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
mustang22       3/9/2010 6:39:36 PM

Mustang,

 

How old are these designs?

 

http://www.colt.com/mil/downloads/m4_01.jpg" border="0" width="400" height="143" />

 

http://www.paladinarmory.com/Photos%20for%20PA%20website/M2HB.jpg" border="0" width="400" height="280" />

 

 

 

 

http://www.cj-jeep.com/Models/vehicles/images/itas6390.jpg" border="0" width="400" height="266" />

 

 

 

 

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3272/2871406641_8c85bc242d.jpg" border="0" width="400" height="266" />

 

 

-DA

 

 


How many G's are those platforms exposed to on a regular basis? The Eagles are tired airframes, that is just one example why there is a legitimate reason to continue with the F-22. No, we do not need 522, but the AF stated 10 squadrons of 18 combat ready planes. Around 260 total is required to achieve that number and factor in the original 60 that will never see combat and the final number should be around 320. Why is this so hard to grasp? Anyone can change a requirement to appease your boss, but a quick reality check shows that the actual requirement hasn't changed, they are just filling it with an older piece of the pie.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       3/9/2010 11:45:03 PM
There is no need that would justify more F-22's. NONE.
 
 
 
 Not even the fact that the first 60 are apparently "broken?"
 
And is it not striking how close is the price of the F-22 to that of the latest F-15? 
 
Really, why build F-22 at all?  What point is there to building your forces around something that will never be there when you need it, and can just be substituted with something else anyway?
 
Why build either F-22 or F-35?  Just take the avionics and stick 'em into 4G birds.
 
 
 
Just for the record, Darth, there is no other known or rumored supercruise a/c in US inventory or planning, right?  F-22 is it?  None of the DEW, MALI, KC-X, RQ-170, or other yada yada stuff you cited above will do that?
 
 
 Also, do you have any technology or manufacturing industry experience?  How much and what kind?  Can you describe the work you've done and the employers, or at least their industry sectors?
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       3/9/2010 11:48:18 PM
I thought F-35 would be low cost when I was being told it was going to be low cost.  Now I am being told that it will cost $130M+ per and have costs 40% higher than effing HARRIER let alone SH.  I understand it was PLANNED to be cheap and economical.  Sometimes I don't think you grasp or accept that things don't always work out quite like you planned.
 
I mean, are things perfect, DA?  Any lessons here to be learned?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Mustang   3/10/2010 1:17:32 AM



How many G's are those platforms exposed to on a regular basis? The Eagles are tired airframes, that is just one example why there is a legitimate reason to continue with the F-22. 
What, you think the laws of physics only apply to USAF equipment? You think mechanical stress is Eagle specific? IT AIN'T. And take it from me, you have been hoodwinked by pro F-22 propaganda prior to Gates decision to terminate it. Yes, the Eagle has wear and tear. But like other military equipment it's designed with considerable margin for product lifetime and can be refurbished just like the platforms I showed you.

No, we do not need 522, but the AF stated 10 squadrons of 18 combat ready planes. Around 260 total is required to achieve that number and factor in the original 60 that will never see combat and the final number should be around 320. Why is this so hard to grasp? Anyone can change a requirement to appease your boss, but a quick reality check shows that the actual requirement hasn't changed, they are just filling it with an older piece of the pie.
Case closed. If they are about to meet the requirement with airplanes already on hand then there is no problem. Thanks for making that point.
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Nichevo   3/10/2010 1:32:19 AM


There is no need that would justify more F-22's. NONE.


 Not even the fact that the first 60 are apparently "broken?"


Nope. Don't need them. 
 
And is it not striking how close is the price of the F-22 to that of the latest F-15? 

Nope, not at all. The F-15's being built today are incredible warplanes packing state of the art avionics and engines. The basic design is 30 years old but the new builds and mods to existing airplanes makes them a night and day difference from the original.
 

Really, why build F-22 at all?  What point is there to building your forces around something that will never be there when you need it, and can just be substituted with something else anyway?


Ah the irrational emotional argument. Scream the sky is falling. Well it isn't. Your statement is 100% unfounded. We have enough F-22's in service today that they could meet any threat as needed. They can self deploy globally. Why would they not be there if needed? 

 

Why build either F-22 or F-35?  Just take the avionics and stick 'em into 4G birds.

We do all of the above.
 

Just for the record, Darth, there is no other known or rumored supercruise a/c in US inventory or planning, right?  F-22 is it?  None of the DEW, MALI, KC-X, RQ-170, or other yada yada stuff you cited above will do that?


So what? Neither does a P-3 do that either. But it's not a requirement either. When engineers make something, they build to a spec which is based around requirements. We don't just make "stuff" supercruise because we think it's cool. 


 Also, do you have any technology or manufacturing industry experience?  How much and what kind?  Can you describe the work you've done and the employers, or at least their industry sectors?


I have the appropriate background to make the comments that I do. No I'm not going to post a resume for you here. If you don't believe what I say then thats on you. It should be a little curious to you though that somehow the things I say are very much in line with and precede the trends. I'm not just getting lucky or taking wild ass guesses. But as I said, you can either take my word for it or not. It's up to you. I already know the outcomes on things I post about.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Aircraft life is entirely different   3/10/2010 3:04:53 AM
I'd like to make one point if I may.  Aircraft have a limited life and it's not cheap to extend.  Consider that to increase the service life of the F/A-18 from 8,600 hours to 10,000 hours the cost is $26 million vs $50 for a brand new F/A-18E/F.  This increases the cost per flight hour gained to $18, 571 an hour vs $8,300 an hour for a new F/A-18E/F (for 6,000 hours, going to the same 8,600 hour extension already planned for older F/A-18's costs $5,814 an hour).  Moreover, not every F/A-18 can actually reach 10,000 hours.
 
Frankly it does not make sense to pay $26 million to gain up to 1,400 flight hours vs buying a brand new aircraft for 6,000+ hours for $50 million.  Those who attempt to argue one can always just SLEP an aircraft have some burden of proof to indicate how much this costs and for how many hours.  Moreover, other factors can derail planned service life such as happened with many F-15's.
 
All numbers cited above are from Senate Report 111-035 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Aircraft life is entirely different   3/10/2010 3:05:04 AM
I'd like to make one point if I may.  Aircraft have a limited life and it's not cheap to extend.  Consider that to increase the service life of the F/A-18 from 8,600 hours to 10,000 hours the cost is $26 million vs $50 for a brand new F/A-18E/F.  This increases the cost per flight hour gained to $18, 571 an hour vs $8,300 an hour for a new F/A-18E/F (for 6,000 hours, going to the same 8,600 hour extension already planned for older F/A-18's costs $5,814 an hour).  Moreover, not every F/A-18 can actually reach 10,000 hours.
 
Frankly it does not make sense to pay $26 million to gain up to 1,400 flight hours vs buying a brand new aircraft for 6,000+ hours for $50 million.  Those who attempt to argue one can always just SLEP an aircraft have some burden of proof to indicate how much this costs and for how many hours.  Moreover, other factors can derail planned service life such as happened with many F-15's.
 
All numbers cited above are from Senate Report 111-035 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Aircraft life is entirely different   3/10/2010 3:05:39 AM
I'd like to make one point if I may.  Aircraft have a limited life and it's not cheap to extend.  Consider that to increase the service life of the F/A-18 from 8,600 hours to 10,000 hours the cost is $26 million vs $50 for a brand new F/A-18E/F.  This increases the cost per flight hour gained to $18, 571 an hour vs $8,300 an hour for a new F/A-18E/F (for 6,000 hours, going to the same 8,600 hour extension already planned for older F/A-18's costs $5,814 an hour).  Moreover, not every F/A-18 can actually reach 10,000 hours.
 
Frankly it does not make sense to pay $26 million to gain up to 1,400 flight hours vs buying a brand new aircraft for 6,000+ hours for $50 million.  Those who attempt to argue one can always just SLEP an aircraft have some burden of proof to indicate how much this costs and for how many hours.  Moreover, other factors can derail planned service life such as happened with many F-15's.
 
All numbers cited above are from Senate Report 111-035 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Sorry Triple Post   3/10/2010 3:11:14 AM
Sorry it posted thrice.  It might be worth adding that given an F-35C will cost north of $150 million that it's going to extremely difficult to justify buying them when you can get a brand new F/A-18E/F for $50 million.  This is another small consideration in the long term cost escalation for JSF in that the F-35C has a good chance to be killed or at least delayed much farther out.  As of today there has not been a single test of the F-35C (CF-1 has yet to fly).
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Sorry Triple Post   3/10/2010 3:12:06 AM
Sorry it posted thrice.  It might be worth adding that given an F-35C will cost north of $150 million that it's going to extremely difficult to justify buying them when you can get a brand new F/A-18E/F for $50 million.  This is another small consideration in the long term cost escalation for JSF in that the F-35C has a good chance to be killed or at least delayed much farther out.  As of today there has not been a single test of the F-35C (CF-1 has yet to fly).
 
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