Retire the C-5's?

[swerve]

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

 

The Speyed Phantoms (nice pun there, BTW - and apt) is a good example of how not to fit an alternative engine. It was done purely for political & industrial reasons. The Spey was a fine engine, but the dimensions were wrong for the Phantom. But it's not a general rule that fitting new engines is expensive & troublesome.

[swerve]

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

 

We (the UK) actually have 3 decks at the moment, though one is stored, & won't be reactivated unless there's an emergency. But we'll replace those 3 with 2 decks which will be CTOL-capable, even though the plan is to equip them for STOVL & fly STOVL planes off 'em. See above.

 

Thailand also has one STOVL deck, & Australia is seriously considering making their 2 new LHDs STOVL-capable & buying F-35B.

[Smitty]

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

It is not taking any money away from anything else.

Lets see.

 

Baloney. The F-35 program jumped by $45 billion this year alone! That money has to come from somewhere.

 

In addition, the GWOT and war in Iraq are draining defense dollars. Cuts have to be made. The JSF is a prime target.

 

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

 

Well, I said I thought we should at least have the 380 F/A-22s the USAF wants. Plus, I think UCAVs will take over many of the more dangerous duties that requires stealth within the F-35 production timeframe anyway (strike, interdiction, SEAD/DEAD, ISR).

 

In any event, how many stealth aircraft do we need? The Soviet Union died years ago. China is the only serious threat nowadays, and short-ranged fighters won't help us much there, if none of the neighboring countries allow basing.

 

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

 

And how many of them would've been needed in OIF or Afghanistan? Not that many. A few hundred.

 

In Afghanistan, whe had, what, one airbase in the entire theater from which to fly tacair? That plus carriers.

 

Besides, stealth was completely unnecessary there anyway.

 

Buying more than a thousand of the WRONG KIND of stealth aircraft is an expensive waste.

 

Not really.

 

Attacking fixed targets can and has be done by cruise missiles since ODS.

 

Diamondback JDAMS, JSOW and SDB (not to mention cheaper cruise missiles like JASSM and TacTom) will further improve this capability for non-stealthy aircraft and lower the price.

 

Do they eliminate the need for stealth? No. But they definitely reduce it.

 

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.

 

Yes, and that's helped balloon the Dev costs. Going back to a single airframe would be a compromise.

 

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

 

I'm not a huge fan of it either, but having it is better than not having it.

 

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

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

It has less range and payload than either, but far superior avionics and is significantly cheaper to operate.

 

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.

 

An when they've floated cutting the F-35, LockMart lines up its Congressmen to denouce them.

[Smitty]

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.

241920[/snapback]

 

You said "look at the kinds of missions the US has taken lately".

 

OIF and Afghanistan featured limited in-theater land basing, forcing us to use long-ranged bombers and carrier air. USAF tacair played a reduced role.

 

This trend will continue.

 

Intermediate-range bombers will help, to a point, but if the only reliable overseas basing you have is Diego and Guam, they just won't cut it.

 

But I would rather see a few hundred FB-22s for the USAF than 1200-1700 F-35s. If nothing else than to save money.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The "hole" was an airplane capable of executing a SIOP against Mexico or Canada. As you said, not really a hole that needed to be filled.

 

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

241925[/snapback]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The FB-111A did well in bomb comp, Red Flag and the like, so it impressed the people who worked directly with it. Looking at the big picture, it's legs were too short for SAC and it was nearly worthless for their mission, which is what counted.

 

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.

241937[/snapback]

[Guest pfcem]

Baloney.  The F-35 program jumped by $45 billion this year alone!  That money has to come from somewhere. 

 

In addition, the GWOT and war in Iraq are draining defense dollars.  Cuts have to be made.  The JSF is a prime target.

242042[/snapback]

Perhaps we should just announce to the world that we give up then.

 

 

 

Well, I said I thought we should at least have the 380 F/A-22s the USAF wants.  Plus, I think UCAVs will take over many of the more dangerous duties that requires stealth within the F-35 production timeframe anyway (strike, interdiction, SEAD/DEAD, ISR).

242042[/snapback]

That is still less than 500 stealth aircraft.

 

UCAVs are still a long way off.

