backtop

Print 36 comment(s) - last by Rage2565.. on Mar 10 at 11:25 AM
The demand for F-35 is still there, but the USAF also has other aircraft it is interested in

Congress has mandated the U.S. Air Force draft the "Aircraft Investment Plan" that outlines aircraft purchase goals from 2021 to 2040.

The USAF wants to spend between $2 billion to $4 billion per year in long-range bomber aircraft from 2011 to 2020.  It's unknown if the next-generation bomber will be able to fly at supersonic speeds, but it's possible an unmanned long-range bomber will be created.

The USAF will upgrade its 180 fighter F-22 Raptor fleet using $1.9 billion in funding, with retirement expected in 15 years.  Over the next eight years, expect additional MQ-9 Reapers to be developed, though an expected 372 are expected for purchase.

The USAF will reportedly spend upwards of $70 billion on 602 F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft over the next 10 years with an estimated total fleet of 1,763 F-35 jets.  Specifically, the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps all face budget issues and an unclear future of the F-35, as actual demand for the expensive aircraft remains unknown.

As the Air Force continues to have problems with F-35, additional mobility is a bigger interest.

The F-35 was expected to become the U.S. military's next major fighter aircraft, but the program is over budget and has been delayed.  Testing has been pushed back at least one year, with Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn and other military officials seeking to put more pressure on Lockheed Martin.

As has become custom with recent spending plans, the total dollar figure invested and number of aircraft purchased can and will change at any time.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
F35 procurement
By FITCamaro on 3/9/2010 7:43:48 AM , Rating: 3
I have no doubt in my mind the Democrats will try to do to the F35 what they did to the F22. 602 in 10 years. When are the other 1100 coming? Probably never if this plan is put in place.

And fighter jets fall behind schedule. Software falls behind schedule. Mainly because you have hardware guys trying to dictate software design schedules when they know nothing about the software development process.




RE: F35 procurement
By gamerk2 on 3/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: F35 procurement
By Chillin1248 on 3/9/2010 10:29:33 AM , Rating: 5
Well the F-35 in terms of dogfight performance is well short of the F-15's. And most preliminary reports show the PAK-FA is superior in most aspects to the F-35.

The F-22 outclasses the F-35 in every single category, including air-surface (strike) missions.

-------
Chillin


RE: F35 procurement
By MrBlastman on 3/9/2010 4:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
What I would be curious to know more about is the fuel flow rates @ altitude levels (sea level, 5k, 10k, 20k, 25k etc.) and the g-level performance envelopes (i.e. degrees per second turn @ 8 G, 9 G etc. ) and the tightest turn radius @ what airspeed/G meter reading. With those numbers, I think we can then have a pretty good idea as to what its performance is.

As is, I know how much internal fuel it can carry, I know sort of what kind of thrust it can produce, its weight etc I can say, even, if you kept its fuel load @ takeoff similar to the F-16 (the plane it is set to replace) in nautical miles of a combat radius (assume ~340 nm) on internal stores (@ 340 nm the F-16 is maxxed internally whereas the F-35 can go over 600 full), you get some interesting results (remember, the F-35 would not be carrying a full fuel load):

F-16 carrying 7100 lbs fuel, takeoff weight (sans stores, just fuel) ~26,500 lbs weight of plane w/fuel, max thrust of ~28,600 lbs

7.9% reserve threshold of thrust, 1.08 thrust-to-weight ratio

F-35 carrying an adjusted 10,300 lbs fuel (sans stores), ~40,000 lbs weight of plane, max thrust of 43,000 lbs
(remember, I don't know the fuel flow rates and performance curves of the F-35, I DO for the F-16 so the fuel for ascent to altitude might need to be increased slightly due to weight)

7.5% reserve threshold for thrust, 1.075 thrust-to-weight ratio

Your reserve threshold for thrust is critical in a combat situation. Now, some on here might argue that most aerial combat is BVR. That is correct. Right now. That will change significantly when more nations have low-RCS aircraft (radar cross section) and the tables will turn and close combat will become more realistic except for all-out-war where it is very possible even now. That reserve threshold gives power that is needed in turning dogfights for emergency maneuvering and also, depending on what plane you are facing, ability to climb faster (in scissors if you can maintain height before and after the merge and departure you keep the edge).

As you see here, the F-35 and F-16 are basically the same in these categories.

