F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: How many F-35A should USAF buy? - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10115-sid-053486a5bc7b03543a040db444e0bead.html
Printed on: 06 October 2008

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

How many F-35A should USAF buy?



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
geogen
PostPosted: Mar 16, 2008 - 10:12 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Posts: 421

Status: Offline
I think the initial USAF goal was 2,200+ a/c? Given declining future budgets and extended USAF interest in continued F-22 allocation and real life equations, alternatives, etc, what in your opinion should be the ultimate mix of next gen purchases, and maybe including alternatives e.g., UCAVs, say by 2020?

I'd say: roughly 275 F-22, 400 F-35A, 250 new modernized F-15E or F-16 and more options utilizing UCAV tech in deterrence mix to outfit wings.

Ko
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Oct 06, 2008 - 9:17 PM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor






This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
   
 
That_Engine_Guy
PostPosted: Mar 16, 2008 - 02:27 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Dec 14, 2005
Posts: 722

Status: Offline
geogen wrote:
250 new modernized F-15E or F-16


Rest assured they WON'T be buying any more "legacy" fighters. Crying or Very sad

If congress or the public believe an F-15 or F-16 can do the same job, they won't pay for F-22 and F-35s.

Whatever the final mix will be, only existing (old) F-16s will ever see service along side the F-35.

My "hope for" is 1000 F-35 to take th eplace of the 1600+ F-16s. I'm also hoping F-22 numbers come closer to 400 in the end. Two Cents

Lets not forget the rest of the world has NOT stopped buying new fighter/aircraft technology...

Quote:
After a period of limited programs designed to develop indigenous aircraft, the PLAAF has increased its acquisition of both domestic and Russian aircraft. The procurement of advanced strike, refueling, and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft represents the most visible component of China’s air force modernization. Specifically, it has acquired advanced multirole combat aircraft, including the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30, Chinese J-8 and J-10 fighters, Ilyushin transports, and indigenously produced AWACS platforms. These aircraft provide China with tactical air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, but the lack of a long-range bomber prevents it from projecting airpower beyond the Pacific. - Erik Lin-Greenberg.


Quote:
The thousands of J–6 fighters that once made up the fighter fleet have been retired: about 1,000 older J–7 and J–8 fighters remain in service, including 32 Russian-built Su-27UBK multirole fighters and 116 Chinese-assembled Su-27 variants; 73 Russian Su-33MKK fighters; and 62 of the new, indigenously produced J–10 multirole fighters. China is also developing
and purchasing force multipliers, including advanced transport aircraft, tankers, and airborne early warning aircraft. - P h i l l i p C . Sa u n d e r s and E r i k R . Q u a m
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
dwightlooi
PostPosted: Mar 17, 2008 - 01:35 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Posts: 958

Status: Offline
My guess is that instead of the current plan to buy a total of 1763 F-35As and 185 Raptors (yes, they funded two more), it'll end up something like 1300 F-35As and about 300 F-22As. This will see F-22A lines open until 2014 (at 20 aircrafts per year) when the F-35A reaches full rate production of about 120~150 aircrafts per year (including exported builds). The USAF wants 380 Raptors, but it is unlikely that they'll get them.

There won't be anny USAF F-16 or F-15 buys. Zero. They have made that crystal clear. What will happen is that some of the Eagles and sixteens will receive some airframe life extension refits. Most notably, all surviving F-15s are currently slated to get either the APG-63(v)3 or (v)4 AESA radars.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Viperalltheway
PostPosted: Mar 17, 2008 - 04:41 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Posts: 451

I doubt that they will buy a significant number of F-22s while the F-35 are in LRIP, because even if fewer F-35s are built in LRIP, they would still cost a lot. The first F-35s are likely to cost about as much as F-22s.

Imo the AF will get around 200 F-22s. Even if they would love to have more F-22s, their priority is to produce F-35s as quickly as possible and in the largest possible numbers to replace the F-16s and F-15s.

Also I doubt that more than 1000-1200 F-35s will be built because UCAVs will be seen as a viable alternative to manned aircraft relatively soon - and also because the unit cost will be higher than expected, which will reduce yearly production.

It's a catch-22. If the air force keeps more F-15s and F-16s, it costs more money to upgrade them and operate them - from what I read F-15Cs already cost 3 times as much to operate than 10 years ago -, which leaves less money to buy new F-35s, which in turn increases unit cost.

