FY2020 DoD Budget

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post30 Apr 2019, 19:03

My bad, EA was added to the last F-22 update (3.1).

The rest of my points still stand.

Japan is talking about an indigenous stealth fighter primarily due to pride and the desire to bolster it's own indigenous fighter industry. IT's the same reason why they built the F-2.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

castlebravo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 19:10

Unread post30 Apr 2019, 20:13

The real issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-22's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind it's performance in various exercises. We also have all the reports of Hornets, Eurofighters, Rafales, and even T-38s spanking it in BFM. Nobody questions the Eagle's prowess, because its actual combat record carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 new Eagles would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-22's? That picture isn't as clear.</sarcasm>
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post30 Apr 2019, 23:14

marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:So if Congress goes against the F-15EX they will have to provide a viable alternative to the requirements that CAPE used


Just call Daigle to testify as to the impossibility of new builds being cheaper than the SLEP.
A simple: "what happened to the F-15 C/D Wing replacement funds that had the benefit of CAPE's CY2017 analysis?"
would answer a lot of questions.


I'm sure my suggestion scared him off :)

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2019/04/30/daigle-to-exit-as-cape-head-leaving-another-pentagon-vacancy/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5820
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 May 2019, 00:06

Trump administration reverses course on decision to decommission carrier Truman


WASHINGTON — The White House has canceled plans to decommission an aircraft carrier 25 years early as a cost savings measure, a plan that was largely opposed on Capitol Hill.


Vice President Mike Pence made the announcement to sailors on board the carrier Harry S. Truman, which was to be decommissioned instead of going into its midlife refueling, according to video posted by a Hampton Roads local news reporter on Twitter.



The proposal was met with a wave of skepticism from lawmakers. The proposal also came before the Navy had completed a force-structure assessment due out by the end of the year as well as an ongoing needs assessment from the geographic combatant commanders, leading to questions as to why the service would propose the move without the benefit of those studies.


The decision also coincides with news that Robert Daigle, the head of the Pentagon’s powerful Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office, will step down in mid-May. Daigle played a key role in the decision to decommission Truman in favor of investments in long-range fires and unmanned technologies.


The proposal to decommission Truman kicked off a public debate about the utility of aircraft carriers, which took center stage in Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for the incoming chief of naval operations, Adm. Bill Moran.


Faced with questions about the aircraft carrier’s relevance in light of Chinese and Russian long-range anti-ship missiles, Moran gave a forceful defense of the platform.


Moran responded to a question from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., saying the Navy is conducting a force structure assessment to identify the right capabilities to field. But he notably added that the carrier is still relevant


“We have for years evaluated the threats to our aircraft carriers and the other ships in the strike group to be able to deal with those [threats],” Moran said. “The aircraft carrier is the most survivable airfield that we have today — anywhere. And we project it will remain that way well into the future.”


Later during the hearing, Moran offered a “highly classified” briefing to congressional staffers to discuss the Navy’s investments in the carrier to make it more survivable.


But Blumenthal’s was just one of several questions from senators regarding the aircraft carrier, a conversation spurred by the Navy’s now-defunct decision to propose decommissioning the Truman to avoid paying for its midlife refueling.


“As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have pushed hard against the Administration’s plans to mothball the Truman at the midpoint of its working life,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement praising the decision. “I am gratified that the Administration listened and is now committed to the refueling. This is the right call for our national security.”


Moran defended the Truman proposal as necessary to free up money for investments in new technologies and experimentation. Later, he said he is comfortable with an air wing of E-2Ds, Growlers, Hornets and F-35s, but that the weapons needed to be addressed.


“The combat lethality of the air wing extends from the air wing,” Moran said. “Where we are trying to regain our superiority is in the weapons that are carried by that air wing: longer range, more networked, all the things that will make us more effective against a tough adversary at the high end.”


Moran is expected to sail through confirmation. He will be the first naval aviator to serve as CNO since Adm. Jay Johnson retired in 2000.


https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... er-truman/

Could the F-15EX be next???? :|
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post01 May 2019, 00:13

mixelflick wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Hmmm...that makes how many combat coded jets? What is it now? Just over 1900? That makes it the incredible shrinking Air Force.

Wrt air super’ty, seems everything not named F-22 dies when it fights F-35. So much for giving up air superiority...


The issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-35's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind the 15-1, 20-1 etc record the F-35 reportedly carried coming out of Red Flag. Were F-22's assisting? What were the ROE's? Was red air really reflective of the F-35 facing SU-35's, J-10C's and J-20's? Nobody questions the F-22's prowess, because it carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 F-22's would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-35's? That picture isn't as clear.

Too many unanswered questions.


F-22 actually has a disadvantage in having no IRST sensor which even teen aircraft have now with IRST21 pods. Since the dawn of air combat the most important factor in success has been surprise, the F-35 probably is more capable of generating that surprise then even the F-22. It can also guide its AMRAAMs all the way to the target using either Radar or EOTS despite any jamming so pK will be high. Even out of missiles it can turn as well as other fighters while cutting corners like a TVC jet but without falling out of the sky. The F-35 will become the F-16 of its day, cheap enough to be produced in volume for everyone but potent enough in all its multi-roles to make that volume count. F-22 was too expensive and too specialized to have a long production life always leaving it vulnerable to fickle politics but its genes live on in F-35 and probably PCA too which will be its true twin engined successor.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5820
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 May 2019, 00:46

castlebravo wrote:The real issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-22's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind it's performance in various exercises. We also have all the reports of Hornets, Eurofighters, Rafales, and even T-38s spanking it in BFM. Nobody questions the Eagle's prowess, because its actual combat record carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 new Eagles would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-22's? That picture isn't as clear.</sarcasm>



The only one's not convinced are Bloggers and Arm Chair Generals. As anybody with any real knowledge of the F-35's capabilities don't have doubts.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5820
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 May 2019, 04:24

Lockheed’s ‘Mad Al’ Rallies Retired Navy Admirals for F-35 Bid

By Anthony Capaccio

Citing the threat of cuts by the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin Corp. officials are pressing retired Navy admirals and Air Force generals to sign letters of support asking lawmakers to add more F-35 jets to the Trump administration’s 2020 budget proposal.

“Right now, DOD is slowing F-35 production at the very time it should be accelerating the program,” Allen Myers, Lockheed’s vice president for Navy and Coast Guard programs, wrote in an April 22 email to a group of retired admirals.

While it’s a common tactic in Washington for advocates of a particular issue, especially in the national security world, to release letters of support signed by retired generals or admirals, it’s less common to see the behind-the-scenes solicitations for that support. Using a nickname from his days as a naval aviator, Myers, himself a retired admiral, signed the message with “Fight to Fly, Mad Al.”

“Congress is fully supportive of the program and poised to push up procurement,” Myers added. “Please help me show them they are doing the right thing for our Nation.”


2020 Budget

The call for help comes after President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2020 budget requested 78 of the next-generation stealth fighters, six less than originally planned. Myers said it’s a mistake to pull back on the Pentagon’s largest weapons program.


“Costs are dramatically dropping with procurement costs falling BELOW $80 million for the F-35A and flying hour costs nearly on par with 4th generation aircraft and a pathway to even lower costs,” he wrote. “Despite the bright state of the program,” the Pentagon is limiting Navy Department purchases to “30 F-35Bs/F-35Cs a year, and USAF to 48 F-35As a year,” wrote Myers, citing different versions of the jet built for U.S. and allied forces.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... r-f-35-bid
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post03 May 2019, 00:17

marauder2048 wrote:
marsavian wrote:So if Congress goes against the F-15EX they will have to provide a viable alternative to the requirements that CAPE used


Just call Daigle to testify as to the impossibility of new builds being cheaper than the SLEP.
A simple: "what happened to the F-15 C/D Wing replacement funds that had the benefit of CAPE's CY2017 analysis?"
would answer a lot of questions.


No wonder Daigle is resigning; it came out in testimony that the Air Force had estimated a longeron replacement +
fuselage SLEP + wing replacement would be all of $10 million/aircraft.

That's the lowest number that's ever been connected with the SLEP; previously it was in the $20 - $40 million range.

New builds justified on a cost-basis look insane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2860&v=7du-vfIWl2A
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 May 2019, 00:35

The cheaper SLEP is for something like 2030 and the more expensive one is to keep them flying to something like 2040.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post03 May 2019, 01:20

SpudmanWP wrote:The cheaper SLEP is for something like 2030 and the more expensive one is to keep them flying to something like 2040.



Right. The cheaper SLEP is just the longeron replacement which was ~ $1 million/aircraft. IIRC, that's still in the budget.
It was the longeron + the wing replacement + fuselage SLEP that was previously quoted as ~ $30 million/aircraft.

Holmes is now testifying that they could get the latter, more comprehensive SLEP down to $10 million/aircraft.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3311
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 May 2019, 01:33

castlebravo wrote:The real issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-22's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind it's performance in various exercises. We also have all the reports of Hornets, Eurofighters, Rafales, and even T-38s spanking it in BFM.


No we haven't. There have been no such reports. An occasional WVR kill (especially when violating ROE) hardly constitutes a spanking.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3311
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 May 2019, 01:37

SpudmanWP wrote:The cheaper SLEP is for something like 2030 and the more expensive one is to keep them flying to something like 2040.

The more expensive SLEP is a zero hour airframe, and would keep them flying another 40+ years. The $1 million/airframe upgrade would keep them airworthy till the 2040s.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3311
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 May 2019, 01:47

mixelflick wrote:


The issue is, not everyone is convinced of the F-35's air to air prowess. Dunno about you, but I never saw any details behind the 15-1, 20-1 etc record the F-35 reportedly carried coming out of Red Flag. Were F-22's assisting? What were the ROE's? Was red air really reflective of the F-35 facing SU-35's, J-10C's and J-20's? Nobody questions the F-22's prowess, because it carries with it such an overwhelming advantage everywhere you look. 800 F-22's would scare the sh!t out of any air force. You're just not going to survive vs. that kind of overwhelming superiority. A similar number of F-35's? That picture isn't as clear.

Too many unanswered questions.


Everyone whose opinion matters, is convinced of the overwhelming superiority of the F-35. The Red Flag ratios were against aircraft with IRST, DRFM jammers, HOBS missiles/helmet sights, while having a 3:1 numerical advantage and the ability to respawn 4x (or more.) The >20:1 ratio was as a result of 145 kills and 7 losses, by F-35s. The losses were due to confusion during respawning, where previously dead aircraft came back into play, while already WVR of F-35s. When F-35s have flown against AESA equipped F-15/18s the results have been the same. There have been exercises with 27:0 kill ratios. Now add in double digit SAM threats, cyberwarfare/extreme jamming, on top of numerical advantages. There is simply no other conclusion that can be reached. Read the f'n pilot anecdotes, which include WVR and BVR.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1353
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post03 May 2019, 03:31

You missed castlebravo's "/sarcasm" at the end.
Offline
User avatar

doge

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post03 May 2019, 07:14

128 people!?!? :shock: !! :shock:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/retire ... -f-35-jets
Retired military leaders to lawmakers: Don't ‘sacrifice funds’ for F-35 jets
Talia Kaplan By Talia Kaplan | Fox News Flash top headlines for May 1
More than 100 retired military leaders sent a letter to members of Congress on Tuesday urging them not to “sacrifice funds from the F-35 program,” adding that the F-35, the military’s newest fighter jet, is “essential to countering emerging threats.”

The letter included 128 signatures from retired admirals and generals, including four former Air Force chiefs of staff and a former chief of naval operations.

It was sent on the same day that the Air Force announced it had used its variant of the F-35 aircraft in combat for the first time, taking out an Islamic State (ISIS) tunnel network and weapons cache in Iraq.

Defense News reported that according to Air Forces Central Command, Tuesday’s airstrike occurred at Wadi Ashai, in northeast Iraq. A news release from U.S. Central Command six days before said ISIS fighters “have been attempting to move munitions, equipment and personnel” to the area in order to “set conditions for their resurgence,” prompting a counteroffensive by Iraqi Security Forces.

The website reported that more information about the event, including whether the strikes were successful, was not immediately available.

The letter, sent to members of the House and Senate, said, “As former U.S. Flag Officers who have served in times of sequestration and military conflicts, we know the impact cutting costs from vital programs has on defense readiness.

“With China and Russia aggressively ramping up efforts to improve and modernize weapons, maintaining air superiority is essential to countering emerging threats both at home and abroad.”

The letter said the U.S. must “advance both capacity and capability of our fighter force with continued procurement of the world’s most advanced fighter, the F-35 Lightning II,” in order to maintain “a competitive edge in the skies.”

According to Defense News, the F-35 program has been threatened by cost and schedule overruns since its start about two decades ago, and the Government Accountability Office estimates that the program will cost more than $1 trillion.

The retired admirals and generals sent the letter to the chairman and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees as well as the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense, to stress the importance of these fighter jets.

“As the only 5th-generation aircraft in production, the F-35 ensures air advantage over emerging peer adversaries through cutting-edge technologies,” the letter said.

“It is with the nation’s security interest in mind that we join the nearly 130 U.S. House and Senate Congressional members to request that the Congress increase the procurement rate of the F-35 within the Fiscal Year 2020 defense authorization and appropriations.”

The letter went on to say, “It is essential that our Congress does not sacrifice funds from the F-35 program in favor of new 4th generation, legacy fighter programs with little operational relevance in a near peer conflict.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., “has been and continues to be very supportive of the F-35 program. As he’s said before, he’d like to see the U.S. military increase the number of fifth-generation aircraft in our fleet, including nearly tripling the number of F-35s by 2024, to maintain our air superiority,” a spokesperson told Fox News.

Neither the House Armed Services Committee nor the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense responded to Fox News' requests for comment.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: white_lightning35 and 29 guests