Bye-bye F-35?

#127
#127
NorthDallas40 said:
Two of the reasons the Tomcat drivers I remember talking to hated the original F/A-18C/D. Little nose so lousy RADAR and no range. The E/F Super Hornet is much better received.
Click to expand...
Rhinos are so good they can provide air superiority, fleet defense, buddy refueling, EA, CAP, etc. They are super duper. I get what you are saying about this jack of all trades stuff with the 35.
 
#128
#128
NorthDallas40 said:
Take a look at the F-16XL. I’m not normally a fan of deltas but I like the look here. It lost to the Strike Eagle in the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition. A re-engined variant was flying with NASA and achieved supercruise. I don’t know it might have been the first aircraft to do so. View attachment 170535
Click to expand...
Funny..if you look that is an asymmetrical wing...ie cranked on one side.
 
#131
#131
My whole family was USAF..i never served though. Dream growing up was to go to the academy but didnt make it, other than visiting twice as a kid. F15e is my all time favorite bird. My walls were plastered with lithographs of them from the bases growing up. Thanks for the link earlier. Learned a bunch. 1 pilot there had lots of seat time in 15s. 16s and 22s and i was surprised he said at least at low altitudes, the f16 was by far the fastest accelerating of the 3...i knew that 16s were arguably the most maneuverable plane ever built...but with the power to weight ratio if the f15 making it our 1st ever to be able to accelerate vertically...i thought it would be faster out of the gate as well as top speed. Also read that later 16s could super cruise when they were clean, as well as some 15s clean. Good stuff on that site if you dig.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#132
#132
Obsessed said:
I’ve personally watched several trains loaded with humves, tanks and some stuff I don’t know the name for rolling east.

Fighter jets flying over Memphis headed somewhere.

I got used to the stuff living by Chaffee but it catches me off guard seeing it here.

Oh and some of those big ass helicopters with 2 rotors as well. There was 4 of them traveling together.
Click to expand...
I saw a train the other day loaded down with dozens and dozens of tanks and humvees at Poplar & White Station
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#133
#133
marcusluvsvols said:
My whole family was USAF..i never served though. Dream growing up was to go to the academy but didnt make it, other than visiting twice as a kid. F15e is my all time favorite bird. My walls were plastered with lithographs of them from the bases growing up. Thanks for the link earlier. Learned a bunch. 1 pilot there had lots of seat time in 15s. 16s and 22s and i was surprised he said at least at low altitudes, the f16 was by far the fastest accelerating of the 3...i knew that 16s were arguably the most maneuverable plane ever built...but with the power to weight ratio if the f15 making it our 1st ever to be able to accelerate vertically...i thought it would be faster out of the gate as well as top speed. Also read that later 16s could super cruise when they were clean, as well as some 15s clean. Good stuff on that site if you dig.
Click to expand...
Marcus at low altitude air density creates more resistance to acceleration so the smaller front on view F-16 most likely has an advantage.

For brute power the Eagle wins I’m sure. Point the nose up and push the throttles to the stops and thrust to weight ratio takes over.

But as said earlier. The fun button doesn’t last long as you’re burning fuel at an unsustainable rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#134
#134
85SugarVol said:
I saw a train the other day loaded down with dozens and dozens of tanks and humvees at Poplar & White Station
Click to expand...

Probably a NTC Rotation. I know one of the brigade's from the 82nd Airborne got their JRTC Rotation canceled in the middle of a jump and are returning home.
 
#137
#137
Orangeburst65 said:
Marcus....Sorry but you are seriously misguided and misled by the media and other so called experts who proclaim the F-35 program a travesty.
Read this forum, which features several aviators, technicians and other qualified people, and educate yourself on the F-35:

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-22, F-35 reference

It has been a troubled program managerially, but is finally on track. I would not be concerned one iota with the combat capabilities. This thing will wax any 4th gen fighter in a combat configuration.

Edit: Ironically one crashed today..ish happens.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with the entire F-35 program...

It's too ****ing expensive. Period. End of story. It's 5 o'clock somewhere.

Yes, it has the capabilities to go up against nearly anything on the planet save another F-35 or F-22 at the moment. Now, where we go wrong is the fact that numbers were cut in the program (total aircraft inventory AND manpower) in order to pay for the increased cost of the airframe. And frankly, it's a jet in search of a mission at the moment when low tech, single source platforms can and will do the job better and cheaper. Yes, that's a historically accurate statement.

The problem mainly comes from the fighter mafia in the USAF as a whole as evidenced by the link you provided. If it's got all kinds of bells, whistles, knobs and flies at Mach 1, they will buy it. No regard for how many people are cut causing serious manpower issues about every five years since the end of the Cold War, no matter how many total squadrons are cut, no matter how many countries get involved, that jet MUST be had. I applaud the forward look of the USAF and 10-30 years down the line, but danged if they can't concentrate on the here and now for a moment and see platforms like the A-10 that are single type of mission are getting the hell used out of them and are every effective at it.

And the USAF wants to cut it to make way for the F-35 which DOES NOT even come close to the same capabilities. At over four times the cost per airframe and certainly not including cost per hour when flying.

No, the USAF is stupid when it comes to aircraft procurement. Yeah, the F-35 is an awesome aircraft in its own right. But the cost is not worth cutting the fleet in half just to pay for their shiny new toys.
 
#138
#138
Grand Vol said:
Here's the problem with the entire F-35 program...

It's too ****ing expensive. Period. End of story. It's 5 o'clock somewhere.

Yes, it has the capabilities to go up against nearly anything on the planet save another F-35 or F-22 at the moment. Now, where we go wrong is the fact that numbers were cut in the program (total aircraft inventory AND manpower) in order to pay for the increased cost of the airframe. And frankly, it's a jet in search of a mission at the moment when low tech, single source platforms can and will do the job better and cheaper. Yes, that's a historically accurate statement.

The problem mainly comes from the fighter mafia in the USAF as a whole as evidenced by the link you provided. If it's got all kinds of bells, whistles, knobs and flies at Mach 1, they will buy it. No regard for how many people are cut causing serious manpower issues about every five years since the end of the Cold War, no matter how many total squadrons are cut, no matter how many countries get involved, that jet MUST be had. I applaud the forward look of the USAF and 10-30 years down the line, but danged if they can't concentrate on the here and now for a moment and see platforms like the A-10 that are single type of mission are getting the hell used out of them and are every effective at it.

And the USAF wants to cut it to make way for the F-35 which DOES NOT even come close to the same capabilities. At over four times the cost per airframe and certainly not including cost per hour when flying.

No, the USAF is stupid when it comes to aircraft procurement. Yeah, the F-35 is an awesome aircraft in its own right. But the cost is not worth cutting the fleet in half just to pay for their shiny new toys.
Click to expand...

Disagree as we need to update our forces for peer warfare, not just radical Islamists. The average age of the F-15C fleet is 32 years and the F-16 is 25 years. It takes decades to recapitalize an entire force at 100 aircraft/year, and what would you propose they replace the F-15 and F-16 fleet with? A new F-35A will be about $90 million. I think about $10 billion per year for procurement is not unreasonable.

Granted the A-10 is still a viable plane, but 1970 era aircraft. I would ditch the F-35 for CAS and keep the warthog.

A low production run of new F-15's would exceed $100 million each and probably even if mass produced, hence bigger and 2 motors.

As far as cutting the fleet in half, I have never heard that. It is going to happen with aircraft attrition due to age anyways.
Not sure what aircraft you are comparing "four times the cost"
CPFH is more expensive but they are extensively using simulators now. Cost a lot to keep old 30 YO fighters flying as well, including structural refits.

The USAF fighter fleet has been neglected for too long. If anything Congress spends $50 billion for development, then only buy 21 B-2's or 183 F-22's. That there is stupid as if you are going to commit that much, bite the bullet and procure to a reasonable level and have economies of scale to lower the price.
 
#139
#139
Orangeburst65 said:
Disagree as we need to update our forces for peer warfare, not just radical Islamists. The average age of the F-15C fleet is 32 years and the F-16 is 25 years. It takes decades to recapitalize an entire force at 100 aircraft/year, and what would you propose they replace the F-15 and F-16 fleet with? A new F-35A will be about $90 million. I think about $10 billion per year for procurement is not unreasonable.

Granted the A-10 is still a viable plane, but 1970 era aircraft. I would ditch the F-35 for CAS and keep the warthog.

A low production run of new F-15's would exceed $100 million each and probably even if mass produced, hence bigger and 2 motors.

As far as cutting the fleet in half, I have never heard that. It is going to happen with aircraft attrition due to age anyways.
Not sure what aircraft you are comparing "four times the cost"
CPFH is more expensive but they are extensively using simulators now. Cost a lot to keep old 30 YO fighters flying as well, including structural refits.

The USAF fighter fleet has been neglected for too long. If anything Congress spends $50 billion for development, then only buy 21 B-2's or 183 F-22's. That there is stupid as if you are going to commit that much, bite the bullet and procure to a reasonable level and have economies of scale to lower the price.
Click to expand...

A mix and match of high and low tech works the best. You win the air with the high tech, but the ground war is fought and won with firepower and reliable platforms that are proven to work. It's happened in nearly every conflict we've gotten into from WWII to Korea to Vietnam and the various fights in the Gulf. High tech wins the air, second tier and low tech supports the grunt. I'm not advocating a new run of F-15s, though the Silent Eagle is intriguing as an eventual deep strike replacement for the -15E, or even Block 60 F-16s. However, there are plenty of low cost options to help in the COIN and CAS fights that need to be purchased to supplement the high tech in the air. Even if it does mean an A-10 replacement or even reopening the production lines, the USAF has to have that organic capability. And it ain't the F-35.

The problem, again, is as soon as cost overruns go into effect for nearly any platform, the first thing that gets cut is older systems and personnel. I saw it too many times myself. I agree the fighter force has been neglected. But the problem is they cut personnel and older systems before they are replaced in the hopes the new platform is on schedule and on budget.

And four times the cost was the unit cost of an A-10 versus an F-35.
 
#140
#140
Orangeburst65 said:
Disagree as we need to update our forces for peer warfare, not just radical Islamists. The average age of the F-15C fleet is 32 years and the F-16 is 25 years. It takes decades to recapitalize an entire force at 100 aircraft/year, and what would you propose they replace the F-15 and F-16 fleet with? A new F-35A will be about $90 million. I think about $10 billion per year for procurement is not unreasonable.

Granted the A-10 is still a viable plane, but 1970 era aircraft. I would ditch the F-35 for CAS and keep the warthog.

A low production run of new F-15's would exceed $100 million each and probably even if mass produced, hence bigger and 2 motors.

As far as cutting the fleet in half, I have never heard that. It is going to happen with aircraft attrition due to age anyways.
Not sure what aircraft you are comparing "four times the cost"
CPFH is more expensive but they are extensively using simulators now. Cost a lot to keep old 30 YO fighters flying as well, including structural refits.

The USAF fighter fleet has been neglected for too long. If anything Congress spends $50 billion for development, then only buy 21 B-2's or 183 F-22's. That there is stupid as if you are going to commit that much, bite the bullet and procure to a reasonable level and have economies of scale to lower the price.
Click to expand...

I worked at a place I can’t talk about about 10 years ago and did extensive analysis studies on what the Air Force and Navy 2020 Force Structure needs to look like in a neer peer conflict scenario. Bottom line, you can get to 80-90% solution of a full F-35/F-22 force with upgrading current fighters for 50% of the cost.

Whether that is something the USAF and USN can live with was above my pay grade, but the numbers work out.

My opinion is we need to take the middle road, cut the orders of 35’s and 22’s and spend the rest of the money upgrading the current fleet of fighters. I think it gives you the most bang for the buck, so to speak.
 
#142
#142
rjd970 said:
I worked at a place I can’t talk about about 10 years ago and did extensive analysis studies on what the Air Force and Navy 2020 Force Structure needs to look like in a neer peer conflict scenario. Bottom line, you can get to 80-90% solution of a full F-35/F-22 force with upgrading current fighters for 50% of the cost.

Whether that is something the USAF and USN can live with was above my pay grade, but the numbers work out.

My opinion is we need to take the middle road, cut the orders of 35’s and 22’s and spend the rest of the money upgrading the current fleet of fighters. I think it gives you the most bang for the buck, so to speak.
Click to expand...

Just spent 15 minutes replying to GV and hit the wrong button on this POS and lost it.
Sorry, but your study only went to a 2020 timeframe and we are already there. So you are saying we can reach an 80-90% effectiveness with legacies in the 2020-2050 timeframe? You have to recapitalize an air force over decades and it is needed now. You think legacies will be relevant in 2020 and beyond?

F-22's were rollin off in 2008...now not so much, hence the need for even more 35's, so at face value the middle of road you proclaim is not even possible.

Finally the kicker..what will replace average 35 YO F-15 and 25 YO F-16? Are they to be the next Buffs? Did yall consider S300-S600 at the time?
 
#143
#143
Orangeburst65 said:
Just spent 15 minutes replying to GV and hit the wrong button on this POS and lost it.
Sorry, but your study only went to a 2020 timeframe and we are already there. So you are saying we can reach an 80-90% effectiveness with legacies in the 2020-2050 timeframe? You have to recapitalize an air force over decades and it is needed now. You think legacies will be relevant in 2020 and beyond?

F-22's were rollin off in 2008...now not so much, hence the need for even more 35's, so at face value the middle of road you proclaim is not even possible.

Finally the kicker..what will replace average 35 YO F-15 and 25 YO F-16? Are they to be the next Buffs? Did yall consider S300-S600 at the time?
Click to expand...

Yes all factors were considered and the simulation matrix was one of a multi-variate analysis. You can upgrade the current fleet, even now, fast and relatively cheap. Upgraded sensor and avionic capability, radar absorbing coatings, and pairings with electronic warfare aircraft (F-18 Growler is an excellent platform). Augmented with existing UAV capabilities and long range strike weapons that are ready day one.

You can get close in the aggregate right now is my point. Let me be clear though, I’m not saying there isn’t a place for the advanced platforms because there certainly is. But, based on what we did years ago, you don’t need them at the order numbers that were being budgeted. Fully admit that this was years ago, as well.
 
#144
#144
And I’m sure it’s been stated, but the “joint” nature of the F-35 is what did it in. There isn’t a one size fits all, it was doomed from the beginning. The AF, Navy, and Marines have 3 different missions and, consequently, need 3 different aircraft. Starting from the same platform for all 3 is inefficient and doomed to end in cost overruns instead of designing to mission needs from the beginning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grand Vol
#145
#145
rjd970 said:
And I’m sure it’s been stated, but the “joint” nature of the F-35 is what did it in. There isn’t a one size fits all, it was doomed from the beginning. The AF, Navy, and Marines have 3 different missions and, consequently, need 3 different aircraft. Starting from the same platform for all 3 is inefficient and doomed to end in cost overruns instead of designing to mission needs from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Shades of McNamara...
 
#146
#146
rjd970 said:
And I’m sure it’s been stated, but the “joint” nature of the F-35 is what did it in. There isn’t a one size fits all, it was doomed from the beginning. The AF, Navy, and Marines have 3 different missions and, consequently, need 3 different aircraft. Starting from the same platform for all 3 is inefficient and doomed to end in cost overruns instead of designing to mission needs from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Though I will disagree and say from time to time, the USN/USMC/USAF can share designs, though tailor them to the needs of the individual service. The F-4 and A-7 are good examples of that.

Though the A-7 was quickly overtaken by the A-10. I felt it really was a platform that had a lot of potential.
 
#147
#147
We need to have peer equipment capability. That’s a given.

But we can’t be taking out camels with a damn Maverick or Paveway. I really see that as a major challenge.
 
#148
#148
rjd970 said:
Yes all factors were considered and the simulation matrix was one of a multi-variate analysis. You can upgrade the current fleet, even now, fast and relatively cheap. Upgraded sensor and avionic capability, radar absorbing coatings, and pairings with electronic warfare aircraft (F-18 Growler is an excellent platform). Augmented with existing UAV capabilities and long range strike weapons that are ready day one.

You can get close in the aggregate right now is my point. Let me be clear though, I’m not saying there isn’t a place for the advanced platforms because there certainly is. But, based on what we did years ago, you don’t need them at the order numbers that were being budgeted. Fully admit that this was years ago, as well.
Click to expand...


I know what you are saying.....but 5th gens were not even being budgeted for 10 years ago, just test articles and a hope for 1700 35's. We are already budgeting and implementing upgrades to legacies with AESA and IR sensors for all to keep them relevant as long as possible. When structural and lifetime airframe analysis are being implemented to go above the standard 6K-8K original airframe life, which they are doing for the F-15 and SH, you know you need something far down the pipeline as replacement.

The Growler is still being improved upon with digital EW pods in the works and is still planned on being used as a supplement to the C's in the future. The navy is slow going in the 35 transition, the AF and USMC are more fast track as they have not procured any fighters since 22 termination and the obsolescence of the Harrier.
It is going to take decades to even have a full complement of 35's and the PCA is already being developed as development is such a protracted issue.
 
#149
#149
NorthDallas40 said:
We need to have peer equipment capability. That’s a given.

But we can’t be taking out camels with a damn Maverick or Paveway. I really see that as a major challenge.
Click to expand...

Why not? Mavs and other PGM's that are old and need to be expended based on lifetime. Sending multiple aircraft and dropping munitions with a CEP that is less accurate result in operational costs greater than a 250K munition. Guarantee that you do not have to retask.

Know what u are saying though. Why do we have to spend so much to kill camels in the first place,
 
#150
#150
Orangeburst65 said:
Why not? Mavs and other PGM's that are old and need to be expended based on lifetime. Sending multiple aircraft and dropping munitions with a CEP that is more accurate result in operational costs greater than a 250K munition. Guarantee that you do not have to retask.

Know what u are saying though. Why do we have to spend so much to kill camels in the first place,
Click to expand...
We shot the old stuff quite a while back man on the most common munitions. 😬
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top