Just a few thoughts for the day.
If F-35 program woes continue, LRIP-4 could be the "peak-production" mentioned by Canada's DND boss MacKay. He thought it would be in 2016. LRIP-5 will of course have less aircraft than LRIP-4.
Fixed price contracts as a future? Well we have seen that DOD can only afford 30 aircraft for LRIP-5. What the vendor does to improve this situation is well, up to the vendor.
USAF is going to have to do more upgrades for its F-16 fleet to make up for the short fall. About 350 Block 4x and 5x aircraft will be where the money is spent.
Think about it. Neither the F-16 nor the F-35 will be able to stand up to emerging threats in the coming years, yet there is plenty of work to do for second-tier fighters.
For that, the F-16 and F-18 bring more capability to what the joint coalition commander needs. And with less expense. Maybe the USAF can prove they are frugal?
Each F-16 upgrade will be $9.4 million.
The F-35 won't see anything that the joint warfighter needs (blue-force tracker and Link-16) until a notional (fantasy) Block 4 thru 6.
The F-35 takes money away from other DOD communities that really provide value. Time to cancel the F-35.
3 comments:
This will actually lead to an increased capability gap and national strategy gap as there will be far fewer than required and planned aircraft recapitalizing the early retiring aircraft. It's why some analysts on this matter have been calling for supplemental new-build F-16s to be acquired during the development and LRIP phase, to better hedge against likely miscalculated force structure expectations.
Regardless, this has been one of my core concerns for a couple years now. If the USAF can only afford something like 19 F-35A jets with a $530bn DoD appropriations budget... how many then will they be able to afford when the base budget is down under $500bn over the next 5 yrs? Then add inflation on top of that.
I have to confess I'm truly surprised there has been no Joint Armed services hearing related to this part of the equation.
And as Eric as voiced it numerous times before, I would have to concur with him that it's probably time for a Senate investigation (including closed door sessions where they can lay out the true facts) on what the actual story is and what actions need to be taken as result of the findings.
Not interesting.
If you think USAF universe rather build Silent Eagles.
But SHornets would make more sense - to get closer to unified TacAir ;-)
The potential political ignominy for the US from this fiasco is huge. By allowing a major arms conglomerate to bribe international partner participation in development of an unproven aircraft design, American politicians have been complicit in potentially weakening the military capacity of western nations that have hitherto been somewhat reliant on a now well-proven F-16. At a time when many nations are coming under economic stress, involvement in the increasingly costly JSF program may become prohibitive and allow fewer technically complex platforms to be continually available for operations.
I do not buy the argument that VLO will be essential for survival in most future conflicts. Nations have often had to fight with what they possess which was not necessarily state of the art technology. The skies over the English Channel were hardly black with Spitfires and Hurricanes etcetera did quite well against Me 109, Fw 190 and other types; but giant leaps forward since of course regarding on-board systems.
The F-16 still has substantial growth potential compared with the F-18 and much R&D has already been accomplished to enhance the single engine platform as affordable upgrades of existing air combat and/or strike capabilities. The arguments posed by John Boyd remain as valid as ever.
The big mistake was allowing Lockheed-Martin to deviate from F-16 and F-22 enhancement/FB22 development by initiating the F-35 project. Just too much hanging on a competing unproven type that will seemingly not adequately substitute for either the F-16 or F-22. This appears a direct consequence of coalescence of aircraft manufacturers into fewer large and powerful conglomerates with consequent loss of competitiveness in aircraft design and politicians worldwide now seem intimidated by the increasingly influential arms manufacturers.
If the political will does not emerge to kill off the JSF, it seems conceivable that there could be some monumental legal class actions against the US if detriment is caused to the military (and economic) capacity of so-called partner nations through participation in the project. What a nightmare!
Post a Comment