Now out from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is a detailed report on the future of the USAF by Dr Tom Ehrhard - and what makes it particularly relevant is that Ehrhard moved earlier this year from CSBA to the office of USAF chief Gen. Norton Schwartz, where he acts as a strategy advisor.
The 124-page report is worth a full read. However, the underlying theme is that the USAF needs a strategy in order to survive as an effective force, rather than a series of short term, reactive decisions. The biggest challenges are changing threats - including the need to form a credible counter to Chinese power in the Pacific, advanced SAMs and improved fighters - and a combat and tanker force that is already too old, and too large to be replaced quickly.
Among Ehrhard's recommendations: continue production of the F-22, at least to the point where the planned seven squadrons can be filled out with 24 aircraft; accelerate the rate of production of the F-35, but cut the planned quantities by around half, to some 850 aircraft; and develop a B-3 bomber in a series of blocks, starting with a near-term manned bomber with F-35 engines and a lot of B-2 systems and ending up with an unmanned global strike/reconnaissance aircraft.
Underlying theme: in order to balance the vital elements of airpower - fighters, bombers, tankers and intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance - the fighter force needs to shrink in numbers and improve its quality. Otherwise, even if JSF stays on track, fighters and their supporting tankers will be all the USAF can afford.
Ehrhard's main criticism of the F-35 is that it falls between two stools: it is much bigger and more complex than is needed for limited warfare, but lacks either the survivability of the supersonic F-22 or the reach of a bomber, so that it needs tankers and fighter cover to operate in an "access denied" environment where bases are far from their targets.
Finally, for all of you people who sneer when anyone cites Air Power Australia: read Ehrhard's citations and weep.
Yeah let's cut the numbers in half, that will surely lower the cost. Jeezus, you'd think they sit around a table trying to see who can come up with the dumbest idea possible.
"Because unlike the legion of corporate-funded "institutes" that weigh in on behalf of the F-35 and other projects, they don't have any money."
"&so that it needs tankers and fighter cover to operate in an "access denied" environment where bases are far from their targets&."
Is the F-35 a FEBA or long range interdiction aircraft? How bout using the B-2?
- PLEASE, I do not wish anyone here to take this as a criticism. I merely wish to voice some to thoughts.
I wonder how procurement of earlier aircraft would have turned out had there been such easy access to provide opinions by so many. For tactical jets, other than the A-10, I cannot readily think of any procured tactical jet that hasnt had the mission or envelope played with.
We cannot yet design one airframe that does absolutely everything for absolutely nothing.
P-47B to P-47N? F-18C to F-18E? See the trend? Mission change, or creep depending on your point of view.
For all its faults and limitations the F-35 appears to be the closest yet to McNamaras single service airplane. The question is&is it a good idea?
Sferrin - If you take the not unreasonable position that the USAF is not, in this or in any proximate parallel universe, ever going to get 1763 JSFs, better to figure out how many and build them at a high rate than to drag the program out.
jetcal1 - The F-22 and F-35 both essentially have "fighter-class" range, not unlike what an F-16 or F-15 can do with external fuel. But, people argue, they do it on internal fuel so they must have better range with "equivalent" loads. However, that's not the case: adding two external tanks to an F-35 gives you only a marginal range improvement. To get better range, you need a bigger airplane, a subsonic airplane, advanced technology or some blend of all three.
Bill: Certainly you don't want to stretch it out but then that wasn't what I was saying. As you well know, cutting the numbers in half is going to cause the cost to rocket since R&D costs don't get cut in half. Also, given how hard it's going to be to meet the current planned output rate what is increasing it further going to do?
Bill, If I want to go play outside the FEBA with a fighter, I offload weapons for fuel or tank enroute. You really can't mess with the Breguet fraction or internal capacity with out giving up weapons or increasing drag. (Although I guess you could tank and and drop the externals and pylons enroute.) Kinda defeats stealth doesnt it?
What was the original radius of action for the F-35 with internal carriage no no ext. fuel?
Obvious conspiracy ... LM is in on it too I suppose having used APA citations in their PowerPoint briefs...
Of interest too in that paper was this-
The F-35A appears to be a solid design with future adaptive flexibility, and provides needed diversity in the future fighter force. Still, it represents an opportunity cost that poses the single greatest threat to the future Air Forces strategic viability, and risks bleeding the Air Force white over the next twenty years. -
USAF still has to get over the problem of figuring out how to fund more than 48 F-35s per year. And that is assuming the average unit costs over the total buy stay with their 2008 budget guessing.
Schwartz has already stated the first cut in F-35 numbers some months back not 1763 but certainly more than 1500. Given the current F-35 schedule that keeps slipping and begging for more collateral effects of a death spiral, the USAF has problems with hair on them trying to figure out how many fighters it will have.
- As for F-35 range, the program still has to get over the hump on heat sink issues. How much fuel does the jet need (oops an operational go-to-war example) to RTB and maintain acceptable cooling. Cooling depending on using onboard fuel as a heat sink.
This is even more interesting when looking at carrier ops ( how much gas for heat-sinking is needed to hang around the marshall orbit before trapping?)... and of course our favorite, Pugsly the F-35B STOVL.... where you gain heat on landing.
Wow, I don't know if this is an inappropriate statement but let me clear up one thing (not mad just want to be clear). I never said conspiracy. What I have said is that it appears that information has been promoted in a coordinated manner.
The wing mounted radar story the ELP ran on his blog. The timeline is clear. It appears on his blog in July(?), it reran in Sep. APA does an assessment on that radar the next day, Bill runs a story on it the same day and then a few days later a member of the Australian Parliment ran a story with the local press that basically restated what the above people wrote.
Now we have this guy who is of like mind in his beliefs in the makeup of the Air Force as the APA guys, who has appeared on APA's website, who Bill has quoted from and its too far a stretch to believe that APA and associates aren't sending e-mails, making phone calls etc...?
If I'm right and I believe I am, its cool, just make sure that your position on the F-35 program is known up front. Not hid in a closet somewhere.
"Because unlike the legion of corporate-funded "institutes" that weigh in on behalf of the F-35 and other projects, they don't have any money."
None they can admit to anyway ;-)
You got me thinking about old Dark Skies episodes suddenly with that Majstic 12 reference. When Jeri Ryan were good!
Is the F-35 a FEBA or long range interdiction aircraft?
How bout using the B-2?
- PLEASE, I do not wish anyone here to take this as a criticism. I merely wish to voice some to thoughts.
I wonder how procurement of earlier aircraft would have turned out had there been such easy access to provide opinions by so many. For tactical jets, other than the A-10, I cannot readily think of any procured tactical jet that hasnt had the mission or envelope played with.
We cannot yet design one airframe that does absolutely everything for absolutely nothing.
P-47B to P-47N?
F-18C to F-18E?
See the trend? Mission change, or creep depending on your point of view.
For all its faults and limitations the F-35 appears to be the closest yet to McNamaras single service airplane. The question is&is it a good idea?
If I want to go play outside the FEBA with a fighter, I offload weapons for fuel or tank enroute. You really can't mess with the Breguet fraction or internal capacity with out giving up weapons or increasing drag.
(Although I guess you could tank and and drop the externals and pylons enroute.)
Kinda defeats stealth doesnt it?
What was the original radius of action for the F-35 with internal carriage no no ext. fuel?
Of interest too in that paper was this-
The F-35A appears to be a solid design with future adaptive flexibility, and provides needed diversity in the future fighter force. Still, it represents an opportunity cost that poses the single greatest threat to the future Air Forces strategic viability, and risks bleeding the Air Force white over the next twenty years. -
USAF still has to get over the problem of figuring out how to fund more than 48 F-35s per year. And that is assuming the average unit costs over the total buy stay with their 2008 budget guessing.
Schwartz has already stated the first cut in F-35 numbers some months back not 1763 but certainly more than 1500. Given the current F-35 schedule that keeps slipping and begging for more collateral effects of a death spiral, the USAF has problems with hair on them trying to figure out how many fighters it will have.
As for F-35 range, the program still has to get over the hump on heat sink issues. How much fuel does the jet need (oops an operational go-to-war example) to RTB and maintain acceptable cooling. Cooling depending on using onboard fuel as a heat sink.
This is even more interesting when looking at carrier ops ( how much gas for heat-sinking is needed to hang around the marshall orbit before trapping?)... and of course our favorite, Pugsly the F-35B STOVL.... where you gain heat on landing.
The wing mounted radar story the ELP ran on his blog. The timeline is clear. It appears on his blog in July(?), it reran in Sep. APA does an assessment on that radar the next day, Bill runs a story on it the same day and then a few days later a member of the Australian Parliment ran a story with the local press that basically restated what the above people wrote.
Now we have this guy who is of like mind in his beliefs in the makeup of the Air Force as the APA guys, who has appeared on APA's website, who Bill has quoted from and its too far a stretch to believe that APA and associates aren't sending e-mails, making phone calls etc...?
If I'm right and I believe I am, its cool, just make sure that your position on the F-35 program is known up front. Not hid in a closet somewhere.