Forum: General F-35 Forum

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Jun 22, 2012 - 07:53 PM; edited 1 time in total

Option A will likely be less expensive than option B:

1. The F-35s in B will be significantly more expensive than those in A due to 1/2 the production run.
2. One airframe in A vs three in B to procure and support
3. Increase number of airframes in B to procure, support, and provide support assets for (IFR, ISA, etc)
4. B does not deal with 2042-2052.
5. B is less capable than A.

Given 1-5, why bother with A?

F-16.net Sponsor

I'd go with the intended buy of 1763 F-35s, and retire the legacy aircraft in the 2020s to 2030s, while researching 6th gen replacements.

shingen wrote:

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

So, a replacement for the B-2, then?

How much were the last F-16's per aircraft? The Moroccan order was 100 mil each with spares. Would not the new build for the USAF be almost that much? Or would we build older spec air frames to use the same parts? When you look at the Singapore F-15's and the last F-16 block 5x and UAE 6X birds where would we save? Not from maintenance on a diverse air fleet. Sorry A for me....

bigjku wrote:

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.

I concur., no need to disrupt funding schedules,which are planned years in advance and are already under pressure. A 2030 target date for a Gen6 platform is about right IMO. As fr tech, keep away from the bleeding edge stuff.

Of the two options, I vote the first. The 4th gens are old and becoming a waste of money. If we cut the 4th gens with the exception of the Beagle and SH, then we'd be able to save money WHILE buying F-35s. Old things need to be inspected more frequently for damage such as structural fatigue, engine problems, etc. due to their old age. It's simple entropy. There are more microstates associated with something that's run down and junk than something in mint condition so why bother wasting huge amounts of tax dollars to keep something in service when it's so old?

F-35 offers vastly superior growth potential, is NEWER, and has far greater avionics and other internal tech. In terms of anything you can think of with regards to aeronautical technology, the F-35 either matches it or beats it.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

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