What we don't know is those other figures mentioned before. You can not though, compare the F-35 with the F-22. The 22 will outclass it in almost every category except perhaps ordinance that it can carry in an air-to-ground capacity. This is why the Air Force has the F-15C for air-to-air and the F-15 D/E for air-to-ground. They differ significantly enough to warrant a new designation. The F-35 has to be compared with the F-16 due to it having very similar roles. We just don't know enough yet, but, so far, it is at worst a tie (but the much lower-RCS gives the F-35 a tremendous edge against the F-16 as is), as well as the AN/APG-81 radar versus the AN/APG-68 radar on the F-16.

Likewise, the F-22 should be compared with the F-15 (which it outclasses in every category).


RE: F35 procurement
By Amiga500 on 3/9/2010 11:07:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Even the Pak/FK Russia and India are developing is probably only going to match the F-15 SE in performance, which would still be well short of the F-35.


That is a brave statement!

In many ways, I expect the PAK-FA to be superior to the F-22. Of course, in many other ways, it will be deficient to the F-22.


RE: F35 procurement
By Amiga500 on 3/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: F35 procurement
By Chillin1248 on 3/9/2010 1:40:23 PM , Rating: 3
Well, for the most part the PAK-FA is not a direct competitor to the F-22. The PAK-FA main competitors are the F-35 JSF, F-15 SE, EuroFighter Typhoon, MiG-35, Rafale C and F/A-18E Super Hornet.

Remember a major part of the PAK-FA program relies on exports, unlike the F-22 program.

-------
Chillin


RE: F35 procurement
By Reclaimer77 on 3/9/2010 11:10:49 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
We do need a new air-to-air fighter, but the F-22 is not it.


100% retarded statement. The F-22 is the best air to air fighter on the planet. At best the F-15 matches it in highly favorable situations. How is the F-22 "not it" ??

quote:
We don't need an aircraft that costs $300 Million to build, and tens of millions more to maintain. Even the Pak/FK Russia and India are developing is probably only going to match the F-15 SE in performance, which would still be well short of the F-35.


The objective of peace though open force is not to "match" the enemy if hostilities break out. The point is to present such a feared, advanced, trained, and technologically superior combined forces that the hostilities don't even start in the first place.

Nations are not quick to get into a fight with the US because we have demonstrated the ability to so completely and swiftly destroy our enemies as to make an example for everyone else.

That is what pacifists and liberals fail to understand. Peace though force works and works damned well. Peace though pacification doesn't, and history proves it.


RE: F35 procurement
By porkpie on 3/9/2010 11:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The objective of peace though open force is not to "match" the enemy if hostilities break out. The point is to present such a feared, advanced, trained, and technologically superior combined forces that the hostilities don't even start in the first place.
Emphasis mine. Eloquent, succinct, and on target.

Despite your silliness in other recent threads, that was well said.


RE: F35 procurement
By inperfectdarkness on 3/9/2010 11:55:05 AM , Rating: 2
considering how well su-30mki's do against f-15's...i'd say your statement is rather inaccurate.


RE: F35 procurement
By MrBlastman on 3/9/2010 11:56:48 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
especially since no aircraft in service even matches the F-15 yet


What on earth are you talking about? You really are blind and frolicing within the illusion that our fighters (ex F-22) are that superior to the rest of the world.

News flash: The rest of the world is a dangerous place and Russian jets are not wimpy. As I have posted before, Russian missile technology is in some ways superior to ours.

Without going into how the F-22 changes the game (and it does change the game bigtime), the SU-27 and the Mig-29 are both worthy contenders to the F-15. Sure, they might not exceed the F-15, but their advanced missile technology surely gives it a serious challenge. Put a crack-pilot in one of these aircraft and the F-15 pilot will have their hands full.

The F-22 is neccesary and needed. The F-15 entered into service in 1976 and since then several variants have been introduced. Also, recently F-15's have been falling out of the sky due to the aging longerons (the area where the wing joins the fuselage) cracking and breaking off mid-flight. THe F-15's are aging and need a worth successor.

We can not keep flying these aircraft forever, unlike the DC-9. Fighter jets pummel their airframes on a daily basis and over time, the structure begins to weaken. What costs more to maintain? Dying pilots (train new ones) and buying more older aircraft to replace existing ones or developing next-generation technology that our adversaries are already beginning to research.