 

 

 

In any event, how many stealth aircraft do we need?  The Soviet Union died years ago.  China is the only serious threat nowadays, and short-ranged fighters won't help us much there, if none of the neighboring countries allow basing. 

And how many of them would've been needed in OIF or Afghanistan?  Not that many. A few hundred. 

242042[/snapback]

Why did you not warn us about 911 then?

Since you seem to know where & what threats we will & will not face in the future.

 

 

 

In Afghanistan, whe had, what, one airbase in the entire theater from which to fly tacair?  That plus carriers. 

 

Besides, stealth was completely unnecessary there anyway.

242042[/snapback]

Man am I glad to hear we won't be fighting any wars other than the one in Afghanistan.

 

 

 

Buying more than a thousand of the WRONG KIND of stealth aircraft is an expensive waste.

242042[/snapback]

The F-35 is not the wrong aircraft.

It is what the USAF, USN & USMC say they need & want.

So the F-35 is what they are getting (even if each is getting a slightly different version).

 

 

 

Attacking fixed targets can and has be done by cruise missiles since ODS.

 

Diamondback JDAMS, JSOW and SDB (not to mention cheaper cruise missiles like JASSM and TacTom) will further improve this capability for non-stealthy aircraft and lower the price.

242042[/snapback]

You need to redo your cost analysis of of stealth vs standoff weapons.

 

 

 

Yes, and that's helped balloon the Dev costs.  Going back to a single airframe would be a compromise.

242042[/snapback]

But the F-35C does not meet the USAF or USMC requirement.

 

 

 

It has less range and payload than either, but far superior avionics and is significantly cheaper to operate.

242042[/snapback]

But unlike the F-35, which is what the USAF, USN & USMC say they need & want, the F/A-18E/F was forced on the USN, even though it was not what they said they needed & wanted. They had to take the F/A-18E/F because the money that should/could have been spent on what they needed & wanted was spent on the F/A-18E/F.

 

 

 

An when they've floated cutting the F-35, LockMart lines up its Congressmen to denouce them.

242042[/snapback]

What would you expect them to do?

Fold up shop & lay off 1/2 their work force?

[Guest pfcem]

You said "look at the kinds of missions the US has taken lately". 

 

OIF and Afghanistan featured limited in-theater land basing, forcing us to use long-ranged bombers and carrier air.  USAF tacair played a reduced role.

 

This trend will continue. 

242045[/snapback]

That is why we need to make the best use of in-theater (& near theater) land bases.

Which is exactly what intermediate-range medium bombers do.

 

 

 

Intermediate-range bombers will help, to a point, but if the only reliable overseas basing you have is Diego and Guam, they just won't cut it.

242045[/snapback]

We have a lot more reliable overseas basing then just Diego Garcia & Guam.

 

 

 

But I would rather see a few hundred FB-22s for the USAF than 1200-1700 F-35s.  If nothing else than to save money.

242045[/snapback]

I too would be willing to take fewer F-35s if it ment getting more intermediate-range medium bombers.

[Smitty]

Perhaps we should just announce to the world that we give up then. 

 

Or, we should stop designing our forces to fight the Soviet Union in Central Europe.

 

That is still less than 500 stealth aircraft.

 

And it's still 500 more than anyone else.

 

UCAVs are still a long way off.

 

Says who?

 

The USN thinks they'll have a recc J-UCAS IOC by 2015 and a strike/SEAD J-UCAS by 2020. I'm sure if it were a budget priority, the strike variant could come sooner.

 

The F-35C IOC stands at 2013 or 2014, right now. So the F-35 will have a 1 to 6 year head start over J-UCAS.

 

Why did you not warn us about 911 then?

Since you seem to know where & what threats we will & will not face in the future. 

Man am I glad to hear we won't be fighting any wars other than the one in Afghanistan. 

 

*sigh*

 

If we were only fighting the war in Afghansitan, we wouldn't need ANY stealth aircraft.

 

You need to redo your cost analysis of of stealth vs standoff weapons.

 

Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong. Maybe you can start by figuring out how many JASSMs you can buy for each $100 million F-35.

 

But the F-35C does not meet the USAF or USMC requirement.

 

Well sometimes we have to compromise, now don't we.

 

But unlike the F-35, which is what the USAF, USN & USMC say they need & want, the F/A-18E/F was forced on the USN, even though it was not what they said they needed & wanted. 

 

Forced on the USN? By whom? My recollection is that they fought rather hard for it.

[Jim Martin]

In many wargames I've played, the F-111 is extremely useful in the deep interdiction role. Maybe just flawed sims?

 

The FB-111A did well in bomb comp, Red Flag and the like, so it impressed the people who worked directly with it. Looking at the big picture, it's legs were too short for SAC and it was nearly worthless for their mission, which is what counted.

242158[/snapback]

[Chris Werb]

In many wargames I've played, the F-111 is extremely useful in the deep interdiction role.  Maybe just flawed sims?

242347[/snapback]

 

I think they were referring to the FB-111 rather than the F-111 (although the FB-111 endend up being briefly rebadged the F-111G IIRC). I thought the FB-111s SAC role was to attack peripheral air-defence targets in advance of the slower B-52s - effectively strategic SEAD.

 

BTW, I thought the Spey phantom ended up slower, but faster climbing and significantly longer ranged than the J-79 versions. If so, both characteristics would have suited the UK in the role they eventually ended up performing.

 

The RAF Spey phantoms initially had a BAI and tactical recce role - in which they were replaced by Jaguar. That always appeared a retrograde step as Jaguar lacked radar and the Phantoms awesome battery of AAMs that would have come in handy in a conventional conflict in Western Europe. I assume Jaguar had a better low-level nav system and more accurate delivery of free-fall weapons (integrated LRMTs etc.), although most equivalent loadouts included far fewer of any air to ground weapon than you saw on Phantoms. The Phantoms then moved to air defence to replace the Lightning in the mid 70s - with the exception of the F-14, the Phantom was probably the 'best in class' aircraft for this role at the time.

[swerve]

BTW, I thought the Spey phantom ended up slower, but faster climbing and significantly longer ranged than the J-79 versions.  If so, both characteristics would have suited the UK in the role they eventually ended up performing. 

 

Spey-powered Phantom compared to F-4J had more sea level thrust, better take-off performance & climb rate at low to medium altitude, lower fuel consumption giving 10% greater radius of action, lower approach speed, slightly higher speed at low level. Less thrust at high altitude. About 10% slower in level flight at altitude, lower ceiling.

 

Significantly more expensive than an F-4J.

 

There are a few re-enginings which I'd like to see. e.g. a Gripen with an EJ200. They've actually done the risk-reduction analysis, & it's officially available if anyone asks for it. Shouldn't cost much (Eurojet say it needs only "minor changes applied to the interface connections"), but it's definitely not been worth it for the penny-packet sales of the Gripen so far. A big customer, if one ever materialises, might find it worthwhile.

Edited November 3, 2005 by swerve

[Garth]

Significantly more expensive than an F-4J.

242422[/snapback]

 

Which brings us back to my original point: is the extra expense worth whatever gains might be had? What were the lost opportunity costs of the UK Speying the Phantom instead of just buying F-4Js off the shelf?

 

Yes, we can reengine the F-15 and put in all sorts of nifty avionics and such that would give it a huge leap in capability. But would that provide a good ROI relative to just building more F-22s? The analysis I've seen says the answer is no.

 

--Garth

[Ivanhoe]

In many wargames I've played, the F-111 is extremely useful in the deep interdiction role.  Maybe just flawed sims?

242347[/snapback]

 

Not necessarily. If we take away any lessons from WWII, one must that if you can afford a broad spectrum of air platforms, you will find roles for many aircraft which were never part of the original design concept but which make a substantial impact. Examples being the anti-transport work of the P-47s in ETO and the anti-shipping work of the B-25s in PTO. We got a helluva lot of good work out of our B-1Bs as conventional theater bomber, not to mention use of the B-52 as "air artillery" in fairly small tactical engagements. Hard to beat the F-16 as an affordable swarm of light attack birds, even though it was never intended for such missions.

 

As with most of America's cold war combat aircraft, the 'Vark is a capable bird though expensive to buy and operate. If we were to procure a medium bomber nowadays, it would look nothing like the 111, but we could do a lot worse than replicate its range/cruise speed/payload profile. The key would be to get the purchase and operating costs down to where we could afford a pretty deep fleet of them, and ensure it has the ability to deliver everything from iron bombs to next-gen cruise missiles.

[Slater]

In the UK during the Cold War our F-111's were tasked with long range strike/interdiction missions. Don't know what their targets were, but CBU-58's, CBU-71's and Mk 20 Rockeyes were several mission loads. Along with GP bombs and other weapons.

[Smitty]

If we were to procure a medium bomber nowadays, it would look nothing like the 111, but we could do a lot worse than replicate its range/cruise speed/payload profile.

 

 

It would seem to me that something closer to Backfire size would be preferable nowadays - between an F-111 and a B-1B. Something that could do the Guam to NK or China round trip with just two refuelings, and enough crew comfort to make the long haul on a regular basis.

 

But stretching the F-22 would be a cheaper and quicker option.

[Guest pfcem]

Or, we should stop designing our forces to fight the Soviet Union in Central Europe.

And it's still 500 more than anyone else. 

242284[/snapback]

Again, do you know who we might be fighting in 2020?

No you do not.

If we set our current (& near future) procurement based on current threats, we will fall behind the rest of the world & be unprepared for possible threats.

 

 

 

Says who?

The USN thinks they'll have a recc J-UCAS IOC by 2015 and a strike/SEAD J-UCAS by 2020.  I'm sure if it were a budget priority, the strike variant could come sooner.

 

The F-35C IOC stands at 2013 or 2014, right now.  So the F-35 will have a 1 to 6 year head start over J-UCAS.

*sigh*

242284[/snapback]

2020 is a long way off & that assumes there are no delays in the project.

 

Plus UCAS are a unproven concept. While I believe that UCAS are a great supplement to manned strike aircraft, I also believe their usefullness will be limited & should not therefor replace manned strike aircraft with their greater adaptability to changing threats.

 

 

 

If we were only fighting the war in Afghansitan, we wouldn't need ANY stealth aircraft.

242284[/snapback]

True but we all know that there is a possibility (even likelyhood) that we will be fighting somewhere other than Afghansitan in the future.

 

 

 

Perhaps you can show me where I am wrong.  Maybe you can start by figuring out how many JASSMs you can buy for each $100 million F-35.

242284[/snapback]

1st of all IIRC the F-35 is ecpected to cost between $40-80million each (depending of version & estimate vary).

2nd, JASSM cost $700000-1million a peace & you still need an aircraft to launch it from (by 2020 there will not be very many F-16 that are still flyable).

3rd, JASSM is not suitable for all targets.

4th, even with JASSM, you still need a large number of support aircraft to protect the launch aircraft from enemy defenses (the range of JASSM reduces but does not remove this requirement).

 

 

 

Well sometimes we have to compromise, now don't we.

242284[/snapback]

Yes & using a single basic airframe (even if in 3 slightly different versions) is already a compromise.

 

 

 

Forced on the USN?  By whom?  My recollection is that they fought rather hard for it.

242284[/snapback]

Only after being told it was the F/A-18E/F or nothing.

Edited November 3, 2005 by pfcem

[Guest pfcem]

It would seem to me that something closer to Backfire size would be preferable nowadays - between an F-111 and a B-1B. Something that could do the Guam to NK or China round trip with just two refuelings, and enough crew comfort to make the long haul on a regular basis.

 

But stretching the F-22 would be a cheaper and quicker option.

242516[/snapback]

I agree.

 

The FB-22 would not have sufficient range/payload.

[Slater]

Heck, the A-12A only needed a few tweaks here and there to make it acceptable

[Burncycle360]

between an F-111 and a B-1B

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

It would seem to me that something closer to Backfire size would be preferable nowadays - between an F-111 and a B-1B. Something that could do the Guam to NK or China round trip with just two refuelings, and enough crew comfort to make the long haul on a regular basis.

 

But stretching the F-22 would be a cheaper and quicker option.

242516[/snapback]

 

We've already got the Bone, which I don't think is going away regardless of what the CoSAF thinks.

 

Increased range I figure should come out of a subsonic/transonic only design and internal weapons carriage (as much as possible).

[5150]

 

242628[/snapback]

 

You may just want to find an image that is to scale...

[Smitty]

Again, do you know who we might be fighting in 2020?

No you do not.

 

I know we won't be fighting the Soviet Union in central Europe - which is what the current and F-35 force structure (based on the F-teen/A-10 structure it is replacing) is designed to do.

 

Here's my wild guess at where we might fight in the future: Persan Gulf, NK, China/Taiwan, former Soviet states, eastern Europe, Africa. Of those, only in eastern Europe do we have significant nearby basing. In the rest, we have a handful of nearby bases or none at all, and will have to beg/cajole for more.

 

IMHO, we'll fight future wars with an AEF or two's worth of land-based tacair, carrier air, cruise missiles and strategic bombers. Just like we did with OIF and Afghanistan. That's all we'll probably have basing for.

 

So why bother buying 1700 fighters when only a couple hundred will ever be in use at any one time? Even if you go by the "it takes 3 to deploy 1" USAF mantra, that's still only a need of 600 or so tactical aircraft.

 

And why can't that include non-stealthy types? How many F-16s have been shot down to date? Five? Out of how many tens of thousands of sorties? Is the threat really going to increase that much? (remember I'm still advocating a large F/A-22 buy with the Global Strike Full/ISR upgrade)

 

Maybe we should use the money that's planned for the USAF F-35 fleet to improve our low-density/high-demand assets instead, and invest in next-gen systems like UCAVs.

 

If we set our current (& near future) procurement based on current threats, we will fall behind the rest of the world & be unprepared for possible threats.

 

I'm not basing it on current threats. I'm projecting what I think will be the threats in the mid-term.

 

2020 is a long way off & that assumes there are no delays in the project.

 

2014 isn't exactly close, and that also assumes there are no delays.

 

In any event, the dates I gave were for the USN J-UCAS. The USAF could undoubtably have theirs earlier, since they have less risky requirements.

 

Plus UCAS are a unproven concept.  While I believe that UCAS are a great supplement to manned strike aircraft, I also believe their usefullness will be limited & should not therefor replace manned strike aircraft with their greater adaptability to changing threats.

 

Yes, they are unproven, but that's why I've said buy 380+ F/A-22s, invest in a long-ranged, manned strike option, and keep the late-model F-16 fleet around as insurance. Plus, the USN will have their F-18E/F fleet, at minimum.

 

True but we all know that there is a possibility (even likelyhood) that we will be fighting somewhere other than Afghansitan in the future.

Have I said anything else?

 

1st of all IIRC the F-35 is ecpected to cost between $40-80million each (depending of version & estimate vary).

The flyaway cost might be that much, but since we're still early in the program, the total program unit cost is a more meaningful measure - and that's closer to $100 mill (~2500 aircraft for ~$250billion).

 

2nd,  JASSM cost $700000-1million a peace & you still need an aircraft to launch it from (by 2020 there will not be very many F-16 that are still flyable).

3rd, JASSM is not suitable for all targets.

 

Nope, JASSMs are more like $400k. And you can always buy more F-16s (while the line is open).

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/d...0827_991599.htm

 

4th, even with JASSM, you still need a large number of support aircraft to protect the launch aircraft from enemy defenses (the range of JASSM reduces but does not remove this requirement).

How's 380+ F/A-22s? Plus, there's also the 500nm range JASSM-ER and maybe even the 1000+nm ranged JASSM-XR in the works.

 

Yes & using a single basic airframe (even if in 3 slightly different versions) is already a compromise.

 

So? There'll be compromises until the last aircraft comes off the line.

 

Only after being told it was the F/A-18E/F or nothing.

 

Well, they got themselves into that predicament with the A-12 fiasco.

[Burncycle360]

You may just want to find an image that is to scale...

What do you mean? It is to scale

 

We've already got the Bone, which I don't think is going away regardless of what the CoSAF thinks.

 

Increased range I figure should come out of a subsonic/transonic only design and internal weapons carriage (as much as possible).

 

1/2 scale B-2 UCAV?

[5150]

Ah, I think I get it now--I think, anyway.