Forum: F-35 Lightning II

spazsinbad wrote:

Corsair, I'm not trying to pick a fight either but.... If the 'Pentagon' then "US Navy" (as reported) ask for more time to decide - does that not imply that someone in the mix (just who I guess we earthlings will never know) may want some more Super Hornets? Shirley. And don't call me Shirley. Smile

See I ain't pickin' a fight just making my own point. The US Mil procurement system is so strange as to be unworkable from my distant viewpoint. Yet somehow it gets done. I'm hoping for a good JSF outcome as always.

Well, the USN is in a tight spot. As it could buy more Super Hornets at a reasonable price today. Which, would go a long ways in reducing the current fighter gap. Yet, it does not want to do so if it means fewer F-35's in the future.

Personally, I support the USN Plan of not purchasing many more Super Hornets (Growlers another matter) and just waiting for the F-35C. As the fighter gap is only around 100 aircraft. Plus, many seem to forget that only about half of our Carriers are deployed at any one time. So, we will have more then enough to fill there decks.

Regardless, as I said earlier Super Hornet Production has more to do with jobs and keeping the line open until it wins one of the big export contracts. (i.e. MMRCA or F/X-2)

F-16.net Sponsor

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

If the F-35 is delayed by 2 years, maybe the AF could buy something like 40 Growlers. Legacy aircraft are here to stay for 15+ years, the growlers would help them survive.

Maybe even if the X-47 and growlers can talk to each other and can work in synergy get a few X-47s.

Viperalltheway wrote:

If the F-35 is delayed by 2 years, maybe the AF could buy something like 40 Growlers. Legacy aircraft are here to stay for 15+ years, the growlers would help them survive.

Maybe even if the X-47 and growlers can talk to each other and can work in synergy get a few X-47s.

Well, I don't see the USAF purchasing Growlers. Yet, its possible the USMC could at some point. Then USAF crews could operate with both USN and USMC Units. Its worth noting that USMC EW Units are mainly landbased unlike there USN Counterparts,

Corsair1963 wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

Corsair, I'm not trying to pick a fight either but.... If the 'Pentagon' then "US Navy" (as reported) ask for more time to decide - does that not imply that someone in the mix (just who I guess we earthlings will never know) may want some more Super Hornets? Shirley. And don't call me Shirley. Smile

See I ain't pickin' a fight just making my own point. The US Mil procurement system is so strange as to be unworkable from my distant viewpoint. Yet somehow it gets done. I'm hoping for a good JSF outcome as always.

Well, the USN is in a tight spot. As it could buy more Super Hornets at a reasonable price today. Which, would go a long ways in reducing the current fighter gap. Yet, it does not want to do so if it means fewer F-35's in the future.

Personally, I support the USN Plan of not purchasing many more Super Hornets (Growlers another matter) and just waiting for the F-35C. As the fighter gap is only around 100 aircraft. Plus, many seem to forget that only about half of our Carriers are deployed at any one time. So, we will have more then enough to fill there decks.

Regardless, as I said earlier Super Hornet Production has more to do with jobs and keeping the line open until it wins one of the big export contracts. (i.e. MMRCA or F/X-2)

More than enough to fill the decks, but not so much for training.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Corsair1963 wrote:

Viperalltheway wrote:

If the F-35 is delayed by 2 years, maybe the AF could buy something like 40 Growlers. Legacy aircraft are here to stay for 15+ years, the growlers would help them survive.

Maybe even if the X-47 and growlers can talk to each other and can work in synergy get a few X-47s.

Well, I don't see the USAF purchasing Growlers. Yet, its possible the USMC could at some point. Then USAF crews could operate with both USN and USMC Units. Its worth noting that USMC EW Units are mainly landbased unlike there USN Counterparts,

The growlers would be used by joint Air Force/Navy units.

I wouldn't say that for basic F-18E, but the growler has many advantages:
- it can be used on carriers eventually.
- it can be used as a force multiplier for the old aircraft. Its combination of sensors and datalink would significantly upgrade the SA of a strike package.
- the WSO can/will be able to control X-47s and give them a man-in-the-loop capability.
- it can do a/g and even a/a.

The growlers could start replacing the F-16 CJs in the SEAD role, and the CJs could in turn replace the oldest F-16s.

If the AF has its own squadrons, the heavy maintenance would be done with the Navy.

The growler is in full rate production so it has good value now. The first batch of F-35s - block 2 - would be like twice as expensive, without taking into account the cost of the upgrades later and the risks of problems.

Viperalltheway wrote:

Corsair1963 wrote:

Viperalltheway wrote:

If the F-35 is delayed by 2 years, maybe the AF could buy something like 40 Growlers. Legacy aircraft are here to stay for 15+ years, the growlers would help them survive.

Maybe even if the X-47 and growlers can talk to each other and can work in synergy get a few X-47s.

Well, I don't see the USAF purchasing Growlers. Yet, its possible the USMC could at some point. Then USAF crews could operate with both USN and USMC Units. Its worth noting that USMC EW Units are mainly landbased unlike there USN Counterparts,

The growlers would be used by joint Air Force/Navy units.

I wouldn't say that for basic F-18E, but the growler has many advantages:
- it can be used on carriers eventually.
- it can be used as a force multiplier for the old aircraft. Its combination of sensors and datalink would significantly upgrade the SA of a strike package.
- the WSO can/will be able to control X-47s and give them a man-in-the-loop capability.
- it can do a/g and even a/a.

The growlers could start replacing the F-16 CJs in the SEAD role, and the CJs could in turn replace the oldest F-16s.

If the AF has its own squadrons, the heavy maintenance would be done with the Navy.

The growler is in full rate production so it has good value now. The first batch of F-35s - block 2 - would be like twice as expensive, without taking into account the cost of the upgrades later and the risks of problems.

Yet, the catch is the F-35 is several times more capable in any role but Electonic Warefare. Clearly, the US would rather have F-35's to face future threats than Super Hornets any day. Especially, the the PAK-FA and J-XX coming down the road over the next decade or two.

Remember that the F-35 is already wired for the NGJ (Next Generation Jammer) and is scheduled to get an upgrade for "Cooperative EW", whatever that entails.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Remember that the F-35 is already wired for the NGJ (Next Generation Jammer) and is scheduled to get an upgrade for "Cooperative EW", whatever that entails.

Yes, and I believe the USMC is looking for some type of EW Model of the F-35 instead of purchasing Growlers. Which, mite also be of interest to USAF at some point. Again less of a case for more Super Hornets in my opinion.

Corsair - I think you missed VATW's point? I don't think he was arguing to cancel F-35A program and replace it with Super Hornets. I think he was just suggesting that since USAF legacy a/c are going to be operating for another 10-15 years, and in addition, given the delay with F-35 IOC/FOC (among other potential unknown issues), perhaps USAF-operating Growlers could step up and fill in at least a fraction of the gaps, via multiplying to some extent the said existing legacy's effects?

---------------------

VATW - I'm personally in the camp of thought which supports the thinking you proposed as being on the right track. It especially makes sense if USAF is going to go ahead soon and Extend F-16 fleet's operational Life to say 7-8,000 hrs as one of its stop-gap measure. (Enabling them apparently to fly in a peace-time scenario at least, out to the mid-20s) . But on the other hand... staying the course vis-a-vis JSF acquisition program, USAF's Tacair fleet will be so radically reduced by mid-20s (as early as 2020 w/early F-16 retirements), that the requirement for Tanker-X recap program will be slashed accordingly, perhaps to what, 1/2 of current projected Tanker airframes?

If so, that could free up substantial budget to procure this hypothetical force-multiplying Growler capacity. Beyond that, also contemplate 'buddy tanker' capability for USAF F model Supers? Think USAF buddy tankers (being reduced RCS compared to vulnerable tankers from long-range shots) which could deploy from same tactical bases under reduced profile footprint and in fact 'Tank' these N-UCAS/X-47B types as well as 'net' w/ them? Cheers..

LMAggie wrote:

So that we may be graced by your superior intelligence? Get off you high horse oh great one, the aircraft business is a different ballgame. The CEOs of Boeing, Airbus, Northup Grumman, etc would laugh at how naive you are. There's a reaon why mom and pop don't sell advanced aircraft.

Wow, thanks for the enlightenment and the friendly welcome! You're right, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Rolling Eyes

I'll go back to the John Deere forums where I belong.

checksixx wrote:

Chuckie wrote:

Lol, good stuff. So wrong in so many ways.

Lose the condescending attitude and I may have a discussion with you. Otherwise, my points stand.

I thought we were having a discussion. Point / Counterpoint. Thats how its done. Please point out where I'm "So wrong in so many ways". Right now your points stand as wrong as I've pointed out. Anyone here that has actually run a business should be able to second the comments I've made in reference to that.

When you start your "point/counterpoint" with a "no sh*t, Sherlock" statement and then try to pick apart every sentence I wrote, it's insulting and pretty much impossible to then go back through and edit all of your red phrases to make some sort of sense. Basically, your formatting closed the door on any real discussion, whether on purpose or not.

So, where would you like to begin the "point/counterpoint", or are you serious at all about having a serious discussion? I should be pretty easy pickings for someone who knows so more about running a business than I do.

On second thought, let's not do that. I've got better things to do than flail in "hypothetical world" on the internet, like running my own business and leading 4-ships across the target. Good job, you win. I was so wrong about every thing I said.

Laughing

geogen wrote:

Corsair - I think you missed VATW's point? I don't think he was arguing to cancel F-35A program and replace it with Super Hornets. I think he was just suggesting that since USAF legacy a/c are going to be operating for another 10-15 years, and in addition, given the delay with F-35 IOC/FOC (among other potential unknown issues), perhaps USAF-operating Growlers could step up and fill in at least a fraction of the gaps, via multiplying to some extent the said existing legacy's effects?

---------------------

VATW - I'm personally in the camp of thought which supports the thinking you proposed as being on the right track. It especially makes sense if USAF is going to go ahead soon and Extend F-16 fleet's operational Life to say 7-8,000 hrs as one of its stop-gap measure. (Enabling them apparently to fly in a peace-time scenario at least, out to the mid-20s) . But on the other hand... staying the course vis-a-vis JSF acquisition program, USAF's Tacair fleet will be so radically reduced by mid-20s (as early as 2020 w/early F-16 retirements), that the requirement for Tanker-X recap program will be slashed accordingly, perhaps to what, 1/2 of current projected Tanker airframes?

If so, that could free up substantial budget to procure this hypothetical force-multiplying Growler capacity. Beyond that, also contemplate 'buddy tanker' capability for USAF F model Supers? Think USAF buddy tankers (being reduced RCS compared to vulnerable tankers from long-range shots) which could deploy from same tactical bases under reduced profile footprint and in fact 'Tank' these N-UCAS/X-47B types as well as 'net' w/ them? Cheers..

I have no problem with the concept of the USAF purchasing new Growlers. Yet, I don't see the USAF doing so for a number of reasons. Mainly political.... Confused

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

The growler could be equipped with the NGJ later, up to 5 per aircraft I guess.

In a/a it can be used in synergy with the F-22s. Like the F-22s would attack first, destroy the most dangerous targets and do electronic attacks on the others targets before the SHs come in to finish the job.

Concerning UCAVs, I'd like to know if the the X-47 and EA-18Gs are designed to work together, and in particular if the WSO can control them. Maybe it would be possible to design strike packages with like 3 growlers and 12 X-47s for instance.

If the F-35A is delayed by 2 years, that means that about 100 F-35As would be delayed, which is roughly equivalent to 200 SHs. Or a mix of say 130 growlers and 130 X-47s - if the X-47 costs about half as much as the growler-. That would avoid having to do a SLEP of the F-16s.

But I was thinking, if the X-47s can be remotely controlled, maybe is would be a good idea to do a limited SLEP of the latest F-16Ds, add an SABR, CFTs - the F-16s produced after 94 can be equipped with CFTs I believe -, and replace the backseater cockpit with a full glass cockpit and use the WSO to control X-47s.

Later 15-20 years from now when UCAVs can be completely autonomous the hardward and software can be upgraded, no need to buy new ones, and the F-18s can go to the ANG.

Also I believe that the SH can be equipped with the sniper pod. It can have the IRST now, and the uprated engines.

Maybe they would be interested in doing something like that because now they are sure that the F-35A will be produced, and I am pretty sure that they are not really willing to do a SLEP of the F-16s.

IOC for USAF and USN is now 2016. So stated Dr Carter to Senate Armed Services March 11, 2010.

The cost projection is now $95 million to $113 million in current dollars for the average cost of the full program per plane. This is only an estimate and is likely to rise.

As part of the Nunn McCurdy breach report to Congress estimates of projected F-35 operating costs will be presented to Congress shortly. This will be very revealing given Dr Carter testified to wide disparity in estimates.

The Star Telegraph article I posted a link to a couple weeks ago reported that the lower-levet DOTE (or whatever the correct acronym is) staffers were upset when Clarke changed their estimate of a 30 month delay to a more politically palatable 13 months, but LM Aggie was quick to dismiss it as anti-JSF 'science fiction'.

I know that his income depends on the JSF, but I just do not understand why unaffilliated people are defending this abortion with such faithful zeal.

JL

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

USAF IOC F-35A changed to Late CY 2015