Forum: General F-35 Forum

This is a question I posed this evening on another thread. One that has kind of run its course. I've decided to make this question into a poll and new thread.

Ground rules:

1. Let me start by saying, I have no allegiance to either option. I'm undecided, though leaning one way at the outset. So don't kill the author. I've said pointed things in recent threads just to liven it up a bit. These things are no fun and near useless if everyone agrees, holds hands, and sings kum-bay-yah. I'll do my best to stay neutral this time. Or at least temper the sarcasm.

2. Just go with the cost assumptions. They are.....assumptions. I do not know what the F-35s costs are going to be if the program gets cut. Obviously the cost per plane will go up. Like it or not, that is a distinct possibility in this budget environment. I don't like it either guys, but I'm a realist. Just go with the cost assumptions and Gen 6 development timelines as presented and answer a. or b. based on what would be best for the USAF.

3. This question is for the USAF buy only. It assumes a healthy F-35 purchase for the Department of the Navy. It also assumes the same UAV purchases, F-22s remaining at 187, F-15Es through 2035, the current phases-out plans for the F-15 C and F-16s Blk 50 and below, and continued US tanker and AWACS superiority.

Here we go:
Option a. The USAF buys 850 F-35s to be in service starting in 2017 through the 2059. Development of the next generation strike fighter starts in the late 2030s and with an initial operating capability in 2052.

Option b. Assuming the SAME total procurement costs and start date as Option a (2017), the USAF buys 350 F-35s, 800 Blk 60 F-16s, and 150 EF-15s (an Growler EW equivalent on an F-15 airframe). With option b. development of the next generation strike fighter starts in the late 2020s and with an initial operating capability by 2042.

Which is better for the Air Force and defense of the country and why?

F-16.net Sponsor

Complete F-35 with whatever numbers can be afforded.

Develop tactics, improve the coatings electronics etc. with upgrades.

Learn what is wrong with it as there were things wrong with the previous generations.

Research a 6th gen and procure if necessary.

Dump 4th gens to make the budget cuts needed. Rely upon allies who share our values to provide numbers. We provide the C4ISR and silver bullets.

That's what we can afford and that's what's going to happen.

I agree with your thinking shingen. It makes sense on every level with one exception. I certainly don't agree with everything Pierre Sprey spouts, but one thing he said that keeps coming back to me is that the number one variable in A2A combat and most critical current US advantage is the sheer number of well trained, combat experienced pilots we have. This trumps technology. If Option b. keeps more active pilots and expertly trained ones in the fleet, that is a powerful argument in favor of Option b. That said, it also make Option b. more expensive from a personnel perspective. Again, I agree with everything else you just wrote and you're probably right. I just hate to see the fleet reduced significantly (as was the case with the F-15 to the F-22) and the associated loss of human talent.

How many planes can be deployed to an area at once? How many can be in the air at once? It's not WW2 anymore. We're looking at small numbers in expeditionary wars.

We'll probably end up with less than 1000 F-35's. That will have to do for whatever we're going to use them for.

shingen wrote:

We'll probably end up with less than 1000 F-35's. That will have to do for whatever we're going to use them for.

I agree we do mostly small scale expeditionary wars now and there are LOTS of reasons for that. The primary reason being that nuclear weapons make total war unwinnable, the secondary reason being that the USA decided on the 1950's they'd rather oppose early at the regional level than wait till things become multi-nation warfare extravaganzas, a la WWI & II.

That said, we don't buy lots of planes because we need to use them all at once all in the same place. We buy them so we can maintain significant combat deterrent in many places simultaneously.

As far as the mixed buy versus a primarily F-35 AF, I think, financially, it will be far more cost effective over the long haul to procure and maintain a primarily F-35 AF. All the costs go down: A/C unit cost, spares, training, software upgrades, hardware upgrades, maintenance, basing and logistics.

Technologically, I suspect the F-35 outclasses all the alternatives as well. Paired with the F-22 for air superiority when required, delivering precision standoff weapons, heavily outfitted with sensors and comms, stealthy, long legs, fast - that's a hard combination to beat. I think they'll be very effective.

(For the record, I still think the services should have been given their own A/C programs, with an engine and avionics being common. I think we'd have three very high quality planes flying, each better tailored for their mission. We'd also have a healthier and more competitive aerospace industry.)

The Beagles are supposed to go through at least 2040, but that's just a nitpick.

If expeditionary warfare is what we'd anticipate, then why not have PACAF, USAFE, and some of the better ANG units flying F-35s, while everyone else flies Super Vipers? Those are all we'd need for any low-mid-intensity conflict, and the 'hi' (Raptors, F-35s, F/A-XXs, whatever crazy Eagle we wind up with) will be sufficient to handle your particularly well-funded ragheads, Kim Jongs, and Eurocommies.

redbird87 wrote:

2. Just go with the cost assumptions. They are.....assumptions. I do not know what the F-35s costs are going to be if the program gets cut. Obviously the cost per plane will go up. Like it or not, that is a distinct possibility in this budget environment. I don't like it either guys, but I'm a realist. Just go with the cost assumptions and Gen 6 development timelines as presented and answer a. or b. based on what would be best for the USAF.

I disagree that cuts are imminent. Its a possibility, but less than what people are suggesting. There are four major factors. I've watched and researched alot of procurement programs, in different budgetary environments. This is a program that possesses one of the strongest interagency support I've seen. The service chiefs are basically on the same page concerning its vital necessity. You have an massive rustout crisis afflicting all air arms: basically they need to replace systems from the Carter-Reagan buildup. There is little possibility that the other airframes can even meet that need. The F-16 and F-15 lines would need to be greatly expanded, incurring significant startup costs and a lag in learning. They would also require new avionics upgrades, further increasing costs. Given the projected cost of the F-35, its doubtful that they would even be cheaper in the long run.

You have the Secdef stating this is the most important program currently ongoing today. All of the moves and statements have prioritized the program over all others. So the bureaucratic support is there. Congressionally the program has pretty strong support, you see relatively mild criticism coming from people like McCain and Patty Murray for their own partisan purposes... but its nowhere near what you saw for other programs, like the KC-XX program. I'd also suggest that they will attempt to shield DoD from sequestration cuts given the widespread belief that National security should be above the partisan fray. In some way the F-35's program structure actually facilitates that. From now until 2016 the program's cost will be capped as part of the reprogram, in order to extend the development program and reduce concurrency costs. ITs been streamlined so that additional cuts will have serious effects on the delivery schedule, (and by extension the warfighter's capability.)

Next the international partners are counting on the program. Curtailing the F-35 program would inflict far greater damage on the American industrial base. Right now there is a near monopoly for US aerospace industry in the fighter market. Even a small delay or cutback would do untold damage to foreign respect for that industry. I think all parties are mindful of that and do not want to go down that path.

Finally, one of the realities of the F-35 program is that its per-unit costs are coming near to what is expected.Even with LRIP cuts, the cost of an individual F-35 has dropped significantly since the first unit.

Lot 1 Flyaway: $280 million
Lot 2 Flyaway: $217 million
Lot 3 Flyaway $209 million
Lot 4 Flyaway $117 million

Its actually fairly close to the projected costs based on an learning curve, but approximately 10% above projected cost lot by lot. Its apparent that a significant proportion of this variance is due to continuing design changes and manufacturing inefficiencies involved with establishing an international manufacturing base. Basically its shifted the curve to the right, but not significantly so. In the years forward the costs will come down significantly as sub-contractors own manufacturing efforts are strengthened (particularly when their contracts will become fixed costs) and fewer design changes emerge as the program matures. Its not perfect, but its getting there. So there is less pressure to cut a "non-performing" program as lets say what occurred with the F-111 or the national reconnaissance satellite.

For all these reasons you have a political and military community basically united in the view they want this fighter and will keep it going. The alternatives are not appealing or even that much cheaper. Failure of this program will wreak untold damage to US security and preeminence in so many different ways.

Screenshot_2012-06-22-18-30-53.png

Going with an all-VLO force ensures the greatest chance for mission success and survivability of the strike package. Introducing legacy jets into the equation increases complexity in mission planning and execution as these require more supporting assets to schedule and coordinate. Mixing legacy and 5Gen platforms offers some benefit but not to the extent of what an all-VLO force is capable of. The legacy jets can't share data as seamlessly as the F-35 and will be handicapped in not being able to share in the Common Operating Picture as the new jets. The legacy may actually compromise thestealth advantage of the F-35s, forcing them to communicate out in the open via Link-16 instead of the stealthy MADL.

We have some good arguments on the board for staying with the F-35 to the hilt. Very convincing. However, if it's going to happen, substantial cuts are going to have to be made elsewhere in the USAF budget. That's just a reality. I don't like it anymore than you do. So where should these cut come from?

I think that space systems are immune, or should be.
UAVs are going to get funded aggressively as well.
The tanker program has got to move forward too.

So that leave us with possible major cuts / elimination of?

The B-1 force
The B-52 force
Earlier retirement of the F-16, F-15, and A-10, resulting in a much smaller manned USAF TACAIR footprint
The C-5 fleet
More base closures
Do we sacrifice the next gen bomber in favor of Stealth Fighters and UAVs?
What else?

What combination of the above cuts make the most sense to help pay for a more robust F-35 investment?

According to the top brass, the 3 top priorities are the F-35, the Airborne Tanker and the LRS Bomber.

A few issues on the budget:

3% seems to be a good figure for % of GDP going to defense. That's what we had in the '90's IIRC. Also, as the US economy declines as a share of overall world GDP our ability to be everywhere at once will decline by the sheer laws of economics.

Redbird don't think you realize how relatively small the F-35 lifetime expense really is for the US government. You hear the number and you freak out but it is a smallish percentage of the military budget overall and a very small percentage of the Federal budget in that period. I think anyone projecting cuts down to 850 is out to lunch personally but I suppose that could be argued. That would be diplomatically difficult to do as it would impact partner nations badly and those are people the US wants to keep on board and supported. Doing things with the F-35 program moves the needle a bit for the Pentagon but won't even register as a fart in a hurricane when it comes to the Federal budget over that time period. You hear the $1.5 trillion cost over 50 years but people tend to forget that at its present pace the Federal government would collect revenue of $115 trillion based on today's tax receipts (which will rise a lot over time). Relative to the revenue the nation will collect this would be like a normal family of 4 trying to fix their budget by not going out to McDonalds to eat twice a month.

I think trying to save money buying F-16's and F-15's is almost criminally stupid. An all-up F-16 would cost you something like $35-40 million so vs the incremental cost of the F-35 you are saving about $30-35 million a pop at best (and that is not including the jammers and HARM's and other things you need in bigger numbers for this force). A modern F-15E would set you back more than the USAF will pay for its F-35's in incremental cost. Integrating jamming capability into it would be another development program you would have to fund.

The Pentagon has already started making the major cuts to support the Air Force and Navy. It is going to come in the form of a much smaller army as we pull out of Afghanistan.

I forgot to comment on the 6th generation issue. Personally I would like to see an evolved 5th Generation replacement for the F-22 and F-18E/F's. I have no interest in trying to move further ahead in the next 20 years as I think others will still be struggling to have proper 5th generation aircraft. I basically would like to see a two engined F-35. Effectively an F-22 with the F-35's skin's and evolved sensors along with a much more robust strike capability than the F-22 has. Basically it would be a fairly low risk program designed to capitalize on what we have learned from the F-35. I see no reason to look to generation 6 until others are able to put generation 5 things into production in numbers.

Buy all the F-35s we have a need for. Scrap other things (throughout the Federal government, not just other Pentagon programs) and raise taxes until we can afford them all. Buying F-35s is probably the single most important thing the government can do at present.

I'll take a penetrating persistent bomber that can deploy from CONUS over anything else.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Pure F-35 through 2052, or F35 / legacy mix and quicker Gen6