Super interesting National Security Info.

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message


Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 14:16

Unread post13 Jul 2009, 18:55

VarkVet wrote:
Not true, all ideas have merit … cutting the flying hour program does save money and happens every year.
I don’t think anyone knows what route to go?
And “if” a LM engineer pointed out a deficiency with the F-22, and they kept building … that’s Subversion in my books! :evil:

I don't know hoe much it would save. I read that 1h of F-15 flight costs about $20000.

If the number of hours is halved for 2000 fighters at $20000 per hour, that's an economy of 2000 aircraftx$20000*125h= 5 billion.

Enough to buy ~50 F-35s.

A program like that would have to be carefully thought out with emergency plans to increase the level of training quickly. The F-22s squadron could continue their normal operations since they provide a high level of deterrence.

The F-15 and F-16 pilots have many years of training on their aircraft, they know their aircraft by heart, hence the idea that perhaps they could get away with half the number of hours for a few years. But maybe I'm wrong on that I don't know.


Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 14:16

Unread post13 Jul 2009, 19:01

discofishing wrote:I imagine the capability gaps (and the projected ones) are universally known, especially by the enemy. This seems like playing poker with your opponent looking over your shoulder at your cards. Iran, North Korea and others could be planning their next moves off this issue alone.

You are right on that, but emergency plans would be prepared in that case.

What I think is going to happen, it is my guts feeling, that they're going to do a SLEP of the block 40s with AESA. It wouldn't be too expensive and the aircraft would be quite good.

If they don't do anything and if there is really a shortage of hundreds of fighters, that will free up a lot of money and perhaps they will be able to ramp up the production of F-35s and the situation will get back to normal a few years later..



  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post14 Jul 2009, 04:03

Creative plan of attack to afford more F-35s, VATW, as always you are the most creative guy on this site IMO.

Not to nickle and dime your numbers however, but just for discussion sake.. perhaps an average flight hour price for 2,000 tactical A/C flying 125 hrs per yr formula is not the same as the F-15C example given of $20k/hr? Maybe the majority F-16 fleet would lower that figure, as would the A-10?

And most arguably, the cost per F-35 over the next 3 LRIP Fiscal Years (FY11-13) will avg more than $100m per pop?

You gotta just love these debates eh!?! (enter whichever smiley you want, here)

Keep the ideas coming.. Respects.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.


Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 14:16

Unread post14 Jul 2009, 17:06

Hey Geogen,

The unit cost of the F-35 would decrease with such a large buy. But you're right that it probably wouldn't save that much.

Here's another idea that could perhaps be combined with the previous idea..
- reactivate the ADFs to replace the block 32s right now. Store the 32s.
- when the 30s small inlet are finished, deactivate them, reactivate the block 32s and put the F-110s in them to turn them into block 30s small inlet.

Perhaps 150-200 more F-16s could be kept with that.

And of course 6 internal AAMs on the F-35 ASAP to increase their lethality and compensate for the loss of airframes in the inventory.

I don't know what they're going to do it will be interesting to see!

What about you do you have any idea?




  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009, 15:30
  • Location: Florida

Unread post14 Jul 2009, 20:24

Now I'm not a super smart person you can tell that by my spelling and I try not to get involved in the F-22 Debate and F-35 I work on the hornet (as a former 16 crew chief) project. So here is my question the F-22 Came out the starting gates strong and fast. And then some years down the road the F-35 came out and suddenly the F-22 was overpriced and not worth it, because a paper with a cool graph said the F-35 was more task worthy and Cheaper. so what happens when productions starts on the F-35 and suddenly there is a new X plane on paper going for a contract what happens then does that extend our gap even more cause we want to cut and run to the next great thing and add more wait on our legacy fighter's that they can’t handle or do pick on fork in the road and stick with it and cover our a$$ before we kiss it good bye.

It just seems were more like kids in a toy store with ADD then sticking to a goal and producing one or two fighters that is easy to build, maintain and not such a kick in the wallet. And causing such a gap in our air defense or maybe I don’t have a clue either way I got to state my opinion.

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests