The F-35 is the central player for US tactical aviation for the next few decades.  The issue however is whether the US really needs 2,000+?  It's one thing to talk about 350 for the USMC and 330 or so for the USN and 1,500 or so for the USAF but at some point it starts making sense to look at the total.  It's rather difficult to imagine the USAF really needs 1,500 F-35 when the other services are already going to operate almost 700 and the UCAV's are getting more capable at a rapid rate.

 

In any case the US can not afford 2,000+, it does not make sense from a force structure perspective, and there is no question less than planned will be purchased.  If there was a single unified military service in the US there is no question the nation would have less aircraft.  Thus some of the USAF force structure serves a political mission.  The F-16 is a wonderful aircraft but no mission it performs in the USAF is not performed better by another aircraft.  The F-35 is almost twice the size of an F-16 and bring a lot more to the table but how many the nation needs should not be dictated by the need to replace redundant F-16 force structure to keep the Fighter Mafia happy.  The nation could use more combat coded A-10's, F-15E's, Heavy bombers than F-16's and the F-35 is not exactly a real replacement for any of these.   What the nation really needed was a replacement for the F-111 and A-6.  The F-35 is not an A-12.   

How much would a smaller US order affect the purchase price of the F-35?

There's an interesting news article here... courtesy of Defense-Aerospace.Com,

JSF Market Analysis: How Many JSF?s Will Be Produced?

 

Reported to have come from someone speaking on behalf of the Dutch Parliament Defense Commission,

it raises a logical concern over not necessarily the US ordering a smaller batch in the end

(which compared to original planned numbers during the program's inception, is certainly likely to shrink),

but rather how will that outcome (reduction in JSF airframes produced)

affect the partner nations who've invested heavily in the program.

 

It's suggested that a majority of partner nations may have already committed their investments heavily on the notion that upwards of 4500 F-35s will be built in total.

But what happens if/when that production goal is never achieved?

 

The 136-page report in pdf format can be found here....

(   http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae...   )

 

If this program begins too troublesome in the long run, is the possibility there then that this could be all it takes for foreign nations to lose more faith in both the US government (as a defense partner) and Lockheed Martin (as a defense supplier) ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

We did get a replacement for the F-111 and the A-6: the F-15E and the F-18E/F.  They've been working out pretty good so far.

 

The problem is that the F-16 is not getting any younger.  It's a 35 year old design.  Still good, granted.  But someday they're going to have to be replaced, which is where the F-35 comes in.  It's not the Fighter Mafia, it's the simple fact that aircraft get old and worn out.  I'd be okay with the F-22 cut if it wasn't for the fact that our F-15s are getting progressively ancient, and it would be nice to have a replacement before they start falling out the sky.  Oh wait.  They have.

The A-6 was not replaced by the F-18E/F.  The A-6 has much longer range and payload.  The actual medium attack sdqn in USN service with the A-6 was retired without replacement which also lost the USN the KA-6 as well.  Look at Afghanistan in 2001 and the problems with F/A-18s flying at significant range from carriers.

 

The F-15E does not have the range and payload of the F-111 and does not have the low level performance.  In the 1986 strike on Libya the F-111's flew over 6,000 miles.  The F-15E is a strike fighter that can carry up to 23,000lbs.  The F-111F was a medium attack/bomber aircraft that could carry up to 31,500 lbs at longer range as well.  Other versions of the F-111 were strategic bombers.

 

The problem is the rationale that the US needs an F-16 class aircraft.  It's a great aircraft that does many missions well but the USAF has aircraft that do almost every mission better.  The US would be better served today with less F-16s and more combat coded A-10's, F-15's, and heavy bombers.  The F-35 is not exactly an F-16 class of aircraft. The F-35 is a much larger aircraft- it weighs more than an F-15C.   How many F-35's the nation needs should not be derived by wishes to replace F-16 force structure.

The alternative was to keep 30-year old designs in service.  While that apparently appeals to Congress, it's not so good for the armed forces.  Yes, the A-6 had better range and bombload than the SH, but it was also getting old, and the A-12 certainly wasn't going to work.  The Navy basically had little choice.

 

Same with the F-111.  It too was getting old, and the F-15E has done yeoman work replacing it. 

 

We're still trying to figure out what's going to replace the A-10.

 

Things get old.  We'd better figure out replacements for them before they start killing more pilots than enemies.

Separately, is it just me, or does anyone see anything wrong with procurement practices in the last few decades where we spend billions and billions on research, development and testing for weapons systems only to procure enough for a mere handful of operating units or in the case of the B-2, a score of aircraft?  Are the taxpayers and war-fighters being short changed?  What does this practice say about the requirements/RD&T process?  Is it structurally, fundamentally flawed to the tune of what, hundreds of billions?

It's not just you, Beryoza.  Part of it is probably how fast technology changes these days, though.  The F-22's computers were top of the line when it went to prototype stage; my laptop is probably more capable now.  Aircraft technology is changing so much so fast that designers are forced to keep up.

 

Add politics into the mix and things get worse.  In a perfect world, the USAF would've chosen the KC-30 a long time ago, since it is superior to the KC-767.  But since it's built abroad and not here, and since Boeing stands to lose a lot of money on the KC-767 otherwise, and since the French don't vote but the people of Washington state do, here we are.

 

What makes me mad is when we spend a lot of money on something we know works, has been proven, the military needs it, etc...and then it gets cancelled because the party in charge doesn't like it.  I'm not talking about the Crusader (which probably wasn't needed) or the Comanche (which UAVs have replaced), but things like the F-22, which was cancelled for the sole reason that the Democrats don't like it.  I know...there were other reasons.  But I think that's the primary one: Obama and his bunch only make cuts in the military, which they do not like and will never understand.

No bet.  I saw an article years ago that they were having problems getting the CPU chips because Intel was going to shutdown production due to lack of demand.  I think it was the 25Mhz version of the 80486, but I am probably wrong.