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
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USAF Reveals 30-Year Plan: Replacement for F-22 to start development in 2020
Phaid    2/15/2010 4:53:17 PM
The US Air Force (USAF) has revealed a raft of fighter, strike, transport, special mission and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) development programmes in a 30-year plan released in February. The proposals were included within the US Department of Defense's (DoD's) Aircraft Investment Plan covering the period between FY11-FY40 that it submitted for the first time in February as part of the FY11 budget request. Under the plan, USAF expects to allocate funding to initiate the development of replacements for both the Lockheed Martin F-22 multirole fighter and C-5 Galaxy strategic transport aircraft by Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw100215_1_n.shtml
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT
gf0012-aust       3/4/2010 4:23:59 PM


Could you translate please?


bounce dot rubbish at gmail dot com
 
expect a delay as it will mean swapping between different mail systems etc..... put your handle in the subject line
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Realism vs Wishful Thinking   3/4/2010 7:24:59 PM
The notion that F-35 is too big to fail is false.  On cost growth alone at some point it can certainly price itself to death.  If $100 million per F-35A average unit fly away seems affordable and reasonable today there is a number that is too high- what that number might be is a matter of debate.  I would suggest that $150 is certainly too high.
 
JSF is three airplanes.  The F-35C is the most at risk and anyone who believes there is not a significant risk of cancellation is not dealing with reality.  CF-1 has not flown yet.  The F-35C in the FY2011 Budget Estimate is listed at a projected cost of $136 million which is clearly fictional as it does not take account of the recent restructure and now full production start being pushed out to April 2016.  It will certainly end up north of $150 million and compared to $50 million for multi year buys of F/A-18E/F the F-35C is in very serious danger of being canceled.  It was in such danger some years prior to the current revelations.  Note the Jan 4 2010 USN briefing doc showing operating costs of F-35C 40% higher than legacy aircraft it replaces. 
 
All concerned need to to step back and look at this program carefully.  It is being significantly delayed today based on current and ongoing problems.  Almost the entire SDD phase is yet be done which will certainly give reason for further delays.  The entire concurrent production and development plan has been a failure.  The odds of further restructuring are extremely high.  The first step must be to get the flight test schedule on track and we are nowhere near that point today.  Basing decisions upon old briefings by LM or the JSF program office given their levels of public mendacity is at best questionable.
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/4/2010 7:46:49 PM

 Basing decisions upon old briefings by LM or the JSF program office given their levels of public mendacity is at best questionable.

mines not.  hence my prev email to phaid where I am happy to talk from an identifiable govt email address to another.
I'm not going to get into some of the hysteria on an open forum.
 
there are just as many other sane reasons why it won't fail irrespective of the current hysteria thats being remora'd to the project.
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

LB       3/4/2010 8:02:21 PM
Listing reasons why one believes the program either will not or can not fail irrespective of cost lacks a certain rationality.
 
The current deluge of news on F-35 is centered around LM production issues.  Thus the first issue is LM producing enough aircraft for SDD (which is stunningly far behind).  Assuming LM can actually build the aircraft the second issue is when this occurs.  Thus we have Dr Carter pushing full rate production now to April 2016.
 
There has actually been very little realistic discussion on cost.  One suspects mostly because Dr Carter has stated he can not make a prediction at this time.
 
A secondary issue, but highly related to total numbers and thus cost, is the status of F-35C which has only one customer in the USN. 
 
Frankly one need not make any speculation but merely note the public statements and actions of those in DOD vis a vis JSF to note how troubled the program is. 
 
It's likely more facts will become public between now and the end of next weeks Senate Armed Services hearings on F-35.
 
I don't know how this all is playing out in Australia but it's having a big impact in Holland.  The reality of the program status is really just being digested on the Hill.
 



 Basing decisions upon old briefings by LM or the JSF program office given their levels of public mendacity is at best questionable.




mines not.  hence my prev email to phaid where I am happy to talk from an identifiable govt email address to another.


I'm not going to get into some of the hysteria on an open forum.

 

there are just as many other sane reasons why it won't fail irrespective of the current hysteria thats being remora'd to the project.

 





 


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/4/2010 10:35:25 PM
its not a country issue for me.  I am being agnostic on this.
 
there are broader affiliated issues way beyond specific project suspension and cancellation arguments.
 
I'm not arguing about issues of project delay and/or capability as its been quite apparent that Carter has a view which is well founded - and which has been arrticlated to all partners.
 
politically, strategically, tactically, JSF is a parallel to the 1000 ship navy concept - but which has broader implications.  the 1000 ship navy did not.  JSF does,
 
will it be delayed - yes. 
 
is it terminal - IMO no.
 
at the end of the day we'll all know for sure 2016 at what the run rate is.  I certainly don't see Boeing get a run at a solution after the way they've performed - and the US won't be buying a foreign jet either.  Those congressmen and women screaming blue murder will not be risking their seats on a foreign solution even if JSF was commanched etc....
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       3/5/2010 12:16:58 AM




Phaid,



 



To the pro Gates/Administration crowd you are falling on deaf ears. Short of every F-15 falling out of the sky, cancellation of the F-35, and an all-out conflict against China/Russia/North Korea/Iran, an admission that more F-22's are required just isn't realistic. The experts and all their infinite wisdom say so.



 



Interesting though how the justification to shut down the F-22 was based on bringing the F-35 online earlier, and every turn of event since then has been quite the contrary. What's worse is that the writing on the wall has been there for some time, yet political agenda reigns supreme.




 

sorry, this is just errant ferking nonsense.


the program may slip but that does NOT constitute a termination of the program

 

lets have a little ferking reality check folks

 

the US has no viable lead in solution to meet uts future airborne NCW solution if it abandons JSF.  JSF is more than just a fighter/strike issue.

 

a bit of pause and less ferking emotion is needed here.  its getting ridiculous.

 

the procurement, strategic and tactical reqs for this are more than just JSF specific. 


as for the comment about experts - some of us do actually work in the space about what we talk about - and there will always be contrarian views even within a team when there are more than 2 people debating.

 

this is seriously becoming an idealogical issue.

 

JSF impacts upon over 30 other programs - and they're not going to risk the future health of all these projects by terminating JSF.

 

again, I find it absolutely amusing that JSF cops a stick on program life when the USG is about to kill off other progs that are far more critical in the deep space battle area.


Inaccurate interpretation. I stated cancellation of JSF as a necessary constituent for some here to admit that more F-22's may be required. Frankly, I'm completely disgusted with the way money is distributed in this country...too much greed and not enough checks and balances.
 
In reference to the expert comment, I respect your profession and experience but all the protagonists that supported the F-22's demise in favor of bringing along JSF earlier are clearly not seeing the light. The program was/is in trouble. Does that mean the end, perhaps not and truthfully I don't care. At this point I feel better about sending an F-16 Block 60/Super Hornet to deliver ordinance or an A-10 to provide CAS, then I would about sending thirty year old F-15's to intercept a squadron of SU-30's.
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       3/5/2010 1:12:18 AM
You still aren't getting it.
 
This isn't about F-22 VS F-35.
 
Even if the F-35 were canceled the F-22 would likely still be canceled or at best extended only slightly.
 
The primary problem the F-22 has is a lack of a need for more F-22s.  

 
 
Quote    Reply

LB       3/5/2010 2:05:09 AM
Oh I entirely agree with you that the US will not purchase a foreign fighter.  Up till very recently I also was certain that JSF was not a program that could go down either.
 
The problem is however that after they get enough aircraft to complete flight testing and LM can actually build the aircraft we then are left with cost.  It appears more likely than not that the F-35C will price itself to death.
 
There is some price point that kills F-35A for most customers.  If that point is crossed the program is dead. 
 
From my perspective the best way to save this program is to radically restructure it and end the entire concurrency disaster by stretching out the program and actually getting most of SDD done first.  
 
Congress is not going to buy 600+ "LRIP" aircraft.  It's in fact ridiculous to do so.  It's just like how LM is mating the wings now- there is a significant post production production phase, that LM calls pre flight maintenance, that adds time and money.  We don't know how much it will cost to upgrade LRIP aircraft to block X or how viable an option that is.
 
Moreover, all those international agreements the US signed on JSF were not signed by Congress.  Do not believe for a moment Congress does not think they can kill anything if the costs rise high enough because they certainly can.
 
I agree it's not terminal and can be turned around.  I disagree the prognosis is 100% for recovery, much less full recovery.  Moreover, not changing any personnel at LM does not fill one with confidence.  There is no accountability which is exactly what has brought us to this point.
 
its not a country issue for me.  I am being agnostic on this.

 

there are broader affiliated issues way beyond specific project suspension and cancellation arguments.

 

I'm not arguing about issues of project delay and/or capability as its been quite apparent that Carter has a view which is well founded - and which has been arrticlated to all partners.

 

politically, strategically, tactically, JSF is a parallel to the 1000 ship navy concept - but which has broader implications.  the 1000 ship navy did not.  JSF does,

 

will it be delayed - yes. 

 

is it terminal - IMO no.

 

at the end of the day we'll all know for sure 2016 at what the run rate is.  I certainly don't see Boeing get a run at a solution after the way they've performed - and the US won't be buying a foreign jet either.  Those congressmen and women screaming blue murder will not be risking their seats on a foreign solution even if JSF was commanched etc....


 
Quote    Reply

LB    On the other hand   3/5/2010 2:19:52 AM
It's easy to agree with what is written below.  Moreover, the notion that F-22 is dead and gone and there will be no more even if F-35 were killed is also reasonable.
 
On the other hand the USAF requires some level of replacement aircraft to keep a tac air fleet of 2,000+ viable.  If full rate production does not begin for F-35 for over 6 years, it's now April 2016, one can make a case that it could easily be further and thus require the USAF have some stop gap program.  This of course need not be the F-22- even if it costs less than an F-35 (don't laugh the C certainly will and Dr Carter can't or won't even offer a projection at this time).
 
On that same other hand one can easily look at the USAF AEF plan and ask if they are really serious about that long term and if so that since they have 10 AEF and each requires a fighter sqdn that there is a force structure requirement for 10 F-22 sqdn's.  If we have a 24 aircraft sqdn that's a case for 320 or an 18 ac sqdn requiring around 270.  If F-15C's can do the job the next 20 years fine then buy some more but I don't see a 100+ million modernized F-15X not making a good case to buy a $150 million F-22 instead.
 
However, if that one does view the 2/3rds ballpark F-15 as a better buy than I assume that means one views $150 million F-35C's as obscene compared to $50 million F/A-18E/F's.  Before we ever get to canceling the F-35A we will have long killed off the F-35C in favor of more Super Hornets.  So I again agree it's not about F-22's.  It's really about how much does an F-35 cost and we simply do not know today.
You still aren't getting it.

 

This isn't about F-22 VS F-35.

 

Even if the F-35 were canceled the F-22 would likely still be canceled or at best extended only slightly.


 

The primary problem the F-22 has is a lack of a need for more F-22s.  





 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       3/5/2010 9:58:19 AM
On that same other hand one can easily look at the USAF AEF plan and ask if they are really serious about that long term and if so that since they have 10 AEF and each requires a fighter sqdn that there is a force structure requirement for 10 F-22 sqdn's.  If we have a 24 aircraft sqdn that's a case for 320 or an 18 ac sqdn requiring around 270.  If F-15C's can do the job the next 20 years fine then buy some more but I don't see a 100+ million modernized F-15X not making a good case to buy a $150 million F-22 instead.
 
Look, the constant repetition that "we don't need more F-22s" reminds me of that SNL sketch where OJ Simpson is standing in front of his house with a shovel, grinning into the camera and saying "Shovel?  This ain't no shovel!"
 
The fact is that however you slice it, we have a need for a minimum of 240 combat-coded F-22s, which translates to quite a bit more PAI F-22s, on the order of a total buy of 340 given the problems with the early blocks and all.  It is simply stupid to continue soldiering on with F-15s for 20 more years, and while the F-35 may well turn out to be a fine aircraft it is simply not the correct aircraft for the role.  New-build F-15s make sense only to replace F-15Es, not to do the air superiority role.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics