First, it is only about ONE trillion over 30 years. Second, buying something like F-15 would not reduce cost dramatically. I don’t have the US cost breakdown, but I do have the Canadian life-cycle estimate for 30 years:
[ul]
[li]$152M for acquisition[/li][li]$205M for sustainment costs (maintenance, spare parts, future upgrades, etc.)[/li][li]$154M for personnel costs[/li][li]$149M for operating costs (fuel, etc.)[/li][/ul]
This makes $660M per plane, quite similar to the $618M US estimate and $759MNorwegian estimate. So you can see that even cutting the acquisition cost in half would have only a small effect on the life-cycle cost.
May, not will. Even then, band-switching may allow you to detect a stealth aircraft but at much more limited ranges and more slowly. Stealth will not be negated in any meaningful sense in the next 50 years.
You can’t build a fighter “like the B-52”. The B-52 doesn’t have to be good at anything except carrying lots of stuff. Fighter aircraft have to be good at many things, even the ones that aren’t stealthy. More importantly, you can’t turn a non-stealthy aircraft into a stealthy one by “modifying it over the years”. Boeing has been developing a stealthy version of the F-15 for years; all they’ve been able to do is reduce its frontal RCS, and they haven’t sold a single one in three years.
why would you use satellites between planes for communication?
I was proposing remotely-piloted aircraft, suggesting the pilots would be in the U.S. I suppose they could be in an AWACS-type aircraft, but shooting down one aircraft would take out the whole squadron of RPAs.
Ah, I see. I was going for a different tact. The drones would act as a wingman and take the hit if a missile was launched and otherwise act as part of the same plane. that way you could launch 5 planes with one pilot and get the utility of more hard points per pilot.
Seems like expensive chaff.
Yes and once I sucker-hit that dude twice my size in the head with a bottle, I’d be unable to keep pace in a fight…except I already split his head open with a bottle.
I’m not an expert on these things or anything. But it seems to me that once a modern airplane has fired it’s missiles and guns at you, the battle is pretty much over.
Also, I think people are treating the F-35 like an air-superiority fighter like the F-22 Raptor or F-15 Eagle. Not the multirole strike fighter that it is. IT’s not designed to be a “top gun”. It’s designed to bomb targets and maybe fight it’s way in and out of the battlefield with support from other aircraft.
Drones are cheaper than manned aircraft. If one of the weapons platforms has to take a hit it would be more cost effective if it was a drone.
It’s precisely suppose to be a top gun for the Navy.
I’m going to step in and lament the deactivation of the A-10. Yes, it was slow as dogshit and yes, it’s a tank killer which there doesn’t seem to be a need for anymore as such but two things about the A-10:
Survivability (the pilot sits in an iron tub) and…
Close air support. The A-10 is perfectly suited to be a multi-role attack aircraft simply based on those metrics alone. That chain gun strikes fear in anyone that opposes it and it can effectively drop bombs.It’s also faster than helicopters (not by much!).
This is all assuming a conventional format without need for stealth, which the goddamn A-10 excels at not being but does it’s goddamn job anyway.
Anyone that’s served and has heard it’s chain gun in action “like a giant belching” knows what I mean. It’s an incredibly survivable airframe like the B-52 and I was shocked when the Chair Force deactivated it. At least give it over to the goddamn Army!
Fuckers!
This. It’s about the only weapon the Russians ever admitted fearing. If you see that come over the tops of trees you better not be in a vehicle of any kind. Any army caught out on a road or bridge would be shredded on the first pass. there is no other weapons platform like it. They might as well claim the F-35 is a replacement for a B-52 or an Atlas 5 rocket.
More news on the F-35 costs (for the engines):
Oh yeah, forgot about the engine. Of which there is only one. I guess the pilots will get a lot of glider time in the simulator.
F-16’s only have one engine. How’s that a big deal (other than we only have to buy one engine per aircraft instead of two)?
It’s not a front line fighter.
Which one isn’t? And how do you define “front line fighter”?
The F-16 is not a front line fighter (air superiority fighter). It’s a lightweight multi-roll aircraft.
Isn’t the F-35 also considered a “multi-role” aircraft?
Yes and it’s also suppose to replace the F-18 which is the Navy’s air superiority fighter. The whole point of the thread is to question it’s ability to be all things for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.
The F/A-18 is a multi-role combat aircraft, the same as the F-16 and the same as the F-35; if anything the F/A-18 is more of a multi-role aircraft, hence the insistence of designating it F/A-18 rather than just F-18. The F/A-18 became the Navy’s “air superiority” fighter only by virtue of the retirement of the F-14.
I’m still at a loss about what you consider a front line fighter or a multi-role aircraft has to do with the number of engines a plane has.