The US Department of Defense (DoD) has struck a massive blow at the long-term viability of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, submitting a new five-year spending plan on 5 February that caps the US Air Force's annual production order at 48 through the life of the programme.
I swear they must sit around trying to think of ways to make fighter aircraft MORE expensive.
Sponsor
Posted: Jul 06, 2008 - 2:26 AM
F-16.net Sponsor
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
elp
Posted: Feb 10, 2007 - 11:11 PM
F-16.net Editor
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2808
Location: Australia
Yup. Buy now or pay later. Much more.
_________________ - ELP -
That_Engine_Guy
Posted: Feb 11, 2007 - 12:10 AM
Elite
Joined: Dec 14, 2005
Posts: 624
Status: Offline
Lets not forget changing the design dozens of times after the contract is signed!?
Sure, why buy it in 2007 dollars, when they can defer the cost until inflation makes it more expensive...
Sorta' like the DOD charging the tax-payers intrest and giving it to the OEM so they don't have to pay the whole bill today. Where do I apply for multi-billion DOD contracts?
elp
Posted: Feb 11, 2007 - 04:49 AM
F-16.net Editor
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2808
Location: Australia
Of course 48 a year means after test stuff is taken care of that USAF would be standing up one wing of JSF a year. Standing up new aircraft in a wing takes a lot of effort. Especially given our ever shrinking manpower. Where the Med Group and MSS are basically nothing but a few people and some web pages .... virtual squadrons.
_________________ - ELP -
idesof
Posted: Feb 11, 2007 - 07:45 AM
Elite
Joined: May 29, 2006
Posts: 640
Status: Offline
sferrin wrote:
From Janes:
Quote:
US DoD budget hits Joint Strike Fighter schedule
The US Department of Defense (DoD) has struck a massive blow at the long-term viability of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, submitting a new five-year spending plan on 5 February that caps the US Air Force's annual production order at 48 through the life of the programme.
I swear they must sit around trying to think of ways to make fighter aircraft MORE expensive.
The report is either seriously mistaken or the DoD is delusional. Think about it: at a rate of 48 aircraft per year, you've built only 480 after ten years. The USAF will be purchasing, under current plans, more than 1,700 F-35s. That means it would take the USAF some 35 YEARS to replace all the F-16s and A-10s in current inventory. Very obviously, that will not happen. If the DoD is saying this, it's a purely political move to try to make the yearly cost of the F-35 seem less than it eventually, and inevitably, will be.
sferrin
Posted: Feb 11, 2007 - 08:02 AM
Elite
Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 891
Status: Offline
elp wrote:
Of course 48 a year means after test stuff is taken care of that USAF would be standing up one wing of JSF a year. Standing up new aircraft in a wing takes a lot of effort. Especially given our ever shrinking manpower. Where the Med Group and MSS are basically nothing but a few people and some web pages .... virtual squadrons.
I suppose that's one way to maintain the same number of wings- just make them smaller. I remember when the 388th had 102 F-16s and the typical wing size was 72 aircraft. Give it another 30 years and they'll just call squadrons wings.
elp
Posted: Feb 11, 2007 - 01:13 PM
F-16.net Editor
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2808
Location: Australia
Or use the National Guard model where it can get even smaller. The B-1 Wing when it was here, had 9 B-1s.
The US Department of Defense (DoD) has struck a massive blow at the long-term viability of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, submitting a new five-year spending plan on 5 February that caps the US Air Force's annual production order at 48 through the life of the programme.
I swear they must sit around trying to think of ways to make fighter aircraft MORE expensive.
The report is either seriously mistaken or the DoD is delusional. Think about it: at a rate of 48 aircraft per year, you've built only 480 after ten years. The USAF will be purchasing, under current plans, more than 1,700 F-35s. That means it would take the USAF some 35 YEARS to replace all the F-16s and A-10s in current inventory. Very obviously, that will not happen. If the DoD is saying this, it's a purely political move to try to make the yearly cost of the F-35 seem less than it eventually, and inevitably, will be.
..or someone is not reading it right.
Quote:
submitting a new five-year spending plan
Obviously they do not wish to make that long term commitment in the program as of yet. Something the GAO has warned them on. The flight test program won't be done until 2013+, some people might consider it unwise to annually produce 140+ Beta Versions before that date.
Could someone post a link to this report (or more text) for those of us who aren't Janes subscribers?
_________________ Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
swanee
Posted: Feb 17, 2007 - 08:03 PM
Elite
Joined: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 530
Location: newport news, Va
Status: Offline
elp wrote:
Or use the National Guard model where it can get even smaller. The B-1 Wing when it was here, had 9 B-1s.
With that few aircraft and even fewer pilots how are we going to make combat rotations and deployments at a rate at which people will still volunteer to go into the military.
I can see it now. We have 20 wings, each with 1 squadron of 18 planes, you will do a 1 year deployment every other year.
Eventually downsizing is going to cost us much more in the long term that those in power have even thought about.
_________________ Life is too short for ugly sailboats, fat women and bad beer!
sferrin
Posted: Feb 17, 2007 - 10:59 PM
Elite
Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 891
Status: Offline
davedogman wrote:
idesof wrote:
sferrin wrote:
From Janes:
Quote:
US DoD budget hits Joint Strike Fighter schedule
The US Department of Defense (DoD) has struck a massive blow at the long-term viability of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, submitting a new five-year spending plan on 5 February that caps the US Air Force's annual production order at 48 through the life of the programme.
I swear they must sit around trying to think of ways to make fighter aircraft MORE expensive.
The report is either seriously mistaken or the DoD is delusional. Think about it: at a rate of 48 aircraft per year, you've built only 480 after ten years. The USAF will be purchasing, under current plans, more than 1,700 F-35s. That means it would take the USAF some 35 YEARS to replace all the F-16s and A-10s in current inventory. Very obviously, that will not happen. If the DoD is saying this, it's a purely political move to try to make the yearly cost of the F-35 seem less than it eventually, and inevitably, will be.
..or someone is not reading it right.
Quote:
submitting a new five-year spending plan
Obviously they do not wish to make that long term commitment in the program as of yet. Something the GAO has warned them on. The flight test program won't be done until 2013+, some people might consider it unwise to annually produce 140+ Beta Versions before that date.
Speaking of "not reading it right" you seem to have missed this part: "through the life of the programme"
firefox99
Posted: Feb 18, 2007 - 01:53 AM
Newbie
Joined: Feb 18, 2007
Posts: 8
Status: Offline
sferrin wrote:
davedogman wrote:
idesof wrote:
sferrin wrote:
From Janes:
Quote:
US DoD budget hits Joint Strike Fighter schedule
The US Department of Defense (DoD) has struck a massive blow at the long-term viability of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, submitting a new five-year spending plan on 5 February that caps the US Air Force's annual production order at 48 through the life of the programme.
I swear they must sit around trying to think of ways to make fighter aircraft MORE expensive.
The report is either seriously mistaken or the DoD is delusional. Think about it: at a rate of 48 aircraft per year, you've built only 480 after ten years. The USAF will be purchasing, under current plans, more than 1,700 F-35s. That means it would take the USAF some 35 YEARS to replace all the F-16s and A-10s in current inventory. Very obviously, that will not happen. If the DoD is saying this, it's a purely political move to try to make the yearly cost of the F-35 seem less than it eventually, and inevitably, will be.
..or someone is not reading it right.
Quote:
submitting a new five-year spending plan
Obviously they do not wish to make that long term commitment in the program as of yet. Something the GAO has warned them on. The flight test program won't be done until 2013+, some people might consider it unwise to annually produce 140+ Beta Versions before that date.
Speaking of "not reading it right" you seem to have missed this part: "through the life of the programme"
Told you guys: this program is going to be cut and cut and cut, and the F-22 will cost the same as the F-35 which is going to be a real turkey when it's all said and done. You kids need to learn a little about politics and history and engineering, and ect ect ect
Corsair1963
Posted: Feb 18, 2007 - 08:59 AM
Elite
Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 615
Status: Offline
To make such projections is like predicting the future........
Viperalltheway
Posted: Feb 18, 2007 - 10:35 AM
Veteran
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Posts: 424
In this case, it is not "predicting the future", it's what the USAF says it is going to do. It is INDEED a massive blow at the JSF.
Building 1700 F-35s at this rate would take 35 years. Since fighters are expected to remain in service for 30 years, it means that the last ones would be retired in 2075 or so! UCAVs will have rendered them obsolete 50 years before - minimum..
The fleet of F-16s is going through a SLEP program right now (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123006944), which will extend their lifetime until 2020-2027 or so. That's sufficiently to far away to develop UCAVs. The F-16s should be upgraded even more ( AESA etc.. ), and used in synergy with more F-22s and UCAVs.. The last exercise in Alaska has shown clearly that F-22s can significantly increase the lethality of legacy fighters.. Apparently the F-15s were able to achieve a 30-1 ratio thanks to the help of the F-22s. The same could happen in a/g since the F-22s/UCAVs have very good inherent SEAD capabilities.
firefox99
Posted: Feb 18, 2007 - 02:11 PM
Newbie
Joined: Feb 18, 2007
Posts: 8
Status: Offline
Corsair1963 wrote:
To make such projections is like predicting the future........
Sings, signs, everywhere there's signs.... and aint no one paying attenting.
Got nothing to do with 'predictions'... its got everything to do with LEARNING from HISTORY. Have you all learned nothing from the ATF program? All I hear from the current crop of flyboys is 'this program will be different because...well because its needed.' Whats needed is 2x-3x the F-22 procurment and it aint going to happen.
Youth is wasted on the ignorant. Learn from history. Go back to your text books.
I guaran-god-damn-ty you that before its said and done the F-35 will be cut to less than 40 units per year and its production run will be cut by 1/3 the years currently projected. The Navalized 35 will be cut to about 1/2 current predictions. The Marines is up for grabs at this point.
We might as well pull my coveted F-4's out of Davis, some F-111's too, and maybe some P-80's if they're still around -- re-engine them and call it a day.
Maybe even scavenge the Smithsonian for whatevers flyable there.
In the next 20 years the USAF airframes (combat) will be cut to about ~1/2 current numbers, and a good size number of those airframes are going to be vintage F-15's and F-16's.
I ain't laughing at anyone here.... But you guys must learn from history.
Not only are we cutting the fighter programs, but this will have a drastic effect on the tanker force as well. They've already cut the 'attack of the drones' programs.
Now then, the question is what happens to out partners in crime over the pond and their planned buys?
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
.... virtual squadrons. 
