New CSBA Study supports the F-35As

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

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 04:05

weasel1962 wrote:
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.
.

I take it you are referring to F/A-XX? NGAD initiative is an airforce program.

Edit- well Navy is using the same umbrella term of NGAD for the development of weapons and technologies. So using that term for the systems to be developed for the Air Force or Navy is accurate enough. I believe, according to stated timelines, the navy wants whatever platform becomes F/A-XX around 2025. A bit earlier than the airforce PCA. (Or not, original milestone B target was to be 2025, maybe some clarity forthcoming in next few years).
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1577
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 07:28

Navy does have a constraint. More range required = more fuel = larger plane = less planes for CVN? The earlier a design comes means the next CVN can plan accordingly. USAF doesn't really have that kind of constraint so separate programs may be a good idea.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 18:55

SpudmanWP wrote: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.


Says the budget and the politicians. They also needed the F-22 to replace F-15A/Cs. They ended up with 200 and had to keep the Eagles around until something could replace them.

B-21, tanker recapitalization, F-35 production, and the PCA? Ok we'll see.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 19:02

Democrats are currently intimating they have no problem with increased defense spending as long as it's matched by increased non-defense spending in dollar for dollar parity. The biggest threat to the Defense budget is probably over i.e. Tea Party Republicans in a Republican controlled House wanting a balanced budget.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/439 ... ling-talks
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8360
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 19:19

blain wrote:Says the budget and the politicians.

Actually the budget & SAR have them happening at the same time.

By all means, show a source that says the F-35 has to end before B-21/PCA/FA-xx can begin.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8360
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 19:21

marsavian wrote:Democrats are currently intimating they have no problem with increased defense spending as long as it's matched by increased non-defense spending in dollar for dollar parity.

This (them, not you) has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Defense spending should be set based on the threat and domestic spending should be set based on the need.

Setting them based on each other is just a recipe for a fiscal disaster.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 19:58

Politics is all about compromise when you don't have clear majorities. Either that or deadlock. As Trump is more concerned about growth than inflation/debt he is not averse to higher spending above incoming taxes. A future Democrat President will probably believe the same, defense spending will not be cut going forward IMHO.
Last edited by marsavian on 17 Apr 2019, 20:04, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 20:03

If F-35 production ends before 2050 at the very earliest I would be very surprised. Until a clear next generation cheap fighter is developed to replace it, in all likelihood single engined hypersonic, production will tick over at say one a month for foreign and attrition sales well into this century.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5905
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post17 Apr 2019, 20:36

marsavian wrote:Democrats are currently intimating they have no problem with increased defense spending as long as it's matched by increased non-defense spending in dollar for dollar parity. The biggest threat to the Defense budget is probably over i.e. Tea Party Republicans in a Republican controlled House wanting a balanced budget.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/439 ... ling-talks



Jesus
Choose Crews
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 14 guests