The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Impending collapse of U.S. tactical aviation procurement
Phaid    6/6/2009 1:59:31 PM
The U.S. Air Force announced this week that it will "review" its requirement for 1,763 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters during the comprehensive Quadrennial Defense Review which is now under way. According to Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz, the number of F-35s "could end up being less," he said, but he expects to have "well over" 1,500 F-35s. This nonetheless reflects a potential reduction of 200 or more F-35s from the Air Force procurement alone.

Meanwhile, the JSF program executive officer (PEO)Marine Corps Brig. Gen. David Heinz, stated in an interview with Aviation Week that funding for the F136 alternate engine must be stopped because there is not enough money in the budget to both fund the engine development and produce the expected number of F-35s. According to Heinz, continuing the F136 procurement would "take 50-80 tails out of the program" at a critical early stage of LRIP production, which would cause the unit price to rise, and cause the program to collapse as international partners pull out. "I worry about taking tails out of the program because it will get so expensive the partners will start to pull back", said Heinz.

Heinz's concerns illustrate just how much of a financial knife's edge the F-35 program is already riding. The F136 development contract was awarded in 2005 and is scheduled to end in 2013. This means the F136 development has annual cost of $300 million. According to these numbers, three hundred million dollars per year is the difference between success and failure of a tactical aviation program that has completed less than 5% of flight testing.

But now, even notwithstanding the F136 engine, the Air Force already looking at reducing F-35 procurement numbers, which again means the unit price will necessarily go up. And the Air Force' potential reductions will be much larger, and have far more of an effect on the unit price, than the ones Heinz is concerned about due to the F136. The fewer airplanes are purchased, the more unit price goes up; the more unit price goes up, the less orders will be placed, resulting in a death spiral. And the ripple effects will be devastating: the Navy was criticized this week in Congressional hearings for buying too few F/A-18s in order to make room in their budget for future F-35 purchases. At the same time, the Air Force, which has put off recapitalizing its fighter fleet for two decades, recently decided to retire 250 tactical aircraft ahead of schedule in order to save money to buy more F-35s.

All of those cuts and procurement reductions are based on current F-35 cost estimates and current F-35 production numbers. As testing and budgets impact the F-35 production rates, and the number of airframes purchased continue to dwindle, it is becoming clear that the services are sacrificing their fighter fleets to fund an airplane that will never be procured in enough numbers to meet their needs.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Herald12345    What is your malfinction?   6/14/2009 3:36:56 PM

























Mt opinbions are professional and data driven based on history and well understood science. What are yours again, poster?















Authority figure statements (Gates, the proven liar, for example), your declarations of secret knowledge*1 and "expertise"*1 and your fantasies (assertions*1) declared to be facts?






















I scoff*1 as usual.






















Herald






















*1 Look it up, poster..












































There is nothing professional about your behavior here. NOTHING. Professionals don't hold grudges like this against anonymous "posters" nor do they get personally offended by disagreement. Moreover, data rarely backs up what you say because you refuse to consider other views. Your knowledge of history and science and more appropriately called HIS-story and Religion because if it isn't your view, then it has to be utterly wrong, incompetent ect ect. Herald, threads I start generate hundreds of replies and it is because I am willing to entertain the idea that everyone else isn't necessarily going to see things my way. Try it and maybe you might learn something.















 -DA















































 



When you learn to research, before you comment, ignorantly on a topic, especially when you demand of others behavior you have NEVER shown, then somebody might take your advice. It won't be me since I don't respect you on any subject now, but at least you can try Luke 4: 23, and attempt to fool some other person that you have something worth saying to consider.



 



That is a PROFESSIONAL who sees right through your 'act' who speaks to you.






 



Herald






 



 



 






 


The only thing that you are PROFESSIONAL at is Googling the web and mouthing off at those who's research/opinions diverge from your own.

 

Please enlighton us: what are your so-called PROFESSIONAL qualifications? What is your position (apart from sitting on your fat arse in front of a PC?



Just curious. I mean I haven't done or said anything to you at all, as you seem to know what you discuss, though I have disagreed with some of your conclusions. 

So what is your problem? You just don't like the tone or you think there is something wrong with the evidence?
 
Might as well clear this up NOW.
 
Herald


 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       6/14/2009 4:22:20 PM

Seriously guys. Scrap the F-35 with all the consequences thereof which include damaged alliances as well as economic consequences. Completely rework the logistics and doctrine of the USAF since the F-35 would be gone. All just to get 60 to 200 more F-22s? Don't get me wrong, F-22, F/A-18E and F-16E are great aircraft but this approach you are suggesting is way too platform centric. If there were legitimate needs to more F-22s and the threats that were emerging suggested that we need more of them then fine, buy more. But that is not the case and certainly would not be worth the system wide disturbance that canceling the F-35 would cause.




You will see. When the F-35 gets into service and starts demonstrating it's benefits all of this discussion will seem quite unrealistic. The sun has set on the type of conflict that required many hundreds of Raptors.




-DA 

Its only an economic consequence when it involves shutting down the F-35 and not the F-22??  Perhaps the alliances wouldn't be damaged at all if everyone was in agreement that development costs to perfect the aircraft will be through the stratosphere and cost per plane will not allow allies to purchase enough to cover their requirements. Meanwhile every other possible supplemental line has been closed down and there is no alternative. Like Phaid said, this goes far beyond trying to justify 60 Raptors, it it about filling the United States' requirement for tactical aircraft to maintain its doctrine and do so as cost effectively as possible.
 
You keep stating that the type of conflict that requires more Raptors no longer exists, what type of conflict exists that requires 1700 stealthy multi-role aircraft? First off, if it does happen we are screwed because at a price tag close to or exceeding the F-22 per plane we won't see anywhere near 1700. Secondly, within 10 years unmanned technology could be seriously considered to perform similar missions of the F-35. You seem to have all the answers as to why there will be no more F-22's but can you support a conflict that requires building a stealthy multi-role in to the 2030's, I just don't see it happening.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       6/14/2009 4:45:51 PM
And whose to say that potential adversaries won't have developed an effective countermeasure for stealth in 10-20 years anyway? Far better to lose an aircraft flown by a man on the ground than to lose one with a man flying in it. This money could be better spent on protecting satellites, unmanned technology and incorporating electronic suites into existing aircraft to make them more survivable. There isn't a need to develop a completely new airframe to take advantage of existing technology.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/14/2009 5:22:05 PM
I quote :
 
""The F35 A/B/C can't provide the promised performance because, gee who knew, the biggest turbo fan engine ever produced is very expensive to engineer and quite persnickety to keep running inside that little cocoon of a fuselage. It has a problem dissipating thermal energy off out of the small airframe without cooking everything in the process. Hint: consistently high heat will wear the airframe out faster than other modern airframe types, so, this plane won't last as long as the legacy aircraft that it is supposed to replace because they are falling apart during 1g flight profiles.""
 
This is not from me (stop your fire) , but if it was from me I would have been cursed . But this is exactly what I 've been saying for the last year or so ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    That soinds like our old friend, Sprey.    6/14/2009 5:33:39 PM

I quote :

 


""The F35 A/B/C can't provide the promised performance because, gee who knew, the biggest turbo fan engine ever produced is very expensive to engineer and quite persnickety to keep running inside that little cocoon of a fuselage. It has a problem dissipating thermal energy off out of the small airframe without cooking everything in the process. Hint: consistently high heat will wear the airframe out faster than other modern airframe types, so, this plane won't last as long as the legacy aircraft that it is supposed to replace because they are falling apart during 1g flight profiles.""

 

This is not from me (stop your fire) , but if it was from me I would have been cursed . But this is exactly what I 've been saying for the last year or so ...

 

Cheers .




Care to SOURCE the idiot who said that?
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/14/2009 5:41:10 PM
Ask Phaid Herald ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    U don't always agree with, Phaid.   6/14/2009 5:58:10 PM
That is one time he is in error if he said it. And I of course never agree with you since you donb't even know what you discuss. If you said the sky was blue, then I'd do a spectrum match to check your statement. .
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/14/2009 6:12:05 PM
Herald :
""And I of course never agree with you since you donb't even know what you discuss. If you said the sky was blue, then I'd do a spectrum match to check your statement. .""
 
lol ! Please do and stop boring me with your non sense posts about Rafale .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/14/2009 6:15:14 PM
Btw Herald , can you prove your sentence right ? :
 
""That is one time he is in error if he said it.""
 
Be very carefull in what you say Herald as the F-35 has indeed huge heat problems .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/14/2009 6:41:43 PM
If it has problems, it will be in reducing its heat signature to the LO levels as required; which levels, by the way, are lower than non-LO fighters like the F-15, Su-30, EF, or Rafale, by definition of being LO.  So when all other fighters are emitting IR like as if they were campfires, but the F-35 is required to only emit IR like a cigarette lighter, well, yeah, it probably will have difficulty meeting the requirement.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I know what the heat problems are, Childe.   6/14/2009 7:09:44 PM

Btw Herald , can you prove your sentence right ? :

 


""That is one time he is in error if he said it.""

 

Be very carefull in what you say Herald as the F-35 has indeed huge heat problems .

 

Cheers .


 

 



They have to do with the heat exchangers and their placement (which Bill Sweetman keeps reporting WRONG by the way) which is why I'm surprised that Phaid, if he said that, said that. He mist know about tunnel convection cooling. I should hope so. since its not like the US hasn't encountered hot engine core cooling before and not solved THAT problem. 
 
Haven't got a clue as to what I just said do you, BW?
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/14/2009 7:10:57 PM
Warpig :
""well, yeah, it probably will have difficulty meeting the requirement.""
 
Well , this is the least you can say , lol !
 
""If it has problems, it will be in reducing its heat signature to the LO levels as required; which levels, by the way, are lower than non-LO fighters like the F-15, Su-30, EF, or Rafale, by definition of being LO""
 
lol !! What a load of BS . Now , you try to compare the IR signature management of Rafale with F-15 (???) , SU-30 (???) , Typhoon (only 2 "??") and F-35 (I give 5 "?????") .
Are you drunk Warpig ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/14/2009 7:15:58 PM
Herald :
""Haven't got a clue as to what I just said do you, BW?""
 
Yes I have :-) and I find your answer a "bit short" , you should have done better as they are plenty of stuff around on the Net but they are all mostly going against you .
Do you have trouble to google anything going YOUR way , Herald ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    fanrasy boy.......   6/14/2009 7:48:10 PM

Herald :


""Haven't got a clue as to what I just said do you, BW?""

 

Yes I have :-) and I find your answer a "bit short" , you should have done better as they are plenty of stuff around on the Net but they are all mostly going against you .


Do you have trouble to google anything going YOUR way , Herald ?

 

Cheers .




Your pretense just cracks me up.

 
It also works on plasmas, fan boy.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       6/14/2009 7:55:28 PM
 F35 is, in all likelihood one of the last major manned fighter programs, how long will it be before there is a UCAV (or combination of several) that can perform ALL planned missions?
 
I would genuinely like to ask what that answer is? Because presumably it is the determining factor in deciding what your total manned fighter fleet for the next 30 years should be.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy