Trump hints at ASH buy

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Tempter

Because that's so much more important than realistic training.

Oh, Im not saying that's what Red Flag is for. It's for working out what works best. It's a battle university.

But, my point is the F35 and everything else tested their are tested on what tyes of engagements they believe will most likely, and sometimes those not so likely.

Now, the F35 was designed for what the military consultants thought would be needed in the future, and it's running against those types of tests. Has the future played out exactly like those consultants expected?

Dude, the F35 is a force multiplier, no doubt. But these carefully crafted and interdependent systems mean phuk all when the plan doesn't go as planned.

I still think we need some more conventional types of jets. I'm okay with more ASH's.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

Having many more 4th generation aircraft instead of a smaller number of 5th generation aircraft won't matter, if those 4th generation aircraft are simply not effective or survivable. The F-35A (as rated by Denmark) in the highest end scenario relevant to Denmark (Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses) was rated twice as combat effective as the Super Hornet in this scenario and five times more survivable.

The F-35 is not twice or five times the cost of a Super Hornet. It's probably not any less reliable although it's too early to tell.

Now the most likely major conflict involving the US Navy will be in the South China Sea. Here, the ability to operate in A2/AD is most important, where what the F-35 brings is particularly important. There is also a limited number of aircraft that can fit on an aircraft carrier, which the F-35C will operate from. So it's very important that the aircraft operating from carriers are the sharpest stick available.

Think of a ww2 scenario where forces are relatively balanced. How would you use a Raptor series model on such type of war?

First, this isn't WW2.

Second, why do you think that 5th generation aircraft are too difficult to produce compared to 4th generation aircraft? I'd highly recommend going to a warbird museum and go look at workers rebuilding WW2 aircraft. It's not even close to the same thing as building either 4th generation or 5th generation aircraft. Actually the F-35 was originally supposed to use an innovative construction method, making it simpler than it would otherwise would be to produce (it was ditched for weight and/or cost reasons). Point is, it would be possible to make a 5th generation aircraft that is easier to produce, just whatever is added in this area would have to be taken out of other areas.

Third, the survival or territorial integrity of nuclear powers is generally protected by nuclear weapons. If conventional warfare fails or has developed a situation which isn't acceptable then nuclear weapons will be used. As an example, generally Russia is inferior to NATO in conventional strength, that's why Russia has a policy of nuclear de-escalation (limited nuclear first strike). iirc, in the Cold War it was the other way around.

a reply to: rickymouse

Two planes, one a russian plane and one an F35 coming into contact and each pilot using his gut instinct and training. That is how you find how things work, not by testing with pilots trained in the same strategy.

Actual wars are not one plane flying against one plane, instead they are composed of large opposing forces, usually each with air, sea, and land elements to them, all interacting. Except the sea part, this is specifically what Red Flag is designed to simulate.

This is why generally X tries to shoot down Y discussions are pointless.

That is how you find how things work, not by testing with pilots trained in the same strategy.

Red Air would be attempting to simulate tactics used by most likely adversaries.

The US also has Russian SAMs (e.g. S-300), in the Nevada desert.

a reply to: Tempter

Of course. You don't train a Viper pilot to act as AWACS. But they also train in all kinds of scenarios, including the less likely, such as 2v1 WVR,and others.

a reply to: Zaphod58

its funny how people will argue a point with no facts and an obvious lack of knowledge. i should have just thrown out a ton of acronyms and i would look cool and smart



didn't you get a cheer squad here recently?

a reply to: Zaphod58

They actually made an f-18 stealth varient. Foxtrot alpha has an article on it. A picture from the boneyard aswell. I'll try to find a link. Either way it's idiotic to dump the f-35. It's a beast that will only become more scarey as time goes on.

a reply to: Crumbles

They made a version that has stealthy characteristics. Just like the F-15SE you can reduce the RCS, by a significant amount compared to a stock airframe, but you won't make it truly stealthy without a total redesign, with stealth features from the outset.

a reply to: C0bzz

Thats the classical assessment of the f35 capabilities. War is not like that, the enemies weapons are not known, imagine they find a way to shoot these latest planes. Then you won´t be able to replace them in order to supply the front.

