1Seat 1Engine

The cost overruns of the 22 and the 35 aren't due to stealth. They're due to the fact that they have to do everything for all services to an unrealistic standard.

That means we have to go hi risk development on stealth, hi risk development on engines, hi risk development on lift fan technology, hi risk development on sensors, hi risk development on everything, and at the end of the day do a hi risk integration of it all into a single hi risk system.

Any one of these things would be manageable. All of them together become exponentially expensive.

The F-22 is an amazing machine, but in the end, it has way too much air to air capability for the dollars we spent and the number of air frames we received. At the end of the day, a two ship of F-22 still carries the same amount of ordnance of the a/c it replaced. But it cannot dominate airspace that it doesn't occupy, and it can't kill more airplanes than the missiles it carries.

At the same time, the USAF diverted all possible $$$'s away from upgrading or purchasing cheap off the shelf technology towards the development of these aircraft, creating the obsolescence crisis that they now use to justify their decision.

And why? From Rand report released this month:

“Under none of the plausible conditions we analyzed did” the F-35 “have a lower life-cycle cost estimate,” Rand, a nonprofit research institution, said in the report released this week on the plane known as the Joint Strike Fighter. (compared to three totally different a/c)

The report questions a fundamental tenet of the Pentagon’s costliest weapons program -- that building different versions on a common base will reduce costs. Rand analyzed an estimated $1.5 trillion “life-cycle cost” that includes acquisition plus long-term support of the fleet."

That's right $1,500,000,000,000.00. Basically the same amount of money we've spent on both Iraq and Afghanistan together. Approx $5000 for every US citizen.

UAL T38 Phlyer

The cost overruns aren't primarily due to stealth, but stealth is still more expensive than your off-the-shelf F-16 (which is still pretty stealthy, compared to an F-4).

A Flanker is about one-fourth the cost of an F-22, and performance-wise, is a near-equivalent. In a low-speed knife fight, better.

Avionics and data-link may not be there, but you see what I mean. A major portion of the cost reduction is the absence of stealth.

Totally agree on the rest. It doesn't matter how awesome the airframe is, if you can't get enough weapons to the fight.

The irony of the RAND report: the idea of "One jet; all services" was done before, about 1961. Robert MacNamara was a "Whiz Kid" from the auto industry, and as SecDef, he said he was going to cut acquisition costs by going with a common-aircraft.

That aircraft was the F-111. Great bomber; never a fighter.

The irony?

Made in the same factory in Ft. Worth where they're building the F-35.

atpwannabe

Mothballing the A-10 would be a huge mistake IMO.



atp

E2CMaster

Strangely, it seems the best "All service" aircraft, from a fighter and light/medium attack standpoint were Navy birds lightened up for USAF service
F-4 and A-7.

From and engineering standpoint there a lot of design compromises that must be made for a CV variant, nevermind a VTOL variant.

Slower approach speed, be it by larger wings or variable geometry, MUCH stronger landing gear. (for those not familiar, there is NO attempt to flare or cushion a CV landing) and the structure must be able to handle catapults and arrestments as a "normal" procedure, not a once in a while arrestment.

Also, CV arrests are a lot more abrupt than any field arrestment I ever took.

Vipir

F-35 = Marketing genius (evil marketing genius)
3 US military branches
10 countries involved in development
46 states involved in production
1400+ suppliers/sub-contractors
Lockheed = Evil Empire

Regardless of its capes (or lack thereof) or cost, what politician do you think will let this thing die?

https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/production

REVERTEDRUBBER

Didn't they try to give them to the Army in the 90's? I remember a rumor the Army would not take them without the support equipment, contracts, funds...

rickair7777

That was the Marine Corps. Or maybe they tried the army too. But I knew a few jarheads who were drooling over the possibility of getting their hands on the Hog. Too bad the adoption didn't work out...I think it would have found a happy home.

UAL T38 Phlyer

There was an attempted draw-down about 1990. Rumors were rampant: the F-4 was getting chopped; the A-10 was going to the Army.

Then Saddam invaded Kuwait. The F-4G and RF-4C flew for 6 more years. A-10: 23 and counting.

I flew with the guy who has tried for years to get A-10s in to the Forest Service as Fire-Bombers. While it would be maneuverable, compared to a Herc or PV-2, I don't think it can carry enough load.

They were going to use the centerline tank as the water container. 4000 lbs of water? Too heavy to fly in the mountains in summer heat, and not enough water to be really effective on a big fire.

He proposed taking the gun out, to save weight. Problem is, the gun is such an integral part of the airplane, that taking it out means the CG is unflyable.

No one thought it was going to happen then, and I don't think it is going to happen now.

USMCFLYR

It was right after the Gulf War when the rumors started flying and I was already volunteering to be one of the first Marine Warthog pilots
One reason I heard way back then though was it was not *expeditionary* enough.
I would have made some allowances.

cougar

This was actually the case. The AF had stopped A-10 assignments and A-10 FWS classes in the fall of 1990.

Remember, Gen. Horner didn't deploy the A-10's to the Gulf after Aug 2nd, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Apparently Gen. Schwarzkopf wasn't very happy about the decision. Only then were units from England AFB and Myrtle Beach AFB deployed.

You could find the quotes "Fighter pilots make movies, Attack pilots make history" and "You can shoot down every fighter the Soviets have, but if the Russian tank commander is drinking in your bar, you've lost the war(or some version)" in every A-10 squadron I was in.

Even Gen. Walsh, who flew A-10's, seems to think this is a good idea. Will the AF never learn?