xcraftllc

In the arena of air combat in general in the US, the R&D/Acquisitions process is a shame. The rapid development of UAVs demonstrates just how bad this problem has become. We've gone from the predator prototype in 1994, to the RQ-170 and X-47B in just 20 years. It took that long to go from the Statement of Operational Need for the Advanced Tactical Fighter progam, to the IOC of the jet. (getting on my soapbox and clearing my throat) We could go on and on about why this happens, but the fact of the matter is; UAVs were developed in smaller groups with less oversight and politics, and had budget and timelines that had to be met in order to meet current operational needs (GWOT). That's it. Much like the development pace of WWII era planes. In fact throughout the 60s and 70s it wasn't all that bad either. Just think about how fast the SR-71 and F-117 were developed. The Skunkworks of that era has very little in common with what we see today. But the teams kept growing, the politicians kept getting more involved, and money became more and more the whole point of the development. I'd say the B-1 was the beginning of the end. It had to have one part made in every damn congressional district in the entire country (exaggerating). Everyone started getting involved and had to have their voice heard in the design, and the mission changed over the years of it's development, snowballing the issues. I know this isn't anything new, and has been mentioned before, but it's like the deplorable state of our school system; everyone knows the problems and has a lot to say but nobody does anything about it. We need to see more competition, smaller teams, fierce deadlines and strict budgets. If not, nothing's going to change. You can talk all you want, but if you don't actually do anything, next thing you know you end up with a program that's the poster child for how things are not supposed to go, even though the program was literally designed to be the solution for that very problem (the JSF program). Next thing you know it's 2015 and the average age of the AF fleet is 27 years old. I'll end with this though; the F-35 (like the B-1 and F-22), is probably going to end up being a good and useful jet (hell at this point we need it), albeit after much heartache. Hate the program not the product. (getting off the soapbox)

I'm normally not one to stir up a bunch of drama but I remember reading somewhere that he charges 15 grand to speak at events, and if that's true I have no respect. War experience isn't something to capitalize on just for talking about it. I hope he wasn't paid for this: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/local/2015/04/24/famed-air-force-pilot-tells-boy-scouts-wartime-survival/26285351/ We heard plenty about this guy, even in Army SERE.

Valid points about air frame age and lifespan, many of those arguments were mentioned in a recent Fighter Sweep Article: http://fightersweep.com/2038/the-a-10-warthog-debate-a-fate-worse-than-death/ As far as A-10 wings are concerned, apparently Boeing still makes them: http://www.boeing.com/defense/support/a-10-wing-replacement-program/index.page Clark - I think the LTC makes some good points in that article but the AF is probably going to counter with how the 4.2 bil will only keep the A-10s flying for another 10 years or so but will keep the 30+ F-35s flying for 40+years as well as free up the maintainers for the F-35 (although the maintainer argument has some holes in it when you consider the amount of reserve/guard/civilian maintainers who could help). Still totally hear what he's saying though. I think a small compliment of 100-200 or so A-10s (the lower time air frames) for the cost of 10 or less F-35s is a good compromise, and will free up enough high skill AF maintainers to cover down on creating the F-35 maintenance program, along with some help from some reserve/guard/civilian guys.

Looks like this Fighter Sweep article actually addresses my question: "...If we’re talking dollars, it’s a pretty simple answer. Lockheed-Martin is more than willing to sell the Block 60 Viper to the USAF at its full price-tag of 80 million (ish) dollars apiece. Think about that for a second. A bigger, meaner F-16 with all its bells and whistles at a price that is roughly (ish) the equivalent of what the per-unit cost of the F-35 will be by the time the end of the current Lightning II buy is reached. Yes, that is assuming the current JSF order will go unchanged, but you see my point. Even though it’s the most capable, survivable, lethal variant, it’s still an F-16..." - http://fightersweep.com/2038/the-a-10-warthog-debate-a-fate-worse-than-death/ It's a pretty long, opinionated, and heated article but a very good read. It addresses a lot of the topics we've asked here and makes some interesting points.

I respectfully disagree good sir. You're definitely right that computational advancements are faster and easier than physical ones, but I think that there is indeed room for improvement in the aerodynamic front. Especially since we now have avionics and computers advanced enough to take advantage of tailless and/or swept forward designs. The tailless concept of the FB-22 looked pretty decent in my eye. DSI and conformal tanks are good examples of recent aerodynamic improvements too. dvlax40 also brings up some good points about training standards and enemy countermeasures. You could also say a lot for just flight time in general. The way I see it, technology ebbs and flows, but training and experience are invaluable elements that stand the test of time. The good thing about gadgets/avionics/tech advancements though this that they are essentially instantly transferable to another airframe if the current airframe doesn't work out. E.G. the Commanche tech that went into the other airframes in the Army including Apaches and the modified 60s used in the Bin Laden raid. Wow I need to hurry up and get an engineering degree before the rest of my life becomes little more than mental masturbation on an interweb forum in blogospace....

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat..... Guess this isn't your father's fighter jet market anymore. I'm sure with an economy of scale you could slash that a bit but there's no way that's gonna happen. I guess Lockheed played it's cards pretty well with having a monopoly, and having the next best alternative to the F-35 which they charge too much for to be practical anyway. From what Brabus is saying, the threats out there are just too good to not have an LO air frame, and reliance on EA pods alone won't be enough. Looks like we're gonna have to go all-in on the F-35 for the time being. I just hope we learn a lot from all the mistakes so when WWIII hits, we can produce a new fighter without all the flaws.

The X-35 looks embarrassed to be seen next to it.

A little more clarity/sense came out about the whole "we're gonna cut F-35s and F-16s if you don't let us can the A-10" thing: http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/29/air-force-rescinds-a10-warning-memo/26606477/

Interesting. Oh well, thanks for the clarification.

Lstcause257's reaction after reading that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-LRDR8Kqds

So what missions/advantages does the B-52 have over the B-1 then? Maybe cutting the Buff instead of the A-10 would free up the money and maintainers that the brass says are needed for the F-35 program. I mean, they wanna make the LRSB soon, and all of the Buffs are 54 years old. B-1s have a larger payload, higher top speed, and nearly the range of a Buff anyway. I know they're talking about replacing the Buff's engines right now to get even better range, but the same could be done for the Bone. I'm no expert but I would imagine that the RCS is better on the Bone too. I mean it's still messed up that we're cutting anything, but I think the A-10 would be missed much more than the Buff.

Is it just me or is there no more public posting of the OTS class dates? As I recall the next few were 10-05 on May 5th, 10-06 on July 21st, and I've heard something about a class on August 5th. Does anyone have a link or any more info?

^ That's weird, there isn't any of this in my recruiting brochure, are you sure you fact-checked all that?

This better be more political gamesmanship and not actually what the Air Force would do. At least toward the end there is actually some rational talk about finding ways to make it work. There is also a similar article in the AF Times that quotes Sen Kelly Ayotte as saying such talk is political BS: "After the F-35 program executive Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan raised the issue last fall and said he was worried about the impact on IOC, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said there are other ways to move money and personnel to support both the A-10 and F-35. "Suggesting that we must prematurely retire the A-10 to fulfill long-anticipated maintenance requirements for the F-35A is a false choice," Ayotte said in a statement to Defense News, sister publication of Air Force Times. "There are a variety of steps the Air Force can take to maintain the combat-proven and cost-efficient A-10, while also providing sufficient maintenance personnel for the F-35A. Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has vowed to reach initial operating capability on time, despite a possible issue with having enough maintenance personnel. This includes hiring contractors and increasing use of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel."

So now we're told this?: http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/04/28/air-force-keeping-a10-impact-16s/26519547/ At least toward the end of the article there is some rationalizing about how to make it work without destroying other programs: "After the F-35 program executive Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan raised the issue last fall and said he was worried about the impact on IOC, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said there are other ways to move money and personnel to support both the A-10 and F-35. "Suggesting that we must prematurely retire the A-10 to fulfill long-anticipated maintenance requirements for the F-35A is a false choice," Ayotte said in a statement to Defense News, sister publication of Air Force Times. "There are a variety of steps the Air Force can take to maintain the combat-proven and cost-efficient A-10, while also providing sufficient maintenance personnel for the F-35A. Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has vowed to reach initial operating capability on time, despite a possible issue with having enough maintenance personnel. This includes hiring contractors and increasing use of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel."

Does anybody have a good accurate number on how much the flyaway cost is for a brand-spankin new F-16E/F with an F-110-GE-132 engine? Basically what the UAE is buying?

Absolutely, not only that, but EMPs are not just some sci-fi stuff that only exists in the matrix movies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-engine-problems-2015-4 I'm sure p&w will work this out, but it's still frustrating to think that GE wasn't given a fair shot. Apparently this article is actually a little harsh and the engine issues aren't actually that bad, but it's still concerning. That is one expensive jet to be depending on a single engine.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/04/27/a10-funded-house-armed-services-markup/26463167/ Sad irony that the photo features A-10s from the 188th, which now flies UAVs though...

Jarhead, I don't wanna come off as a Lakota hater. At the end of the day, the Lakota program will end up being quite a smart move, especially once it becomes the primary trainer and replaces all 58s, 67s, and Hueys, thus taking the Army down to a four helicopter fleet and saving a lot in the process (not to mention all airframes will have 2 engines). I'm just saying it's kinda limited in its mission and that's frustrating considering how it's a military weapons program.

I guess unless they threw together a good amount of bombers and leveled Taiwan (since they would have Air Superiority), but that wouldn't leave much left for them to have gained by taking the island, and would certainly have cost them all credibility as a noble nation, and the economic impact that would come from the sanctions etc. Nevertheless, the thought of there being any place or situation in the world where we wouldn't have Air Superiority, if even for a temporary period, is still alarming. Especially considering how much money and experience we have in that arena. Oh well, hopefully if it ever came down to something like that, the training and experience of our pilots would be enough... that is, if the AF can afford to get our pilots that training and experience.

I used to think the same thing but frankly, just being real, with the current state of research/acquisition/design, I highly doubt we'll see Future Vertical Lift designs making much of an appearance any time soon (still something to consider in the long term). The last three major air frame programs from the Army are basically failures. The Comanche, the ARH-70, and the Lakota, with the latter being technically "successful" but nothing that it was supposed to be, it's not even combat deployable (due to it's fragile design). Even successful programs like the V-22 ended up being much more expensive and harder to develop than they were supposed to be. I think FVL is a great thing that the Army really needs but it's a long way from replacing AF CAS, and even then, there's nothing like having a few good bombs to play with in the stack.

Oh it is. And tiny and composite and two seater. I think it's the wrong direction to go in. Light support aircraft like that might work for a small nation with limited security needs and infrastructure, but I think we can do better. Lol I pray we'll never see something as ugly as the X-32 again.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/April%202015/April%2024%202015/Not-So-Stealthy-Son-of-A-10.aspx Ok so if they're seriously considering this, then it makes me wonder; just how expensive would it be to reset/SLE/update the existing A-10 fleet, since to me that should end up being far cheaper. Especially when you consider all the logistics and training involved in implementing a new air frame program. I mean, are the A-10 air frames just to old to work with at all? I think someone said in another thread here that someone (Boeing I think) basically has a modernized A-10 design that could be built new. Not the scorpion or anything, basically the A-10, just not the exact plane since obviously all the plans and tooling for that are long gone. Given the current state of acquisitions though, such a program could very well end up being a long and drawn out mess anyway. I guess what I'm saying is; the A-10 is great at CAS and Attack in general, is proven, and is already in place. It is also the cheapest manned CAS-capable platform out there (with the Viper being a close second). Imagine what it could do with fully modernized engines and avionics? Wouldn't that be much more practical in this age of budget constraints? I mean I really don't know, I'm sure as hell not saying I know more than Gen Welsh. Maybe there's more to it, and then there's also the whole political/economic mess that goes along with such decisions...

I've heard of those horror stories from my AF friends. I'm glad I pursued the guard by the time I was eligible. On a serious note, I always thought it would be cool if they let some good students work a BS queep job for a while and wait a few months for an IFF/B course slot to come around if someone really stood out and there were only a couple fighters in their class.