic tail is catching up. The folks against the F-35 keep using lifetime costs of the plane from cradle to grave. Look at the Viper from 1973, look at the Typhoon or Tornado, look at many and then project into the future. Trying to find actual combat use of the Tiffie, but the 35 has been used by IAF and the U.S. over hostile territory with decent results and no losses best we know. To be very honest, many of we comat vets that flew in the Gulf and even Viet Nam had our doubts about the "bridge too far" aspects of the F-35. We still do. OTOH, the thing has done well in the big exercises, puts on a helluva good demo for a plane "that could not dogfight" and has actually flown over enema territory a few times. Gums sends... |
Trying to find actual combat use of the Tiffie |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11057721)
Try asking the RAF, the Typhoon has been used in combat against Daesh in Iraq and Syria since latte 2015 (Operation Shader).
|
Originally Posted by gums
(Post 11057625)
has actually flown over enema territory a few times
|
Originally Posted by gums
(Post 11057613)
Salute!
Someplace in there, Anglian, I missed /sarc notation. Gums sends... |
2 Attachment(s)
British and US Marine F-35s go to war.
I guess this could have gone in the Future Carrier thread as well airsound Edited to add that, to no one's surprise, WEBF has already added it to the Future Carrier thread..... |
A subdued ‘W00T’.
OK, it’s a milestone. A multi-billion milestone involving dropping bombs on an enemy with no perceptible AD capability. And the £ per Daesh equation is … ? |
MPN11,
There is an ongoing multi-national effort against Daesh and ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the UK contributes to that effort. We have 2 assets able to contribute, and we are now using the second one. Why the issue? We are not in an economic war with Daesh, we are eliminating them where we find them, cost is an irrelevance. |
I was somewhat tongue in cheek, and should indeed have used a ‘smiley’ as the minimum. Sorry!
I’m obviously glad that UK is ‘in the fight’, and that our best (and most expensive) assets are getting a meaningful outing. I just found the PR blurb a bit OTT, I suppose. “We flew off the ship and did what we were designed to do” doesn’t make great headlines. 😟 |
Interesting seeing US F35s carrying ASRAAM.
|
Originally Posted by hulahoop7
(Post 11066561)
Interesting seeing US F35s carrying ASRAAM.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e326d96c89.png https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5acc5ed2f7.png ASRAAM on UK F-35B: https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2c77a06fd0.png |
Originally Posted by airsound
(Post 11066247)
British and US Marine F-35s go to war.
This is also notable as the first combat mission flown by US aircraft from a foreign carrier since HMS Victorious in the South Pacific in 1943. The level of integration between Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and US Marine Corps is truly seamless, and testament to how close we’ve become since we first embarked together last October. |
Originally Posted by AnglianAV8R
(Post 11057589)
Criticism of F35 is unfair. As a military procurement programme it has exceeded all reasonable expectations, at least in terms of meeting its objective.
I think the problem lies with our understandinmg of the objective.... Some of you seem to think it is to bring into service a multi role stealth fighter than can take on any opposition, or something on those lines. However, you're wrong. the objective is to be a sink hole for money. Objective met with 100% success. If, at the end of the project, you get a useful bit of kit..... Well, consider that a bonus. And perhaps a sarcasm font... |
UK applying pressure over certification of Meteor and Spear before making any more orders…..
https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...e-of-the-f-35/ Two reasons Britain could slow its purchase of the F-35 |
Originally Posted by RAFEngO74to09
(Post 11066572)
USMC F-35B are not carrying ASRAAM - they are carrying AIM-9X.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5acc5ed2f7.png ASRAAM on UK F-35B: https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2c77a06fd0.png |
To align the missile with the local airflow for drag reduction, F-18 is similar. F-35 wing has significant washout.
|
Switzerland might pick the F-35A according to Swiss media reports. Said to be the cheapest option.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.