Retire the C-5's?

[Guest pfcem]

Competitive with what?  New F-16s and even F-15s seem to be winning plenty of sales competitions against the likes of Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Su-30+.

241773[/snapback]

Due to a significant degree to our considerable political influence.

[Chris Werb]

On this page we are still asking for too many toys. WTF is the hole left by the FB-111 that needs filling, BTW?? What did it ever do, and what did it replace that was also so essential?

241780[/snapback]

 

The B-58?

[Guest pfcem]

WTF is the hole left by the FB-111 that needs filling, BTW?? What did it ever do, and what did it replace that was also so essential?

241780[/snapback]

Here's a hint.

 

Intermediate range medium bomber.

[Ol Paint]

Smitty,

 

The F-15E took over from the F-111. They've got a fair amount of life left in them, as far as I know. The B-1B took the FB-111's role.

 

Douglas

[lucklucky]

Getting higher?!

F-35 is an international program that will replace F-16 in Europe, Japan? and will be also for Italy, England Spain and maybe India aircraft carriers. Cancelling it will be a big diplomatic incident with lots of $$ already spent.

[Guest pfcem]

Do the USN and USMC really need a stealthy manned aircraft? 

241773[/snapback]

Absolutely & should have had them 10 years ago.

 

Do you not realize what kind of force multiplier steath technology is?

 

 

 

They have the F-18E/F.  It's bran-new, with state of the art avionics and sensors. 

241773[/snapback]

At $80+million a piece, with less range than the F-35 & yes, considerably less stealthy.

 

 

 

In major conflicts, they'll receive support from stealthy and non-stealthy USAF aircraft.  Plus the USN has tons of Tomahawks VLS cells to fall back on.

241773[/snapback]

So maybe we should scrap all the carriers & let the USAF & Tomahawks do all the work.

 

 

 

I, personally, don't consider a manned STOVL aircraft to be a strategic requirement for the US military, let alone a VLO one. 

241773[/snapback]

The USMC does.

 

 

 

ESGs are supported today buy USMC and USN F-18s flying off CVNs, and various aircraft flying from land.  Why can't that continue tomorrow?  How many times have AV-8Bs made an operational difference to the USMC?  Sure they are a nice capability, but they're also a marginal one, IMHO.

241773[/snapback]

Do you not realize that carriers are being retired twice as fast as new ones are being built?

[Ken Estes]

Here's a hint.

 

Intermediate range medium bomber.

241795[/snapback]

That's what I was afraid of. And why build a medium range strategic bomber when the objective is to fly all missions intercontinental using tanker support? Even Diego Garcia was launching Buffs and B-1s vs. Afghanistan. Sorry, it is not a requirement in any rational defense program. I doubt the USAF advertises such a need. They would be laughed off of Capitol Hill.

[Smitty]

Do you not realize what the cost-effectiveness comparison of the F-35 vs F/A-18E/F vs F-16E/F is?

 

Yes, I think I do. The F-35 program is slated to cost $250 billion dollars.

 

For $250 billion we could buy a lot of capability that better matches the needs of the US military.

 

For that much we could buy 300+ B-2C "Conventional" Spirits. Tens of CVXs. Tankers, and C4ISR assets galore. Fully funded UAV and UCAV programs. Upgraded C-5s and additonal C-17s. You name it.

 

The fact of the matter is, we don't need 2000+ short-ranged, tactical fighters anymore.

 

Your plan will cost more money & result in a less effective force.

 

How so? Effective for what?

 

The GWOT doesn't demand expensive stealth fighters. UAVs and small numbers of bombers and f-teens/A-10s can do the job.

 

The F/A-22 is gives us a hedge against a more capable adversary. And UCAVs will eventually take the more dangerous tasks away from manned aircraft anyway.

 

 

If you cancel the F-35, you essentually end up with nothing but bills to pay in developement costs & punitive damages.

 

But I'll save the majority of the $250 billion dollar program cost. Cancellation costs and sunk dev costs are chump change in comparison.

[Rod]

Is there currently a cargo aircraft other than the C-5 Galaxy in USAF inventory that can carry 1-2 M-1A2 Abrams tanks? If not, then keep the Galaxy because when sh*t hits the fan and you not always have prepositioned equipment, you need a constant shuttle of materiel as fast as possible.

[Smitty]

The F-15E took over from the F-111.  They've got a fair amount of life left in them, as far as I know.  The B-1B took the FB-111's role.

 

The F-15E, while a fine aircraft, doesn't have the range or payload of an F-111.

 

I do agree that the FB-22s range and crew endurance capabilities may not be sufficient to make it worth the cost.

[Smitty]

Absolutely & should have had them 10 years ago.

Why?

Do you not realize what kind of force multiplier steath technology is?

I do, and we have it.

 

At $80+million a piece, with less range than the F-35 & yes, considerably less stealthy.

And the F-18 is completely developed and in service. Buying more will further reduce the unit cost.

 

So maybe we should scrap all the carriers & let the USAF & Tomahawks do all the work. 

Or, they can take on the hard targets, along with USAF stealth, and leave USAF/USN/USMC non-stealthy aircraft to fly once the door has been kicked down.

 

The USMC does.

For what purpose not covered by other systems? Remember, services don't fight by themselves. We don't send amphib flattops to take down a sophisticated IADS without CVBG and USAF support.

 

Do you not realize that carriers are being retired twice as fast as new ones are being built?

 

So where are all these USN F-35s going to fly from?

[JOE BRENNAN]

1. It may be from a USAF-centric POV, but I think it also makes sense from a total force capability standpoint. 

 

2. Losing USN stealthy strike is the biggest problem with cancelling the F-35, IMHO.  And that can be addressed as it is today, with standoff munitions and USAF stealth.

 

3. UCAVs may not be able to replace manned aircraft in the near term, but they can certainly take the more dangerous and boring jobs that require stealth (SEAD/DEAD, ISR, strike) and leave the more difficult jobs (CAS, OCA/DCA) to a reduced number of existing, manned systems.

241789[/snapback]

1. I don't see how it can be both, I still think it's the first and not the second.

 

2. Yes, a big problem, and I think your solutions are tending toward hand waving at something you don't really take that seriously. If standoff weapons meant no stealth, than the USAF doesn't need stealth either. If the land based planes could really do what carrier air does, carriers wouldn't be needed. But the requirments world I see is one where naval air is quite important. If anything, the F-35 program should be rearranged to cut AF buys sharply and boost Navy and Marine ones somewhat, but not be cancelled. I don't believe short ranged land based tac air makes sense for the US in today's relative numbes, that much I agree on, but naval tac air does and has already been allowed to deteriorate in capability too much. And the industrial/commercial negative of removing the US makers from leading edge of fighter business is also a serious issue.

 

3. Eventually but not in the right timeframe esp in terms of industrial base maintenance.

 

Joe

[Guest pfcem]

Absolutely & should have had them 10 years ago.

 

Why?

241830[/snapback]

Just my opinion.

 

I loved the idea behind the A-12!

 

 

 

Do you not realize what kind of force multiplier steath technology is?

 

I do, and we have it.

241830[/snapback]

And yet you want to scrap the F-35 (which will bring stealth the the masses ) & procure more expensive & less capable F/A-18E/F & F-16E/F.

 

 

 

At $80+million a piece, with less range than the F-35 & yes, considerably less stealthy.

 

And the F-18 is completely developed and in service. Buying more will further reduce the unit cost.

241830[/snapback]

But the F-35 is a better & less expensive strike aircraft.

 

 

 

So maybe we should scrap all the carriers & let the USAF & Tomahawks do all the work.  

 

Or, they can take on the hard targets, along with USAF stealth, and leave USAF/USN/USMC non-stealthy aircraft to fly once the door has been kicked down.

241830[/snapback]

Your idea is not without merit but the USN will not like it & decreases the CVBG deterrent effect.

 

 

 

The USMC does.

 

For what purpose not covered by other systems? Remember, services don't fight by themselves. We don't send amphib flattops to take down a sophisticated IADS without CVBG and USAF support.

241830[/snapback]

Ask the USMC.

 

Or any of the nations who want carrier airpower but cannot afford CTOL.

 

 

 

Do you not realize that carriers are being retired twice as fast as new ones are being built?

 

So where are all these USN F-35s going to fly from?

241830[/snapback]

From the carriers!

 

It is because they will have fewer CVs that USN needs the F-35.

[Guest pfcem]

That's what I was afraid of. And why build a medium range strategic bomber when the objective is to fly all missions intercontinental using tanker support? Even Diego Garcia was launching Buffs and B-1s vs. Afghanistan. Sorry, it is not a requirement in any rational defense program. I doubt the USAF advertises such a need. They would be laughed off of Capitol Hill.

241811[/snapback]

Look at the kind of missions the US has taken lately.

 

More intermediate range medium bombers is exactly what we need.

 

Note that the line between tactical & stratigic targets has become blurred.

TAC & SAC have been mergered into ACC (Air Combat Command).

 

With intermediate range medium bombers you do not have to rely so heavily on tankers to extend the range of comparatively short ranged attack-fighters or to fly heavy bombers from far far away bases.

[swerve]

<snip>

 

While canning the F-35 completely might save a lot of money, there are many good reasons to continue the program.

<snip>

[*]AV-8B replacement--there is NO other STOVL fighter program with a hope of production at this time.  That means 12-13 ESGs with no organic fixed-wing, no RN fixed-wing in the near-term, no Spanish fixed-wing. 

<snip>

Douglas

 

That's the big one. But the RN, of the 3 non-US forces which are either signed up to the F-35B, or (in the case of Spain) not signed up, but with a stated interest (Australia is also vaguely interested, but without a formal requirement at the moment - though the RAN would like that to change), is the one which needs it least. Our new carriers will be built "for but not with" CTOL capability. Catapults & arrestor gear are allowed for in the design, to allow retrofitting if desired. No F-35B? Bite the bullet & buy Rafale (easier & cheaper than navalising Typhoon, probably), or whatever developed version of the F-18 the USN gets. We could develop our own STOVL Harrier replacement, but the cost would be too great.

 

The Italians would be stuffed, though. Cavour is designed as an F-3B carrier. And the Spanish would have to face giving up fixed-wing naval aviation when their Harriers wear out, as their mino-carrier & new LHD can't do CTOL. Developing a successor isn't an option for either Italy or Spain, except as part of a collaborative effort with the UK, & I doubt very much we'd want to spend the money.

 

There are other prospective, though less likely, F-35B customers - Thailand, Japan, Brazil. Maybe others.

Edited November 1, 2005 by swerve

[Burncycle360]

I doubt the USAF advertises such a need. They would be laughed off of Capitol Hill.

 

Yet......

 

 

They are. Look up "regional bomber".

Edited November 2, 2005 by Burncycle360

[Garth]

... take the F-15 and put new engines, and avionics in it.  Upgrade the F-15, using F-22/F-35 parts. 

 

Saw a cost/benefit analysis of this not too long ago, based on the Navy's experience moving from the F-14A to the B/D and the RN's experience with the Speyed F-4 Phantom.

 

Putting ATF engines and avionics into the F-15 would require a major engineering effort, especially to get the engines and their related plumbing in. Once all the development costs are factored in to the per-unit modernization, it's more cost effective to just buy F-22s.

 

--Garth

[Smitty]

1. I don't see how it can be both, I still think it's the first and not the second.

 

Well, cancelling the F-35 could lead to a quicker long-ranged strike option, for one.

 

Plus it might allow us to fully fund the advanced, high-demand, low-density force-multipliers that are going to take the big funding hit from the giant sucking sound that is the F-35 - beause they aren't sexy enough.

 

In any event, why shouldn't this be viewed with a USAF bias. They ARE the primary customer for the F-35.

 

2. Yes, a big problem, and I think your solutions are tending toward hand waving at something you don't really take that seriously. If standoff weapons meant no stealth, than the USAF doesn't need  stealth either.

 

But the USAF already has stealth in the form of the B-2, F-117 and, coming soon, the F/A-22.

 

Standoff weapons can substitue for stealth, but a mixture is preferable. We have that with the B-2 and F-22 (and F-117 for now).

 

If the land based planes could really do what carrier air does, carriers wouldn't be needed. But the requirments world I see is one where naval air is quite important. If anything, the F-35 program should be rearranged to cut AF buys sharply and boost Navy and Marine ones somewhat, but not be cancelled.

 

Well, I'm not opposed to that idea, but unfortunately, I think as soon as you make major cuts to the AF buy, the program unit price will skyrocket, and the other services and foreign partners will get cold feet.

 

Remember, the USAF is meant to get around half of the F-35 total production, under current estimates.

 

Another option would be to junk the F-35A completely, and have the USAF buy a smaller number of B's and/or C's (I'd vote to cancel the STOVL F-35B as well due to its higher risk, though I'm sure the "CAS-ites" will disagree).

 

If you just bought C's, you get rid of significant development costs stemming from three distinct airframes, and the inherent STOVL problems. And you get a single fleet that can operate off carriers or land, jointly flown by the USAF, USN and USMC.

 

I don't believe short ranged land based tac air makes sense for the US in today's relative numbes, that much I agree on, but naval tac air does and has already been allowed to deteriorate in capability too much. And the industrial/commercial negative of removing the US makers from leading edge of fighter business is also a serious issue.

 

USN tacair has deteriorated, but the F-18E/F is a step in the right direction.

 

The industry issues are serious, but I don't think propping them up with large buys of an aircraft that isn't suitable for the needs of the primary customer (the USAF) is the right way to go.

[Smitty]

Look at the kind of missions the US has taken lately.

 

More intermediate range medium bombers is exactly what we need.

 

Unfortunately, flying from Diego Garcia to Iraq or Afghanistan is not a good use for fighter-based intermediate bombers. Pilots just can't handle those long flights in fighter cockpits.

 

Guam to North Korea or China is another example. These types of missions require real, long-ranged bombers (or UCAVs).

Edited November 2, 2005 by Smitty

[Garth]

Another option would be to junk the F-35A completely, and have the USAF buy a smaller number of B's and/or C's (I'd vote to cancel the STOVL F-35B as well due to its higher risk, though I'm sure the "CAS-ites" will disagree). 

 

Not just the CAS-ites. There's a substantial investment out there in STOVL-capable platforms by the US (12 decks), Brits (2 decks), Spanish (2 decks) and Italians (2 decks).

 

--Garth

[Guest pfcem]

Well, cancelling the F-35 could lead to a quicker long-ranged strike option, for one. 

 

Plus it might allow us to fully fund the advanced, high-demand, low-density force-multipliers that are going to take the big funding hit from the giant sucking sound that is the F-35 - beause they aren't sexy enough.

241908[/snapback]

The F-35 already is part of our mediun to long-term military planning.

It is not taking any money away from anything else.

 

 

 

In any event, why shouldn't this be viewed with a USAF bias.  They ARE the primary customer for the F-35. 

But the USAF already has stealth in the form of the B-2, F-117 and, coming soon, the F/A-22. 

241908[/snapback]

Lets see.

 

21 [b-2 ]+ 59 (minus combat losses) [F-117] + 279 (current procurement estiment) [F/A-22] = less that 360 total stealth aircraft.

 

The F-35 is intended to increase that number ten fold.

 

 

 

Standoff weapons can substitue for stealth

241908[/snapback]

Not really.

 

 

 

Another option would be to junk the F-35A completely, and have the USAF buy a smaller number of B's and/or C's (I'd vote to cancel the STOVL F-35B as well due to its higher risk, though I'm sure the "CAS-ites" will disagree). 

 

If you just bought C's, you get rid of significant development costs stemming from three distinct airframes, and the inherent STOVL problems.  And you get a single fleet that can operate off carriers or land, jointly flown by the USAF, USN and USMC.

241908[/snapback]

The reason why there are A/B/C versions of the F-35 is because the same basic airframe is intended to replace so many different aircraft.

They tried to do it with only one version but could not so the three slightly different versions.

 

 

 

USN tacair has deteriorated, but the F-18E/F is a step in the right direction. 

241908[/snapback]

Actually the F/A-18E/F is a step in the wrong direction.

 

It is now replacing both the A-6 & F-14.

Unfortunately it is less capable that either in their respective roles.

 

 

 

The industry issues are serious, but I don't think propping them up with large buys of an aircraft that isn't suitable for the needs of the primary customer (the USAF) is the right way to go.

241908[/snapback]

On the contrary, the F-35A is being developed to met the requirements of the USAF.

If it wasn't suitable, they would say so.

 

We are not developing the F-35 & telling the USAF they have to take it.

We asked the USAF what they require for the future & are developing the F-35 to fulfll that requirement.

[Guest pfcem]

Unfortunately, flying from Diego Garcia to Iraq or Afghanistan is not a good use for fighter-based intermediate bombers.  Pilots just can't handle those long flights in fighter cockpits.

 

Guam to North Korea or China is another example.  These types of missions require real, long-ranged bombers (or UCAVs).

241910[/snapback]

Intermediate range medium bombers are not intended for long range missions.

Nor carry the same weapons load as long range heavy bombers.

 

That is why they are called intermediate range medium bombers.

Edited November 2, 2005 by pfcem

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The FB-111A was a Texas product foisted on the USAF by LBJ for pork barrel reasons. SAC didn't want it and never liked it.

 

On this page we are still asking for too many toys. WTF is the hole left by the FB-111 that needs filling, BTW?? What did it ever do, and what did it replace that was also so essential?

241780[/snapback]

[Garth]

The FB-111A was a Texas product foisted on the USAF by LBJ for pork barrel reasons. SAC didn't want it and never liked it.

241921[/snapback]

 

Didn't it "fill the hole" left by the withdrawl of the B-58 (also a Texas product, iirc)?

 

Not to say that the hole really needed to be filled, of course.

 

--Garth

[Guest pfcem]

The FB-111A was a Texas product foisted on the USAF by LBJ for pork barrel reasons. SAC didn't want it and never liked it.

241921[/snapback]

The FB-111A was only intended as an interim "solution" until the B-1 (then under developement) entered service.

 

High ranking SAC commanders did not peticularly like the FB-111A because it was not what they wanted (they wanted the B-1).

Lower ranking commanders who actually saw the planes in operational conditions liked it very much however.