But you´re right about the nuclear weapons use. The problem with that is the shame resulting for a victorious power is such weapons are used, thats why they were never used since the ww2, and even with the argument that their use spared hundreds of thousands of lives the american president fel compelled to apologise 60 years later and he did right.

I don´t know where the next war is going to be fought but if it will be fought with conventional weapons than these super high tech planes won´t last for more than 6 months, if its going to start nuclear then they were useless anyway.

"First, this isn't WW2. "

Its not ww2 in terms of technology but could very well turn into something like ww2, I mean a long war with balanced powers opposing for years in scenarios across the world. Then all what I said above makes sense. Who´s going to build the f35´s the women left at home? Who´s going to pilot them? The 18 yo zero experience kids?

All wars end up being the same. Simplicity and efficiency have always paid off in war.

just the inlet redesign on a normal f15 would be a major undertaking, then canopy rebuilds, new skins, new power plants, thrust vectoring, etc


but yeah the F35 will cost more............not

the F35 is a great aircraft and FEW people here have any idea of its true capabilities.....these super rich planes are what will maintain air dominance

a reply to: Bluntone22

Actually this is done all the time. Most rebuilt classics have brand New engines and computer control. In fact you can take a hemi from the fifties and with some work wire it for the entire doge computer system it there today.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

With today's generation having an immersed upbringing in the digital world I would be willing to bet that a larger number of people could jump into an f-35 and get it up with no training than any other time in any aircraft in the history of flight. I have a one and a half your old that's figured out knock codes on cell phones and how to get to his apps. These planes aren't difficult to fly.

Anyway, the US for the most part has access to Rare Earth's in its own territories but rarely mine them because the only mining processes completely destroy the environment. That's why we gladly pay the Chinese who are completely willing to destroy theirs for our dollars. Can't wait till we manage to catch an asteroid. Tech problems solved.

As to not being able to produce them in enough time, you do realize the world is still a capitalist society? If you put out the money someone will want to earn it. Why do you think all of those companies showed up to build arms in WW2? There was so much money on the table they would be outsized by their competitors who did in a minute. They're already planning on building upwards of 3000. What other country is building 3000 fighter jets right now? If the was a war similar to WW2 tomorrow there would be a short pause and then an explosion of available equipment as they multiply production.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder what the leaks about the T-50 and the J-20 are indicating in terms of stealth capabilities. I personally have a hard time seeing the T-50 achieve an RCS that's much lower than a F-15SE or an ASH's, though the J-20 and J-31 look a little more promising.

From what I gather, Trump is basically advocating a return to a Reagan/Eisenhower-style "build up a formidable military but don't actually use it" approach to defense spending, and just as he's advocating an expansion of the US Navy's fleet, and I'd honestly be shocked if and expansion of the fighter fleet (both USAF, USMC, and USN) isn't also a part of that plan.

*WARNING: CRAZY, CRACK PIPE SPECULATION LIES AHEAD*

It's increasingly apparent in the era of stealth that a high/low approach to procurement makes the most sense, since stealth can get so expensive so quickly. Right now, the "high" side of things is in pretty good shape. We have a handful of F-22's for day one dominance of a peer state's airspace, and the F-35 roll out will eventually mean that most US service branches will have more 5th gen fighters than the rest of the world combined.

No, where our fighter wing is in really rough shape is on the "low" side of things. The F-15s and F-16s are hitting the wall hard, and the original hornets aren't much better off. We need to replace our 4th gen fleet, and we need to do it quickly and cheaply. At the same time, it's not exactly clear that the Any use and basic naval/marine strike roles actually require a full-fledged 5th gen aircraft, especially since those are roles that tend to have less money and resources for maintenance and upkeep.

Furthermore, the DOD is in a real pickle as far as what to replace them with. Fort Worth will be going at full tilt for decades churning out F-35s (as it should!). That means that a big F-16 buy will be an utter non-starter. At the same time, new F-15s are expensive enough that re-opening the F-22 line at Marietta almost starts to make sense, since nearly $150m/airframe for an F-15SE doesn't make any sense if you could get an F-22 for $200m/airframe.

Here's where the ASH comes in.

Boeing, in the ASH, has managed to build 19/20ths of the F-15SE for 2/3rds the price(along with vastly cheaper maintenance costs), and the ASH arguably has a better, more proven, and more mature avionics suite to boot. Furthermore, re-training F-15 and F-16 pilots to fly the rhino wouldn't be too much of a stretch at all (doubly-so now that it looks like the new USAF trainer will basically be a power wheels F/A-18), and the ASH would be a perfect Any bird to replace the rapidly self-disassembling F-15/16 fleets.

The clincher: Boeing is in a bit of a tight spot (relatively speaking) as 747 sales fell off the cliff, 737MAX sales are lower than expected, and the 777MAX/MoM/737 replacement are all years away from generating revenue. The ASH r&d is mostly paid for now, and it's essentially a turn-key solution to the DODs 4th gen woes. If the sales volume was there, would it not be possible to see a tri-service mass purchase of ASH's to at once replace not just the USN/USMC hornets, but the USAF's vipers and eagles too, to hold over both the USN and the USAF until the 6th gens realistically hit IOC in 2035? With that big of an order, and with Boeing's experience with mass-production (and desire to add revenue to offset slow airliner sales), you might be able to get the unit cost of the ASH down to $70m or even $50m if you negotiated hard enough.

It wouldn't be the first time that big, heavy McDonnell Douglas bird flew for all three branches.

a reply to: bra1nwash

My brother used to work for a computer company that did work on Hickam. One of their projects was rewiring the network at the fire stations for the flightline. He was watching one day as they tested their new truck, which came with a robot arm.

The test they had to do, involved a soda can, on top of a smoking barrel. They had to drive into the smoke, and using the cameras and arm, get the can and drive back out.

He said the older guys were running right at the time limit and getting frustrated as hell trying to do it. The younger guys were whipping the truck right in, grabbing the can and zipping back out.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Agreed. I've given up far too much of my life to Kerbal Space Program, and when I had my first time behind the yoke a couple weeks ago it felt as natural as driving a car (other than compulsively wanting to use the instruments rather than fly visually, friggin KSP).

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well clearly it wasn't viable. It was scrapped so trump trying to rehash the 18 seems pointless. Why the 18. It's not that much cheaper. He must not like lockmart

a reply to: Crumbles

Not so much wasn't viable, as the Navy didn't have the money or interest at the time. Similar to the Silent Eagle.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod


Its clear you are an ardent supporter of the F-35. And I doubt anyone actually thinks its a subpart aircraft.

But since the topic of Money and Budgets came up again, id like to hear your opinion if Congress did the unthinkable and said, ya know what, we jut dont have money for the F-35 anymore, we dont have money for a 700B to 800B a year defense budget and ays they scrapping the program.

How would you fix the fleet?

a reply to: BigTrain

For starters, end the generational system. The biggest change though is what they're heading towards. Extensive risk reduction, and as much as possible, existing off the shelf tech.

In the short term, ground the oldest, most worn out airframes. Strip them and use their parts as a stockpile for parts that are hard to get now. Then start a similar program that the B-1 just went through and run them through the Depot in large numbers. Replace the time critical parts and upgrade the radar, improve datalinks, and whatever else can be improved.

In the long term, existing designs that never made it past either wind tunnel or proof of concept stages. There are several in that pile that would fit well, and since much of the development has been done, it would help keep costs down.

Above all, fixed price contracts, with strict completion bonuses. Early and under budget, you get the entire bonus, with a descending scale down to on time/on budget, and penalties for delays.

Personally, I'd like to see F-22 production restarted. F-22 is supposed to replace F-15. F-35 is supposed to replace F-16.

a reply to: greenman4

At this point restarting the F-22 would double or triple the cost of each aircraft.

Even though they were supposed to store the tooling for them, when an F-22 in Florida recently needed repairs, they found that the box that the needed tooling was stored in was empty. So there's no telling how much of the tooling is still there, along with nowhere to build them.