The F-22 was and is needed. We need more of them actually.

The scheduled 15-year retirement date of the F-22 is a joke though. If we are going to spend as much money as we have on a fighter like this, I can guarantee you that it will be flying for far longer than 15 years.


RE: F35 procurement
By porkpie on 3/9/2010 12:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
"The scheduled 15-year retirement date of the F-22 is a joke though."

Saying the Air Force 'might' begin retiring some individual F-22s in 2025 is not the same as saying they're going to retire the entire program.


RE: F35 procurement
By MrBlastman on 3/9/2010 12:45:44 PM , Rating: 3
Correct.

More than likely they will begin retiring the "A" series, or retrofit those planes with upgrades etc. to bring them on par with the "B", "C" etc. series. that follow suit.

That is the natural progression of airframes in the service. They build them light and empty and over time the unused space is filled with new electronics and added weight, thus leading to engine retrofits and more.


RE: F35 procurement
By afkrotch on 3/9/2010 6:32:48 PM , Rating: 1
It's called the Eurofighter. Spanks our F-15. If both jets have good pilots, I'd expect a single Eurofighter to be able to take out 4 F-15s. Oh wait...I don't have to expect. It happened.

http://www.defencetalk.com/eurofighter-typhoon-top...


RE: F35 procurement
By Noya on 3/10/2010 2:51:48 AM , Rating: 2
Com'on, get real.

I'll be the first to say that F-15's are old (30+ years) and outdated (turning performance) compared to the fresh Typhoon, but all these "exercises" are completely setup as to where the engagement starts and what sensors can/can't be used, which is key to who the victor will be.

Oh yeah, they're dogfights. Not BVR like in the real world. A fresh F-15K or whatever the newest model is with all the newest sensors it can accommodate (RWR, AESA v3, IRST, AIM-120d, etc) is still a good combat aircraft and unless the Typhoon finally has an upgraded radar, the Eagle will still win BVR engagements.


RE: F35 procurement
By lucyfek on 3/9/2010 10:04:20 PM , Rating: 1
don't blame democrats, it's republicans way to call for spending/tax cuts. i guess that should apply to all expenditures (unless you'd like to cover my share of taxes, go for it)


Airforce requirments
By robpet on 3/9/2010 8:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
Heck, with all the problems we are having why don't we just scrap both NASA and our aircraft programs. We can do both programs cheaper by just buying the Russian planes and use their space launch vehicles. After all, they tell me this is a world economy, so let it be.

P.S. I forgot. Maybe we should let China in on this too! After all, they got everything else.




RE: Airforce requirments
By Flunk on 3/9/2010 8:58:40 AM , Rating: 3
Why not, everything else comes from China anyway.


RE: Airforce requirments
By Amiga500 on 3/9/2010 11:05:49 AM , Rating: 3
American components... Russian Components... All made in Taiwan!


RE: Airforce requirments
By Black69ta on 3/10/2010 1:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
love that Character


F22 retired in 2025?
By Moohbear on 3/9/2010 7:45:39 AM , Rating: 1
If the USAF is really planning to retire the F22 in 15 years, shouldn't there be a replacement program underway? Or are they going to rely on F35s and UAVs only?




RE: F22 retired in 2025?
By ralith on 3/9/2010 8:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
I know you'd think they'd have a service life longer than 20 years, but it was in developement so long maybe they figure it's long in the tooth from that.


By inperfectdarkness on 3/9/2010 12:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
airframe lifespan. you're talking about something that can pull 9g's and is expected to have ~20,000 hours of lifetime operation.

jets wear out. just because you spend xxx amount on one doesn't mean it's going to last for eternity.


RE: F22 retired in 2025?
By Amiga500 on 3/9/2010 9:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or are they going to rely on F35s and UAVs only?


DEWs.


RE: F22 retired in 2025?
By ekv on 3/10/2010 3:12:18 AM , Rating: 2
In case anybody else was wondering ...

Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).

http://wiki.increa.com/tiki-index.php?page=Directe...

Good idea to spend research dollars here. I'd even like to see some purchases made. Nothing outlandish, but enough to give everybody something to think about -- in particular the Airborne Laser. $10B here would create/keep more jobs than, say, the War On Obesity. Especially hi-tech jobs.

However, "Air Force Chief of Staff Says 'No' to Boeing Airborne Laser"

http://www.dailytech.com/Air+Force+Chief+of+Staff+...

So methinks DEWs are in reality a ways out.


Let them ...
By Shark Tek on 3/9/2010 7:56:09 AM , Rating: 1
Outline they spending plan.

This will only means a better chance for me to get selected next week in the US AF Officer Selection Board as a Computer Engineer.

Niceeeee !!!!




RE: Let them ...
By Shark Tek on 3/9/2010 7:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
Crap, I press the post button without check syntax.


RE: Let them ...
By rtrski on 3/9/2010 9:41:53 AM , Rating: 5
Twice.


No mention...
By Amiga500 on 3/9/2010 9:21:07 AM , Rating: 2
That Northrop have withdrawn from the KC-X contest?

I think my opinion on KC-X is quite well known on here by now, and doesn't need repeated. But anywayz, the decision is made and the USAF will be getting KC-767s.




RE: No mention...
By Smartless on 3/9/2010 1:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
I thought they were getting dreamliners.


RE: No mention...
By afkrotch on 3/9/2010 6:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was just some dreamliner internal features, not the actual dreamliner.


RE: No mention...
By ekv on 3/10/2010 3:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
767 airframe, 787 "digital flight deck". 787 production line is going to be very busy for the foreseeable future. Using 767 airframe is therefore an investment in keeping those production jobs (for the 767). The current KC-X RFP looks more and more like a political compromise. Not the greatest aircraft, but the package Boeing plans to put together ought to be sufficient.

Not sure about the engines. Those may be upgraded, since one of Boeing's selling points is "25% less fuel consumption" on average over the current fleet, or something like that.


Cost? Wrong direction...
By RabidDog on 3/9/2010 8:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
I love to see the latest and greatest technological achievements, especially in aircraft. But how can these aircraft be justified for conflicts that we can foresee engaging?
UAV and UAV development is probably the best use of resources in the next 10-15 years. Even the USAF agree to this. It seems that the F-35 program is a pork project.




RE: Cost? Wrong direction...
By HercDriver on 3/9/2010 9:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
how can these aircraft be justified for conflicts that we can foresee engaging
Do you have some sort of crystal ball that predicts future human conflicts? Do you have some kind of ESP or other ability to "forsee" what kind of conflicts we might be engaged in? So your "plan" is to not build the "pork" F-35 at all, huh? Well...what happens in 10 years when all of our F-15s and F-16s start reaching the end of their airframe service life? Oh, that's right...you say we should use UAVs, because that is the "best use of resources" and
quote:
Even the USAF agree to this
Really? The USAF agrees that UAVs are the best use of resources and that we don't need the F-35? I'm sorry, if the USAF agrees, then why are they pushing to buy the F-35? Especially since they can't be "justified for conflicts we can forsee engaging". I'm sure glad you have no say in our nation's defense. I really shouldn't even be bothering to reply to your post, but it's too late. I'll just avoid any further facts to cloud your judgement, unless you are dumb enough to want to "puff out your chest" and reply to my post with some sort of expletive-laced ranting and derogatory terms about my "supposed knowledge". Maybe someone else who actually understands defense policy will chime in, as well.


RE: Cost? Wrong direction...
By mellomonk on 3/9/2010 5:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think RabidDog is alluding to a shift in many analysts thoughts, including those within the Pentagon itself. The UAV & UCAV programs are really beginning to show significant capability and flexibility. There is a good deal of 'bang for the buck' here. We can develop and field several generations of these aircraft for less cost and far faster then the current manned platforms. It is clear that a good deal of innovation and creative thinking is going toward these programs in comparison to the decades to develop and deliver manned programs.

Nobody is calling for a scrapping of the F-35. But a serious rethink of the numbers and intended missions could be in order. That appears to what is happening on a Executive branch level as well as within the Air Force itself. As it stands now, with the slow development and build out of the next gen, the current jets are going to flying well into the future. And with weapons and avionics upgrades will continue to be extremely capable in comparison to their likely foes.

The reality is that the future is harder then ever to predict and we need to be ready no mater which way future conflicts go. Putting so many resources into any single solution does not seem wise considering the ever changing needs and future financial constraints.


By Rage2565 on 3/10/2010 11:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
we don't need f-35's and we don't need any more f-22's we need a new long range bomber, when is the last time we had any dogfights in both wars we are fighting?




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki