F-15 to stay in service until at least 2025.

[swerve]

Sorry, but that's wrong. Firstly, the export price is not linked to the average cost to the USA. It's manufacturing cost plus a margin. So if the USAF buys fewer aircraft that increases average price to the USA, but doesn't affect export price, not even the price to the development partners.

Increasing the export price to reduce the unit price to the USA, when the unit price has gone up because number ordered - and hence total price - has been cut makes no sense at all. You charge more, thus risking losing profitable sales, to make up for spending less money on buying aircraft?

You seem to be forgetting that the fixed costs are FIXED. They don't go up because someone buys fewer aircraft. They're just divided between fewer, so the average unit cost goes up.

BTW, for the (US, not export) unit price to double requires total (not just USAF) US orders to be cut by 80%. That would reduce total US costs by 69%, not increase costs.

As for the accuracy of the predicted costs - well, as you say, history suggests they're likely to go up, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[neil]

Hi everyone.. I'm a new member..

I find this to be a very interesting discussion.. the whole issue of declining inventories and rising costs of replacement equipment is not a new one.. but it is certainly gaining in prominence..

I believe that the USAF is correct in its decision to try and keep its fighter numbers up.. how it goes about this is another matter alltogether..

The US army and the navy has realised that it cannot keep on getting smaller and smaller, even with superior technology.. hence the US navy 313 ship fleet plan.. and the increase in army end strength.

But of all the services the USAF is hardest hit by a declining inventory..
Also the USAF has played an integral part in US military superiority in the past..

The USAF argument that one plane, no matter how advanced it is, can only be in one place at a time, is a valid one.

That the air force is facing a budget crunch, is a given, especially if you take into account high military inflation and the expected decline or flatting of defence spending after the US forces Iraq draw down..

The point a few of others have made that spending on the F 15, an old airframe, is a waste is also valid. One other fact a lot of people forget is the fact that every country is faced with the above problems not just the US. So inevitably the Russian and Chinese air forces have and will shrink too.

Keeping that in mind, I also believe that the USAF force of 183 Raptors will be sufficient to deal with any high end war fighting, especially if supplemented by the F 35.

However what a waste it would be to bomb a terrorist on a camel in Afghanistan with hundred and fifty million dollar Raptor. A simpler aircraft is needed here. Some might say this is where the legacy jets come in. F 15 and A 10 etc.

Fair enough.. but like a lot of you said.. upgrading these decades old planes is a waste..

It is my belief that when the Americans talk of a high end, low end mix.. they should really go high end, low end.

So what am I saying? The current USAF fighter fleet numbers 2000+. The Raptor and F 35 programmes are already well on the way.. so keep them, but the F 35 programme should be ajusted downwards as far as numbers are concerned.

Further more.. I would replace the legacy jets(F 15, F 16 etc.) with a relatively large number of very low cost, medium technology lightweight fighters in the class of the Hawk MK 120 or the Czech L 159 ALCA.

These planes should be adapted to act solely as presicion bomb trucks in the close air support role in low threat areas like Afghanistan and Iraq. I know factors like range etc. comes into play here, but that's what air to air refueling is for.

This is then then the USAF force mix I would go for by 2030.

High end:
200 F 22 Raptors
500 F 35 Lightning II

low end:
1200 low cost light weight planes like the British Hawk.

All legacy fighters should be retired as quickly as possible to save as much as possible.

I know this is a radical idea.. just some food for thought..

the whole programme can even be integrated into one large programme for the purchase of the three platforms.. like the US Coastguards Integrated deepwater fleet replacement programme..

any of you number crunchers out there can help me calculate wether such a programme would indeed be affordable..

thanx

 

[rjmaz1]

low end:
1200 low cost light weight planes like the British Hawk.

Standard F-16, with conformal tanks and a pair of underwing tanks has exceptional endurance and range and is quite cheap. Its the perfect low end bomb truck that the USAF already has.

I too agree about the High-low mix. I believe the JSF should have be a budget fighter like the F-16 though more advanced, it woul dhave flooded the international market. With the F-22 as the high and the JSF as the low it woul dhave insured the F-22 had dominance over all allies.

The USAF has quite a few F-16's already. They are cheap to operate compared to the F-15. Using the F-15 as a low end option is unrealistic. I suggested that they keep the F-16's to make up the numbers. Eventually u may as well replace the F-16's with F-35's when the production line is open and they are cheap.

 

[neil]

Standard F-16, with conformal tanks and a pair of underwing tanks has exceptional endurance and range and is quite cheap. Its the perfect low end bomb truck that the USAF already has.

I too agree about the High-low mix. I believe the JSF should have be a budget fighter like the F-16 though more advanced, it woul dhave flooded the international market. With the F-22 as the high and the JSF as the low it woul dhave insured the F-22 had dominance over all allies.

The USAF has quite a few F-16's already. They are cheap to operate compared to the F-15. Using the F-15 as a low end option is unrealistic. I suggested that they keep the F-16's to make up the numbers. Eventually u may as well replace the F-16's with F-35's when the production line is open and they are cheap.

thanx for the reply..
I do agree with you..


however.. one problem is that the current USAF F 16 fleet is ageing fast.. with current predictions that the service will have to retire 200 airframes in the next couple of years up to 2013..

That is why only 650 odd airframes of the 1200 active, are going through the CCIP update programme.. and apparently since the F 16 was one of the first planes to built largely from composite materials, performing a structulral strengthening upgrade is quite difficult since these composites were designed with a fixed life span.. It is planned to take the last F 16 out of service round about 2025..

Second problem.. the current F 35 programme is unaffordable in my opinion.. and in the opinion of some others too.. I read an article this morning that the USAF is facing a huge budget crunch for FY 2009.. (up to $100 billion!!)

further more the USAF plans on retireing two to three F 16's for every one F 35 purchased.. so even if they were able to afford to replace the F 16 with F 35 on a one for one basis(wich they are not)..the maximun rate at wich they would be able to buy F 35's at, would be far less than the minimum rate they retire F 16's at.. apparently the USAF can only afford 40 or so F 35's per year maximum(at series production level) - they purchased 200 F 16's per year during the cold war..

thats why I say a new affordable platform is needed.. otherwise they are looking at a 25% reduction in their fighter fleet by 2025..

 

[XaNDeR]

This is then then the USAF force mix I would go for by 2030.

High end:
200 F 22 Raptors
500 F 35 Lightning II

I find it rather odd how you choose to not have any bombers / transports / tankers / AWACS / Reconnaissance / Attack and Transport Helicopters ..
In your USAF force mix in 2030.

?

 

[rjmaz1]

thats why I say a new affordable platform is needed.. otherwise they are looking at a 25% reduction in their fighter fleet by 2025..

A 25% reduction is extremely good. Looking at China (the main threat) and they are well on their way to a 50% reduction in numbers. Gone are the days when they had vast numbers of cheap Mig-21's. Fewer more advanced fighters are being purchased. Now that China may end up having half as many fighters the USAF could very well have a 50% reduction as well providing they have a technical advantage which they do.

I find it rather odd how you choose to not have any bombers / transports / tankers / AWACS / Reconnaissance / Attack and Transport Helicopters ..
In your USAF force mix in 2030.

?

I think he just meant his combat "fighters"

 

[swerve]

A 25% reduction is extremely good. Looking at China (the main threat) and they are well on their way to a 50% reduction in numbers. Gone are the days when they had vast numbers of cheap Mig-21's. Fewer more advanced fighters are being purchased. Now that China may end up having half as many fighters the USAF could very well have a 50% reduction as well providing they have a technical advantage which they do.


I think he just meant his combat "fighters"

I don't think China ever had vast numbers of MiG-21s. The PLAAF consisted mainly of Chinese-built MiG-19s for a few decades. Didn't stop building the J-6 until about 1980, IIRC.

 

[neil]

thanx rjmaz1 for the thoughts..

..and yes, I was alluding only to the USAF 2030 fighter force..

 

[funtz]

Here is my opinion on this thing, if the f-22 raptors are as good as they say(I think every one has seen the figures) coupled with the experience that USAF has with stealth technologies, there is no air force (which the USA is likely to face) which in a conflict will be able to operate for more than a week.

with such air dominance capability F-15E can operate in its role as a Strike fighter with the USAF for as long as needed and the F-16, F15 & F18 are good enough till they are replaced by the f 35 which will be a long process in itself. 80 to 100 F22’s are good enough to completely suppress air defense and destroy the infrastructure of most of the AF’s out there.

This will be so until a credible way to detect and destroy combat aircrafts with RCS as low as the F22 is developed (not even considering the steps taken to disguise its infra-red emissions).