New CSBA Study supports the F-35As

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

blain

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 01:37

CSBA has a new study on the AF's future force structure. Unlike its recent report on the redesigning the CVW, this study supports establishing F-35A production at a more efficient rate of 70 per year, though in lower in total numbers. It also supports a larger B-21 force and the Penetrating Counter Air program.

https://csbaonline.org/uploads/document ... ort_v9.pdf

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03 ... d8nz0GxS1E

The authors of this study recognizes the importance of 5th generation fighters and the value of economies of scale. Starting and then truncating expensive fighter programs, only to start a new program because it potentially offers improved capability is a recipe for failure. As more aircraft are purchased production cost goes down and reliability improves. Capability also improves with the introduction of successive blocks. The USAF experienced this with both the F-15 and F-16.

Correction: the study does recommend stopping producing of the F-35A at 911, short of the planned 1,500. 4th gen fighters will need to wait until the PCA is fielded.

5th gen is game changer. The B-21, especially if it is teamed with a low observable, penetrating ISR platform like the supposed RQ-180 will have a similar effect. To counter near peer adversaries the U.S. will need to invest in and introduce asymmetric capabilities.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8109
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 04:13

omg, It does NOT recommend stopping production of the F-35 in 2030.

The report is simply a 10-year force structure study for the year 2030. This is so obvious as they recommend increasing the annual F-35 buy to 70 ASAP. Since it's obvious that more PCA & B-21 will be built post-2030, so will the F-35.

This sentence from the report summary says it all.
Instead of a recommended end state, however, the 2030 inventory is a waypoint on the path toward the force of 2035 and beyond.



The ABJ obfuscation is getting ridiculous.
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 16 Apr 2019, 06:44, edited 3 times in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7646
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 04:18

blain wrote:
The authors of this study recognizes the importance of 5th generation fighters and the value of economies of scale. Starting and then truncating expensive fighter programs, only to start a new program because it potentially offers improved capability is a recipe for failure. .

Hmmmm.. so why did they want to cap.F-35C production?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1463
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 05:21

popcorn wrote:
blain wrote:
The authors of this study recognizes the importance of 5th generation fighters and the value of economies of scale. Starting and then truncating expensive fighter programs, only to start a new program because it potentially offers improved capability is a recipe for failure. .

Hmmmm.. so why did they want to cap.F-35C production?


You seem to be conflating 2 separate reports. Also the one for the navy which was discussed in a different thread was a redesign of the F-35C role (as opposed to a new F/A-XX).
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2112
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 13:21

F-35C is needed now. Redesign sounds like a nail in a coffin lid.
Offline

blain

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 21:42

popcorn wrote:
blain wrote:
The authors of this study recognizes the importance of 5th generation fighters and the value of economies of scale. Starting and then truncating expensive fighter programs, only to start a new program because it potentially offers improved capability is a recipe for failure. .

Hmmmm.. so why did they want to cap.F-35C production?


Ramping up to 70 suggests they value producing it at a more efficient number. But TBH - producing 900 - even if they came off their top tine is still a pretty good production run. That does not include aircraft produced for the Marines/Navy and international buyers. Producing 200 fighters like they did with the F-22 was idiotic.

I think it is kind of premature committing to the PCA and ending F-35 production. That should depend on the threat and whether new technologies will be available. Maybe continued F-35 production or a derivative of the F-35 would be the best option? Fly away cost will likely drop below $89 million in 2019 dollars for the A model in future years. The USAF gets it.

They will need to replace 4th gen fighters in 2030. That's not that far off. I really don't think PCA will be ready by then.
Offline

blain

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 21:45

weasel1962 wrote:
popcorn wrote:
blain wrote:
The authors of this study recognizes the importance of 5th generation fighters and the value of economies of scale. Starting and then truncating expensive fighter programs, only to start a new program because it potentially offers improved capability is a recipe for failure. .

Hmmmm.. so why did they want to cap.F-35C production?


You seem to be conflating 2 separate reports. Also the one for the navy which was discussed in a different thread was a redesign of the F-35C role (as opposed to a new F/A-XX).


The redesigning the CVW was led by a nuclear sub guy - which maybe why you ended with unrealistic ideas like developing a long range derivative of the F-35 and SH for the F/A-XX program.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8109
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 21:55

:doh:

They are not suggesting that 900 is the limit of F-35A production or that PCA/FA-XX will be the end of the F-35 line either.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

fbw

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 23:07

SpudmanWP wrote::doh:

They are not suggesting that 900 is the limit of F-35A production or that PCA/FA-XX will be the end of the F-35 line either.



Don’t tell Solomon that, after all, he read the article from “National Interest”. So that obviously trumps that actual report. ELP and Solomon will be yelling “death spiral” into the 2040’s if the program of record is cut to 1759 F-35A from 1763.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8109
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 23:27

ELP has been doing his best "Don Quixote tilting at windmills" impression since the APA tried to build the "Evolved" F-111
:doh:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

blain

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post16 Apr 2019, 23:53

SpudmanWP wrote::doh:

They are not suggesting that 900 is the limit of F-35A production or that PCA/FA-XX will be the end of the F-35 line either.


Yes, but the reality is that if the AF is purchasing the B-21 and F-35 at the same time they will likely have to end production of the F-35 to begin the PCA.

That being said, the likely scenario is that they delay the PCA, keep on producing the F-35 to replace the rest of the 4th gen fighters, and increase the buy of the B-21.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8109
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 00:14

Says who?

They have known for years, if not decades that they would need a B-2/F-22 replacement that would also coincide with F-35 production.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

fbw

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 01:06

F-35 procurement and R&D spending is supposed to peak around 2030 and decrease incrementally from that peak onward. Unless NGAD program is further along toward developing technology and roadmap for what PCA and future weapons will look like than they’ve alluded, 2030 seems an aggressive timeline. Even assuming a platform is flying and in LRIP by 2030, there will still be room and requirement for procurement of a mature F-35 program into the 2030’s.

Those retained F-16’s will be in a similar situation to the current F-15C/D fleet by 2030.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5753
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 03:30

fbw wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote::doh:

They are not suggesting that 900 is the limit of F-35A production or that PCA/FA-XX will be the end of the F-35 line either.



Don’t tell Solomon that, after all, he read the article from “National Interest”. So that obviously trumps that actual report. ELP and Solomon will be yelling



How are those 2? I haven't thought about how much better I am than them in years...

ELP is probably convinced those probably aren't "real" F-35s flying all over down undah


“death spiral” into the 2040’s if the program of record is cut to 1759 F-35A from 1763.


:lmao:
Choose Crews
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1463
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 03:54

fbw wrote:F-35 procurement and R&D spending is supposed to peak around 2030 and decrease incrementally from that peak onward. Unless NGAD program is further along toward developing technology and roadmap for what PCA and future weapons will look like than they’ve alluded, 2030 seems an aggressive timeline. Even assuming a platform is flying and in LRIP by 2030, there will still be room and requirement for procurement of a mature F-35 program into the 2030’s.

Those retained F-16’s will be in a similar situation to the current F-15C/D fleet by 2030.


NGAD probably has less risk since the navy F-35 procurement is planned to end 2031/2032. Probably the ony reason why the navy can't just carry on buying Cs as SH replacements, would be if they think the Cs can't handle future threats.

2030 for PCA is not aggressive imho for the following reasons:

(a) The F-22 can itself be a base dual engine design for PCA with slight mods e.g. lengthened fuselage for bigger weapons bay and slightly more fuel.
(b) There are enough matured/maturing technologies e.g. stealth coating reducing the maintenance, advent engines, modernised avionics and new gen chipsets.

I think the budget can be managed to produce an end state of 44 F-35A and 18 PCA sqns vis CSBA recommendation.
Next

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests