U.S. Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-Term Choices.

[Mike[_7_]]

U.S. Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-Term Choices.
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20070620.US_Fighter_Moderni/R.20070620.US_Fighter_Moderni.pdf

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 4:24 pm, Mike > wrote:
> U.S. Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-Term Choices.
> Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20070620.US_Figh...

Thank you for publishing.

interesting data. The chart implies an F22 costs c. $300m? I hadn't
realised the plan is to keep so many F15s flying for so much longer.

The actual table says a new F16 costs $60m (but doesn't include a
comparable figure for the F22).

You can see the making of the downward spiral. Cut the number of
F35s, unit price increases, therefore buy fewer, therefore unit price
increase, therefore...

That said, the option to kill the carrier-based one is probably a good
one.

Remembering that Macnamara (sic) left the UK high and dry on the TSR2/
F111, leading to the cancellation of the TSR2, a UK-person has got to
feel jittery about the threat to the VTOL F35.

Special Relationship, anyone? ;-).

[[email protected]]

Yeah, thanks for posting that. A very interesting news!

I think it is the first time ever put so clearly in the open text that
F-35A procurement may be cut in half, and F-35C reduced to zero,
replaced by F/A-18E/F and earlier arrival of combat UAVs. Only the
Marine Corps seem to be struggling for their own F-35B to go as
planned... Is Super Hornet going to gain in this growing F/A-18E/F/G
vs. F-35A/B/C war?

Best regards,
Jacek



On 22 Cze, 18:43, " > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 4:24 pm, Mike > wrote:
>
> > U.S. Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-Term Choices.
> > Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20070620.US_Figh...
>
> Thank you for publishing.
>
> interesting data. The chart implies an F22 costs c. $300m? I hadn't
> realised the plan is to keep so many F15s flying for so much longer.
>
> The actual table says a new F16 costs $60m (but doesn't include a
> comparable figure for the F22).
>
> You can see the making of the downward spiral. Cut the number of
> F35s, unit price increases, therefore buy fewer, therefore unit price
> increase, therefore...
>
> That said, the option to kill the carrier-based one is probably a good
> one.

[Pat Flannery]

wrote:
> Remembering that Macnamara (sic) left the UK high and dry on the TSR2/
> F111,

And the Skybolt ALBM, but they got Polaris for that screw-up.

> leading to the cancellation of the TSR2, a UK-person has got to
> feel jittery about the threat to the VTOL F35.
>
> Special Relationship, anyone? ;-).
>


Speaking of which, Israel, trying to get back in our good graces after
the Harpy anti-radar drones to the Chinese and the plan to upgrade the
Venezuelan F-16s for El Diablo Hugo Chavez, has now decided that they
should also buy F-35s:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/06/israel-plans-to-buy-over-100-f35s/index.php

Pat

[Flashnews]

This is the problem as I see it - right now the JSF has come out of
development too early - the real question is - "what does it do better".
In the new Code One there is a great review of the flight test program
and some awesome drawings of the loads all showing external racks,
weapons, missiles, and tanks - guess what - just another Hornet or F-16
and not as good in the less-then-stealth role. The sheer performance of
the JSF is not a game stopper - but that does not mean we will not need
the stealth down the road but it will need something more to make it a
platform we really want - that it

I can see the JSF being pushed down a decade of development and merged
with UCAS/UCAV to produce both manned and un-manned versions - this
would then take the position of the unmanned "earning" it way into the
airwing sort of like "TinMan" did in the movie "Stealth" - for lack of a
better "vision". Add to this a laser weapon to get rid of the bombs and
racks and make it the true penetrator it needs to be to become the
platform of choice against China, Iran, North Korea, etc. Focus on this
and regroup the international consortium to bring the JSF into a Recce,
EW, and Penetrator one-type CTOL version a decade away where many of the
problems will take it anyway - as you can see the savings on that are
substantial and you throw that money into high production rates of the
legacy aircraft to carry the force structures for a decade and to
recover the attritions from the GWOT wear-out. America needs
infrastructure and jobs right now so pushing F-18, F-16, F-15 production
along is good and it rekindles many of the FMS programs to also fill the
voids. For the UK, the F-18 is just as solid of a viable alternative for
the JSF as it is for the Marines.

Now as mentioned before - providing the Marines with a full-deck assault
aviation ship (that is a refurbished JFK and/or Kitty Hawk), killing the
LHA(R) also pours savings back into investment and brings back the
numbers needed now.

Make the JSF morph into something we really need and exploit the
industrial base to fill in for the GWOT - continue the F-22 because it
is the only "High - far - fast" machine remaining but there the avionics
spill over from JSF and others could be likewise exploited


> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Yeah, thanks for posting that. A very interesting news!
>
> I think it is the first time ever put so clearly in the open text that
> F-35A procurement may be cut in half, and F-35C reduced to zero,
> replaced by F/A-18E/F and earlier arrival of combat UAVs. Only the
> Marine Corps seem to be struggling for their own F-35B to go as
> planned... Is Super Hornet going to gain in this growing F/A-18E/F/G
> vs. F-35A/B/C war?
>
> Best regards,
> Jacek
>
>
>
> On 22 Cze, 18:43, " > wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 4:24 pm, Mike > wrote:
>>
>> > U.S. Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-Term Choices.
>> > Center for Strategic and Budgetary
>> > Assessments.http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20070620.US_Figh...
>>
>> Thank you for publishing.
>>
>> interesting data. The chart implies an F22 costs c. $300m? I hadn't
>> realised the plan is to keep so many F15s flying for so much longer.
>>
>> The actual table says a new F16 costs $60m (but doesn't include a
>> comparable figure for the F22).
>>
>> You can see the making of the downward spiral. Cut the number of
>> F35s, unit price increases, therefore buy fewer, therefore unit price
>> increase, therefore...
>>
>> That said, the option to kill the carrier-based one is probably a
>> good
>> one.
>
>

[David Nicholls]

.. For the UK, the F-18 is just as solid of a viable alternative for
> the JSF as it is for the Marines.
>
I suspect that the UK wants the STOVL version to allow it to be deployed (in
emergency) of other RN flat tops and large aircapable ships (e.g. Bulwark,
Albion, Ocean etc.) rather than just the two CVF. The lesson from the
Falklands was that you had to have two operational decks to carry out real
war operations if there are no land fields available to you. If one CVF was
in refit, therefore, one could no launch any independant actions.

David