I don't know what you are talking about either. the F15 will continue to be around because we are not building enough f22's. when you said "low" I thought you were talking about f16, f18, f35 that fill a role other than pure air superiority.
No, mean fill the role of air superiority with both hi and lo. I'm not saying that's what our air force is currently doing. I'm saying what the Airforce should have done is to forget the development of a mid grade fighter i.e. f-35 and use the f-15s we have and use the development money to buy more f-22.
Yeah that is what I thought you said in the first place. That is not a good idea. It cannot fill the roles of the F35 and will be more expensive to maintain such old airframes.
Casey- What will F-35 be doing exactly? Deep strike missions into heavily defended airspace? How many planes do we need to do that? 1000? If you suppose the likely targets to be North Korea or Iran and not China, a few hundred such planes would be more than sufficient. Again, this is a mission better done by the F-22 with it's greater stealth, munitions range, and fighting ability. In less hostile airspace, there is no reason to have a 100 million dollar bomb truck . It isn't that F-15's are obsolete and we need a new plane to be competitive with the 4.5 gen fighters from a myriad of countries although the playing field has been leveled. The issue is that we must replace a worn out fleet with something and it doesn't make sense to buy 100 million dollar F-15's when you expect them to be flying 25 years from now and there are superior planes available now. Take a 3 billion dollar block of cash, and buy 30 F-35's Another block buys you 10 F-22's and 30 F/A 18E Super Hornets. Because, in my well informed but not expert opinion, the second package is more capable, you would need fewer 3 billion dollar chunks... which is important when you realize the total budget for procurement is going to be radically cut.
Giant Israeli drone puts Iran within range JERUSALEM February 23, 2010 A Heron TP unmanned aerial vehicle at Tel Nof Air Force Base near Tel Aviv. Photo: Reuters ISRAEL'S air force has introduced a fleet of huge pilotless planes that can remain in the air for a day and fly as far as the Persian Gulf, putting rival Iran within its range. The Heron TP drones, made by Israel Aerospace Industries, have a wingspan of 26 metres, making them the largest unmanned aircraft in Israel's military. The drones can fly for at least 20 consecutive hours and are used mainly for surveillance and carrying diverse payloads. At the fleet's inauguration ceremony at an air base in central Israel, the drone dwarfed an F-15 fighter beside it. The unmanned plane resembles its predecessor, the Heron, but can fly higher, reaching more than 36,000 feet, and stay in the air longer. ''With the inauguration of the Heron TP, we are realising the air force's dream,'' said Brigadier-General Amikam Norkin, head of the base that will operate the drones. Israeli officials would not say how large the fleet was or whether the planes were for use against Iran, but stressed they were versatile. AP
I think the fact that the B-2 remains one of the main instruments of United States air superiority renders all of this debate a little silly.
Super Stealth Plane Breaks Through Cost Barrier By Nathan Hodge March 11, 2010 | 3:01 pm | Categories: Air Force The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing today on the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and things are not looking pretty for the next-generation stealth aircraft. It’s likely the Air Force will have to declare the program has soared past a key cost-containment barrier, in addition to being more than two years behind schedule. The Air Force will have to declare a Nunn-McCurdy breach, which could force a serious restructuring of the program, according to a Reuters story quoting Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter. A new Government Accountability Office report, issued today, puts it in simple numbers. “Total estimated acquisition costs have increased $46 billion (.pdf) and development extended 2 ½ years, compared to the program baseline approved in 2007,” the report states. The cost per plane has risen dramatically as well: The unit cost has ballooned to $112 million per aircraft. When the “system development” phase began in October 2001, the cost was reckoned at $69 million per plane. Aerospace journalist Bill Sweetman, who was live-blogging the hearing at Ares, notes that the average procurement cost has spiked 18 percent, just within the past three years. Poking fun at some old talking points from manufacturer Lockheed Martin, he writes: “Maybe Lockheed Martin will stop using silly numbers in public now.” The cost figures are particularly important, considering that the F-35 was supposed to be a relatively affordable jet that would serve as the backbone of military aviation for decades to come. Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, made it clear that legislators were losing patience with the program. “This raises great concern, not only about the potential for a Nunn-McCurdy breach now, but for continuing problems with the JSF program,” he said in a statement. “This Committee has been a strong supporter of the JSF program from the beginning. However, people should not conclude that we will be willing to continue that strong support without regard to increased costs coming from poor program management, or from a lack of focus on affordability. We cannot sacrifice other important acquisitions in the DOD investment portfolio to pay for this capability.” http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/super-stealth-plane-breaks-through-cost-barrier/? Magic Bus, Magic Bus, Magic Bus Give me a hundred I won't take under Goes like thunder It's a four-stage wonder Nooooooooooooooooo, too much
It might have helped if we'd left "turd" out of the conversation (I lean towards "gold-plated crap"), but now we are reduced to building a generation 4.5 aircraft for damn near as much as the 5th generation F-22 Raptor. Some figures for the gentle reader: - The total cost of the program is now pegged at $300 billion. - Mr. Sullivan of the GAO estimates that in today’s cost - per aircraft is $112 million. - In comparison, the F-22 wound up costing taxpayers $140 million per aircraft based on the total development and capped production run. - Military analysts are conflicted in the multi-role value of the aircraft in the future and post-mortem analysis of the reasons why. Nonetheless one of the biggest reasons why the costs blew up was creating a single platform for two difficult tasks; advanced tactical high speed attack and short take-off and landing capability with multi-mission payload capability. In order to accomplish those tasks, the competition process should have been extended prior to contract award to determine if the military should have proceeded with that set of design parameters or change the scope of the projects objectives i.e. create two different aircraft instead of one. One of the reasons the VTOL capability was changed to STOVL aircraft was because a primary objective was to enable the military capability of landing the aircraft into forward operating areas that traditionally not possible such as large destroyers instead of being relegate to only expensive nuclear powered aircraft carriers. This was changed to short take off (less than 450 ft) with full payload and eliminated several tactical advantages of the original design. When this change occurred, the project likely should have been stopped and reviewed. By this time, the primary contractor was determined, Lockheed Martin. Both Lockheed and Boeing demonstrated VTOL versions during the initial competition in 2006. Clearly something went wrong that is not fully known other than the fact that costs continued to rise. It’s been long rumored the biggest reason the change from VTOL to STOVL was weight. The Lockheed JSF-35 has been reported to be approximately 7 percent over the originally specified weight. http://government.zdnet.com/?p=7788 So why are we building the F-35? One of its most importance justifications in the first place was to provide a Harrier VTOL replacement (Vertical Take Off and Landing), which the Marines need for their ships and as forward support aircraft, and that the British and others wanted for their own ships that use Harriers. When the VTOL requirement was changed to STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing, after the tecnological challenge was deemed too expensive and difficult, the program probably should have ended there. It didn't and we seem to be faced with paying $100+ million per aircraft for one that can't meet it's initial requirements. Yet it is still being tested. It is still in development. It is still unknown exactly what these aircraft will cost. What is known is that the cost is still rising for a still unproven aircraft. We have a proven aircraft still in production in the F-22, an aircraft demonstratively better than the F-35. The ground support duties and relatively low risk missions the F-35 is supposed to accomplish could be met by producing new aircraft for far less money using the F15, F16, F18E/F production lines that are still open, still producing aircraft, as is the F-22 production line, and the F-22 can also be modified to assume many of those requirements. Except for the VTOL/SVTOL replacement still needed, a relatively small number of aircraft out of the entire number of F-35's that are intended to be built, the obvious solution, at least to me, is to build new aircraft from those production lines, and to build a greater number of the F-22's now being manufactured. It would save money and met the requirements needed for our defense now and in the future. Everything except VTOL and SVTOL capabilities.
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...raises-f-35-cost-estimate-to-382-billion.html The US Department of Defense has raised the cost estimate for the 35-year F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme to more than $382 billion, but offered Lockheed Martin a vote of confidence by recertificating its acquisition strategy for the pivotal stealth fighter to Congress. Recertification is legally required to spare the programme from an early termination, despite overall cost projections having grown by 64% compared with the estimate made when Lockheed won the contract nine years ago. If the DoD buys all 2,457 jets planned until 2035, the average cost per aircraft rises to $92.4 million in 2002 values, or $133 million if adjusted for inflation each year up to 2035. This is roughly double the average cost across all three F-35 variants that the Pentagon projected in 2001. But the DoD's mandatory review under the Nunn-McCurdy law determined that no cheaper options existed to meet the F-35 requirement, and that a major restructuring unveiled in February has created a new set of feasible cost and schedule targets. However, Ashton Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, is concerned about Lockheed's ability to manage the programme. In a 1 June letter to Republican congressman Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Carter warns that Lockheed's failure to comply with the DoD's standards for managing vast projects is "disappointing and unacceptable". The new flight-test schedule, which is extended by 13 months, includes "42 areas of concern" that can cause further delays if they are not fixed, Carter adds. The galloping cost projections in the recertification report are likely to raise the most alarms. The $382 billion figure is nearly $54.2 billion higher than the DoD reported in February, which itself was about $30 billion more than previously forecast in 2007. A senior Lockheed executive, however, says the company's own cost estimates are 20% lower than the DoD's new total. Lockheed also plans to stem future increases by moving to a fixed-price incentive contract later this year, two years earlier than previously planned. The company will assume most of the risk for any new increases on the costs of manufacturing future production aircraft for all three variants. Lockheed is also working to restore confidence in its slowed flight-test programme. Test pilots had completed 93 sorties through the end of May, or three more than planned. A key event - the first flight of the programme's first F-35C carrier variant aircraft, CF-1 - is expected in early June. The aircraft's entrance into the flight-test programme has been delayed by more than eight months.
Obviously, we won't be spending 385 billion dollars on this thing, the cost/death spiral starts before it goes into mass production.... Oh, and Deck, the F-22 line is down, but the tooling still exists. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/rand-builds-case-for-zombie-f-.html 3.6 billion to restart the line, and it's still worth it if paired with the affordable F/A-18E/F's. For 120 billion, we get 1200 new Hornets and 317 Raptors. Sufficient.
The F-35 is like the concept cars that the auto companies build to show what cool stuff they can do, and while they would be completely impractical as a real car in the real world, they find out what people want to incorporate into their real cars. And our government is buying 2500 of them.
I was scrolling back trying to find a thread (should have just searched for it) and ran across this. Just wanted to post that I agree with you. I think the F-35 is turning into a far more expensive aircraft than originally intended and an aircraft that is not going to do what it is intended to do (anyone surprised?), turning what was supposed to be a money saving move into another pork barrel fiasco. Why not build aircraft that are proven?
Costs more than Australia what a waste... http://www.theatlantic.com/national...-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/ The F-35: A Weapon That Costs More Than Australia By Dominic Tierney Mar 15 2011, 8:45 AM ET 358 The U.S. will ultimately spend $1 trillion for these fighter planes. Where's the outrage over Washington's culture of waste? Tierney_F35_3-14_carousel.jpg The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an impressive aircraft: a fifth generation multirole fighter plane with stealth technology. It's also a symbol of everything that's wrong with defense spending in America. In a rational world, U.S. military expenditure would focus on the likely threats that the United States faces today and in the future. And at a time of mounting national debt, the Tea Party would be knocking down the Pentagon's door to cut waste. But the only tea party in sight is the one overseen by the Mad Hatter, as we head down the rabbit hole into the military industrial wonderland. The F-35 is designed to be the core tactical fighter aircraft for the U.S. military, with three versions for the Air Force, Navy, and the Marine Corps. Each plane clocks in at around $90 million. In a decade's time, the United States plans to have 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia. So, how many F-35s do we need? 100? 500? Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion. Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion. In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion). The F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history, and reveals massive cost overruns, a lack of clear strategic thought, and a culture in Washington that encourages incredible waste. Money is pouring into the F-35 vortex. In 2010, Pentagon officials found that the cost of each plane had soared by over 50 percent above the original projections. The program has fallen years behind schedule, causing billions of dollars of additional expense, and won't be ready until 2016. An internal Pentagon report concluded that: "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar." In January 2011, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a champion of the aircraft, voiced his frustration: "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint." The F-35 is meant to be the future of U.S. tactical airpower, but the program harks back to the Cold War, when we faced an aggressive great power rival. The world has changed. The odds of great power war have declined dramatically. We still need a deterrent capacity against China and Russia, but how much is enough? In a decade's time, the United States plans to have 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia. Meanwhile, new challenges and threats have emerged. We should be focusing our military spending on the types of campaigns that we're actually likely to face: complex asymmetric wars against weaker opponents, where manpower and intelligence are critical. And it's hard to square the military largesse with our rampant debt. Republicans want to slash billions from programs like early education, in Representative Jeb Hensarling's words, to "save our children from bankruptcy." So where is the outrage at the F-35's outlandish cost? Some just don't seem to care. When it comes to defense, Republicans are the champions of big government and massive expenditure. The F-35 is too big to fail. At the same time, many Democrats keep quiet for fear of looking weak on defense--unless, like Senator Bernie Sanders, they're from Vermont. Other politicians are bought off with pork. Defense suppliers are spread throughout dozens of states, giving everyone a reason to look the other way. Any serious effort to balance the federal budget will require significant cuts in defense spending. And the F-35 is a prime target. The 2010 bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission on deficit reduction suggested canceling the Marine Corps's version of the F-35, and halving the number of F-35s for the Air Force and Navy--replacing them with current generation F-16s, which cost one-third as much. This would save close to $30 billion from 2011 to 2015. The plan went nowhere. We used to be content to outspend Australia on aircraft. Now we literally spend Australia on aircraft.