The situation is somewhat critical.. tough choices will have to be made.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
elp
PostPosted: Mar 17, 2008 - 06:10 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2847

What one has to consider when looking at quantity of F-35s for USAF, is that a couple years ago when costs climbed on the program, USAF cut their annual production slots to 48. Also they extended their delivery schedule out to 2035-38. So when Full Rate Production starts in 2014(assuming no more delays). 26 years of full rate production times 48 is 1248. Then add to that what ever the number of LRIP jets are funded.

As for funding. Usually government audit people only look 20 years ahead. So by the year 2028, USAF should have 720 aircraft from the Full Rate Production, plus whatever was funded in LRIP.

It gets a bit more complex than that. Here the government isn't the most dependable on funding things. Whim rather than long range plan.

Then too we are going to seriously run low on F-16s in the next decade. Do a head count by Block type and F-16 experts on this forum should worry. The F-16 retirement schedule doesn't look good.

Any number of other things in government and USAF leadership could go screwy.... "Look, we are doing the mission with 500 less fighters than we had 10 years ago... etc etc " ... and it only takes a few inspired PowerPoint warriors looking for their next promotion to goof things up. We are lead to believe that the JSF is 4 times better in ( __________ ) fill in the blank .... of what it replaces.... more targets hit per day and any number of other things. You might even ( well there may be no choice) see a lot less F-35s on an AEF if they are so much more effective as claimed or... hoped. Certainly on those AEFs facing an enemy that doesn't fly.

There are so many uncertain things now with USAF funding and airframe replacement ( of all types ) as to be scary. The USAF IS getting smaller for any number of reasons.

If you can predict what a wacked congressional budget meeting will hand out to the USAF in 2015, 2020, 2025, etc. then you have some serious crystal ball. If the program was to take an adverse cost climb that scared Congress ( a la F-22 ) yet even less jets than I mentioned above.

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
FlightDreamz
PostPosted: Mar 17, 2008 - 11:11 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Aug 18, 2007
Posts: 90

Status: Offline
I'd like to see 400 to 450 F-22 Raptors. The only viable reason to lesson that I see is if Lockheed Martin comes out with the FB-22 see this link http://www.air-attack.com/page/26/FB-22 ... omber.html
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
LMAggie
PostPosted: Mar 17, 2008 - 11:49 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 287

Status: Offline
FlightDreamz wrote:
I'd like to see 400 to 450 F-22 Raptors. The only viable reason to lesson that I see is if Lockheed Martin comes out with the FB-22 see this link http://www.air-attack.com/page/26/FB-22 ... omber.html


Niether one will happen.

_________________
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Ozzy_Blizzard
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2008 - 01:02 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 80

Status: Offline
LMAggie wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:
I'd like to see 400 to 450 F-22 Raptors. The only viable reason to lesson that I see is if Lockheed Martin comes out with the FB-22 see this link http://www.air-attack.com/page/26/FB-22 ... omber.html


Niether one will happen.


unless the "next gen" bomber is based on an F-22, then you just might see that many F-22 derivatives.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
LMAggie
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2008 - 02:13 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 287

Status: Offline
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:
LMAggie wrote:
FlightDreamz wrote:
I'd like to see 400 to 450 F-22 Raptors. The only viable reason to lesson that I see is if Lockheed Martin comes out with the FB-22 see this link http://www.air-attack.com/page/26/FB-22 ... omber.html


Niether one will happen.


unless the "next gen" bomber is based on an F-22, then you just might see that many F-22 derivatives.


Well, I thought the FB-22 was written off. But who knows what the PhantomSkunkWorks has up their sleeve.

_________________
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Corsair1963
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2008 - 04:45 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 670

Status: Offline
dwightlooi wrote:
My guess is that instead of the current plan to buy a total of 1763 F-35As and 185 Raptors (yes, they funded two more), it'll end up something like 1300 F-35As and about 300 F-22As. This will see F-22A lines open until 2014 (at 20 aircrafts per year) when the F-35A reaches full rate production of about 120~150 aircrafts per year (including exported builds). The USAF wants 380 Raptors, but it is unlikely that they'll get them.

There won't be anny USAF F-16 or F-15 buys. Zero. They have made that crystal clear. What will happen is that some of the Eagles and sixteens will receive some airframe life extension refits. Most notably, all surviving F-15s are currently slated to get either the APG-63(v)3 or (v)4 AESA radars.



Personally, I doubt the F-22 buy will increase to the 300 mark! As the US Economy is getting worse by the day. Crying or Very sad If, anything I think we will see a big push for early orders of the F-35. As the larger the yearly production run is the cheaper it will get! Which, inturn make it more affordable and exportable............ Wink
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
shadowruse
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2008 - 04:25 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 84

Status: Offline
I frankly in future war don't see a need for long range bombers. As most bombing is done with more precision, why use an aircraft that unloads lotsa bombs. Carpet bombing of any type is not needed anymore. This could free up money for more Raptors or Lightnings. If they really wanted to be funny, although I know its not happening, crank up the Viper and Eagle lines into production again and upgrade them. They both still hold their own and cost tons less allowing more time to hold off on more F-22s or F-35s.

_________________
Sie Williams
F-16 CC
Shaw 91-94
Osan 94-95
Nellis 95-97
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
PhillyGuy
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2008 - 04:50 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 194

Status: Offline
Besides the many other wrong presumptions in this post what will you do when your fighters don't have the legs to operate from second and third tier bases and get to the fight? Bombers offer an opportunity to put a significant amount of steel on target from anywhere no matter what. If China does take out primary US bases in Okinawa, mainland Japan and South Korea you can rest assured bomber from DG, Guam the CONUS and other regional bases will able to immediately respond.

_________________
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
shadowruse
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2008 - 05:08 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 84

Status: Offline
I would assume fighters could/would do the same because I don't think our response time would be that slow that certain missiles and naval fighters wouldn't be there asap, not to mention immediate deployment of fighters from the nearest bases using air refueling support. Again I see no to little need for bombers in future conflicts. Also a significant amount of steel isn't needed anymore when a single precision based bomb does the trick.

_________________
Sie Williams
F-16 CC
Shaw 91-94
Osan 94-95
Nellis 95-97
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
USMilFan
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2008 - 07:26 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Oct 17, 2006
Posts: 7

Status: Offline
Greetings, shadowruse,

I believe that, though less ordinance will be needed, there will still be a need for long range bombers capable of delivering large payloads simply because it is more efficient for fewer aircraft to deliver ordinance than for larger numbers of aircraft to execute the mission.

I doubt that the USAF will resume purchasing either F-15’s or F-16’s in the future because, while they may be less expensive to build than F-22’s or possibly even F-35’s, the newer models are less expensive to maintain & operate. Since those savings are recurrent over the expected life of the newer models, they probably are expected to offset any greater build expense of the newer models. Furthermore, fewer F-22’s and F-35’s should be needed to achieve the same total combat power achievable by F-15’s & F-16’s. Again, fewer planes in operation is more efficient than more planes.

I suspect that the USAF is pushing for more F-22’s & F-35’s, not simply because they’re newer, but because they’re ultimately more economical than their predecessors. But I admit that this is just pure speculation on my part.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Corsair1963
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2008 - 08:53 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 670

Status: Offline
USMilFan wrote:
Greetings, shadowruse,

I believe that, though less ordinance will be needed, there will still be a need for long range bombers capable of delivering large payloads simply because it is more efficient for fewer aircraft to deliver ordinance than for larger numbers of aircraft to execute the mission.

I doubt that the USAF will resume purchasing either F-15’s or F-16’s in the future because, while they may be less expensive to build than F-22’s or possibly even F-35’s, the newer models are less expensive to maintain & operate. Since those savings are recurrent over the expected life of the newer models, they probably are expected to offset any greater build expense of the newer models. Furthermore, fewer F-22’s and F-35’s should be needed to achieve the same total combat power achievable by F-15’s & F-16’s. Again, fewer planes in operation is more efficient than more planes.

I suspect that the USAF is pushing for more F-22’s & F-35’s, not simply because they’re newer, but because they’re ultimately more economical than their predecessors. But I admit that this is just pure speculation on my part.



I think you hit the nail on the head with that point! Which, is very much the reason the USN retired the Tomcat. The expense to maintain and operate the venerable F-14 was just getting more and more expensive........the same could be said for other platforms like Warships for example. Clearly, beside the out the door price. You have to look at the total cost of ownership! Shocked
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel