LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by TopHatter
I've never heard of the "Golden Eagles" program before, thanks for the info.
It's not. The F-35 is replacing the A through D Hornets.
The Super Hornet will operate alongside the F-35 for many years to come, in a classic "high/low" mix, relatively speaking.
At the end of the day, if an airframe is worn out, then there is upgrading. You put it out to pasture at AMARG.
And the F-15 is hardly a spring chicken.
Having said that, there is a "Golden Eagles" program to carefully hand-pick 175 or so of the youngest, best-in-shape and healthy machines, upgrade the hell out of them and keep them flying alongside the F-22.
This article is somewhat old, but it's got a lot of good figures (some, like the F-22 numbers, are of course outdated) http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...0307force.aspx
I've never heard of the "Golden Eagles" program before, thanks for the info.
I think what we're going to end up with (at least in the Navy) is a hi-lo mix of F-35's and F-18E/F Super Bugs; most of the F-18C airframes (the F-18A's were retired years ago; the Blue Angels are the only ones still flying the old A-model, and they'll be transitioning to C/D's this year) will be at the end of their useful life in 5-10 years, and I predict that after 2015 all we'll be flying from the decks are F-18 E/F/G's and -35's.
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
Touche...I had my numbers mixed up. There are still A/B models flying, but it cant be more than 100 or so TOPS...and I'm too lazy to look for a number.
Stitch probably isn't too far off though.
I'd call it a "low/lower" mix.
I built the first set of production spars back in '93, sorry to see F-22 get the hook. 187 isn't even close, hell we built 1200 F-15's and over 4000 F-16's.
The 2007 multi-year procurement was $7.3 Billion for 60 frames. That's $121 million ea. The next F-35 off the line will cost a hell of a lot more than the next F-22.
Pierre Spey also has his sights set on the F-35, BTW.
The argument that it's a cold war relic and not needed might as well apply to CVN's, Virginia Class SSN's, etc.
JMHO
"Cash for Clunkers" would have funded the F-22 for 2 more years.
Obama's "stimulus" package (aka No Beaurocrat Left Behind) would have funded it for 594 more years.
Just to put it in perspective.
A couple other comments:
"Supercruise uses horrendous amounts of fuel"
Well, duh. All jet engines use horrendous amounts of fuel. The measure of efficiency isn't airspeed, it's TSFC. Thrust specific fuel consumption. That's how much fuel you will burn per hour per pound of thrust generated. Some comparisons (mil power):
F110 .745/lb/hr/lb
F414 .840/lb/hr/lb
F119 ~.800/lb/hr/lb
So roughly in between F-15 and F-18E/F in TFSC. At mil power neither F-18 or F-15 is supersonic, and F-22 is tooling along at M1.8. So for 50% more fuel per hour, F-22 covers twice the ground. That's how you compare. And there's no law that says F-22 can't power back and go slower to conserve fuel, but the option to supercruise doesn't even exist in legacy platforms.
"Supercruise is tactically useless"
The USAF disagrees. When the decision was made, it was made for a reason. It's a matter of kinematics. F-22 can operate in high threat environments more efffectively because it can transit the battlespace before the defender can react. If it does get a SAM shot at it, it will be a tailchase and the engagement zone is very small. F-35 does not share this advantage. Seems we have forgot the lessons we learned with SR-71.
F-35 has a larger frontal RCS due to the canopy bow, which was a tradeoff made for cost reasons. There is a rear aspect cone that also has no RCS treatments for the same reason.
F-22 integrates with other National Technical Means that are not discussed in public forums, but it is a potent ISR platform in it's own right. F-35 does not have the same capabilities due to the simple fact that it's an export product.
F-35 is a better ground pounder, but F-22 is much better in A2A and DEAD. F-35 was always intended to be a counterpart of F-22, not a standalone front line fighter for the USAF.
Anyway, it's a done deal. Horrible decision imo, the low number of frames will overstress the ones we have and accelerate attrition. If we have 90 frames left in service in 20 years I will be surprised.
I'd also like to explain my dislike of the F-35 in comparison, the F-22 is strictly kept in US Hands, no foreign countries operate the F-22 for a good reason, our stealth feature. The F-35, export version and cheap "knock off" of the F-22. Other countries will have the F-35's stealth capabilities and imagine if they reverse engineer/sell these aircraft to other countries. Our stealth aircraft should be to our selves, not other foreign countries no matter what. Those countries could go bad even though most of them don't have large military operations in todays modern wars.
I'm especially mad that Turkey will receive F-35's, of all countries they shouldn't recieve F-35's, lately they've been blindly pointing out to countries blaming them of "Genocide", getting on the nerves of countries such as China and even Israel. Turkey is also manipulating our US oil companies and even government because of it's important strategic location. Example, if any country recognizes the Armenian Genocide, Turkey threatens to cut off political, economic, and military support to those countries. Why should Turkey, a country that manipulates other foreign nations and supplies arms and money to fund Sudans genocidal government receive more high end US military equipment? I also think Israel, going too far in Gaza (though not genocide) shouldn't receive high end F-35's to continue it's bombing (i'm not sure if the bombing still persist) In my opinion close trusted allies like Australia and the UK should receive F-35's. I don't think countries like India, Israel, and Turkey deserve them.
I don't think so TimThere are still A/B models flying, but it cant be more than 100 or so TOPS...and I'm too lazy to look for a number.: Air Guard retires last F-16A in service
BTW, good to see you back on the boards Jimmy.
That's so unrealistic. How many F-35C's do you think will be in operational USN service by 2015? I promise you not many, certainly not enough to replace the F/A-18C force, which will be forced to soldier on despite being very, very worn out.
No, it won't; because of the (continually) shrinking military budget, more and more theoretically usable airframes will be put out to pasture (i.e.: AMARC). Which option do you think the Navy will pick? Keeping 100 older airframes flying for another 5-10 years, or purchasing 10 brand-new F-35's with fewer MHPFH (simply because they're newer) which will be good for 20-25 years? As with everything else, our force structure will be cut back (it already has) to the bare minimum, and older airframes will be retired earlier than neccesary to make room (and money) available for newer airframes. Just look at the AMARC already; I'll bet half of the B-1's out there were retired prematurely for one reason or another. They probably had another 5-10 years left on their airframe, but there's no money in the defense budget for nuclear strategic bombers anymore, so out to the desert they go.
You also need to consider that the day of the supercarrier is coming to an end; the Gerald R. Ford is still under construction, but I can almost guarantee you that she will be the last of the Nimitz-class carriers ever built. After that, we'll probably just build more America-class LHA's, which can only support 10-12 F-35's each, so we won't need hundreds of F-35's, only a few dozen to maintain a readiness fleet.
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
You missed my point completely. Of course the F/A-18C's will be replaced by the F-35C. However, the first F-35C was only rolled out over a month ago, these things take time. In 2015, the USN would be lucky to have their fleet training squadron established, let alone an actual combat squadron of Lightning II’s. So in 2015, we’re talking 1-2 Hornet squadrons that have transitioned, at best. Meaning the rest of the fleet will be left to soldier on, as I said. They will eventual be replaced, but your timing is WAY off. And yes I know the Hornets are old and need to be replaced ASAP, but the whole F-35 program is taking its sweet time, and the carrier-variant will be no different. And the USN is not going to be sailing carriers with only 2 squadrons of Super Hornets aboard.
This is what they call the 'fighter gap', and it's happening to both the USAF and USN over the next ten years. The Navy can either keep deploying the Hornets, or order more Super Hornets because the F/A-18C's probably will run out of structural life before the F-35C's are fleet ready. But I promise you, the F/A-18C will be seen on carrier decks after 2015.
Please read this:
Lockheed Martin debuts first F-35C for US Navy
"The navy's first F-35C unit is scheduled to enter service in fiscal year 2015, although one Pentagon estimate projects a two-year delay."
Now your looking at 2017 before a Hornet squadron can be retired. See what I mean?
EDIT: I'm not syaing that a Hornet squadron can't or won't be retired before the F-35C becomes operational, I'm just saying you can't do that without leaving the carrier decks very empty. I'm not sure if the center barrel replacement program makes the C-models viable into this timeframe, or if they're going to have to get creative to solve the problem. As I understand it, the carrier wings are already short-staffed, with some squadrons pulling double duty in two air wings.
Last edited by JA Boomer; 11 Sep 09, at 07:38.
Don't know what to make of this, your the first person I've ever heard say this. I think your wrong, but we'll see. One reason is that the Gerald R. Ford is the lead ship in a new class of carrier, the Gerald R. Ford - class. So why would the USN spend all the money to come up with a new carrier design, for one ship? When they could have churned out another Nimitz - class no problem? The Navy's done some stupid things, but that would be up there.
The plan is for ten Gerald R Ford class through 2058.
Agreed; but I think the supercarriers, the GRF included, are legacy platforms, just like the F-22. Originally designed to combat a rival superpower (the USSR), they have outlived their usefulness. Power projection is a great thing, but only if you can afford it; I don't think we're going to be able to sustain the most powerful (and expensive) military force in the world for very much longer. Right at the top of the list of "most expensive military items" are the supercarriers, and their associated air wings. Between the fact that we are a world power in (relative) decline, and the fact that our economy is (currently) undergoing a transformation (read: recession), we simply can't afford the biggest, baddest military hardware anymore. Just like the Seawolf-class of SSN's from the '90's, I think the GRF will end up being a one-off weapons systems (well, three-off in the case of the Seawolf), and we'll scale back our carrier forces to a mixed fleet of new-build America-class LHA's and legacy supercarriers.
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
Okay, but the America - class is an amphibious assault ship, and would take serious redesign to turn it into a light carrier, this would cost a large amount of money in itself, may as well keep turning out the super carriers. You may be right about the financial situation, but your governments don't seem to mind spending money all that much, so I'll put my money on the Ford - class continuing.
I DEFINITELY agree with you on the IOC date for the -35C; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being closer to 2020 for the C's (and 2015 for the A's & B's). And, as you pointed out, I think we will end up with a "fighter gap" of up to five years, as older F-18 airframes are retired faster than we replace them with F-18 E/F/G's and -35's.
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: