I wonder whyArun.prabhu wrote:Though my plane will never see the light of day...
Meanwhile, you claim 1 F-35 = 10 Rafales on cost. I think it is best to let others here decide who is pushing BS claims here.Arun.prabhu wrote:Oh it didn’t take me long to figure out you are full of it.BS quoth a thousand times still doesn’t smell like roses because it was, is and always will be shit.
You've already modeled that out have you? So the only way to prove your point wrong is to wait, perhaps indefinitely, for a near peer conflict to arrive and stealth to be proven wrong.Arun.prabhu wrote:Yes and when a real war fought between peers comes, we’ll see how badly stealth fares.
But meanwhile, folks around the world, who actually know their stuff..aren't waiting for that. They're fast at work developing, fielding, or refining stealthy combat fighters.... And it's not a linear growth. Besides the F-22/F-35, there are now a DOZEN VLO fighter aircraft projects in one stage or the other around the world. That's one dozen times those with actual grasp of the subject matter, those possessing actual technical information, and those having the most relevant data on stealth and counter stealth (compared to keyboard warriors), have looked at the the capability requirement and decided to invest in VLO technologies and capabilities across the entire gamut of tactical fighter missions. Including India and spanning the entire gamut of Science and Technology related SME's (AdA/HAL etc) and the operator community in the IAF.
But what do they all know.
Look the argument that stealth is expensive...not worth it..and the same can be spent to acquire 2X of "my proposed aircraft" ignores the basic fact that those that have developed it, or those currently developing it, are capable of doing a thorough cost-benefit analysis informed with a ton of more data, information, and relevant facts than you ever will be. We can have a quick race to the bottom as anyone can draw up a fighter that is half or less the price of whatever Cesna variant you are proposing..and then someone else can advocate of even ditching that in favor of gliders and men armed with hand-grenades and parachutes.
Arun.prabhu wrote: I haven’t seen you refute 1 sortie every three days
I have provided you actual demonstrated SGR performance data. What else do you want me to do?
No, but how is that relevant now? In the 2010-2012 time-frame the USAF had to hedge because the F-35 was not operational and it had not successfully come out of its re-baselining. The third lifetime structural tests on the F-16 had been delayed for well over a decade. The USAF had purchased about 100 F-16's over a decade or slightly more leading up to the F-22A IOC. Those aircraft are good for about 40 years...perhaps even longer.. In addition to that, plenty more can go on till 12K. Certainly there are roles within the ANG and Reserve where the F-16's are perfectly suitable or even preferred. The 1763 F-35A number is quite large but it is still a balance between other priorities including combat fighters that need to replace other types (like F-15's and F-22's in the future), bombers and Unmanned aircraft etc. Like I said earlier, that number can very easily be changed as the aircraft will be in production for decades. There is nothing stopping future USAF leadership to adjusting it either way..Arun.prabhu wrote:more BS. You leave out why the life extension work was done on the F-16. Pretending does not make reality.
The F-16 structural program was re-started as a hedge yes. But they are being upgraded because it makes a lot of sense to do so and because as aircraft are pushed out of the AA through to the ANG and AFR there are good, sound economic and operational reasons to invest in a life-extension. Then there are also issues about right sizing the air-force. The USAF is committed to 1763 F-35A's. When they retire their F-16's or how and when they are pushed down to ANG and the Reserve component is entirely dependent on when they think they fail to deliver value to the AF. A SLEP on an F-16 along with a new mission computer and an AESA radar is still plenty of capability for those combat units especially considering their mission focus and how many training hours they get. Its a fairly affordable way of buying capability for them. I certainly do not advocate not going down that path. It makes sense because there are also other USAF priorities even in the combat fighter sphere, beyond just the F-35.The f16s were upgraded because F35s are delayed and not meeting requirements. The plans were made during Obama era and activated last year.
NGAD/PCA investments are trickling up and it will be transitioning from RDT&E to procurement in the late 2020's so yes that is a good balance to strike with majority of the F-16's in the Active AF being replaced by F-35A's and a mix of both F-35A's and SLEP'd and upgraded F-16's in the Reserve and Guard component. How the USAF wants to grow is also one consideration. If the USAF determines it needs more figther squadrons, then a great way to acheive that in the short term is through a combination of buying F-35's and SLEP'ing F-16's. As it is, there are limits to how many F-35A's the USAF can buy per year (for various reasons). The ceiling is closer to 80 but more realistically in the 70 range any plans to accelerate that beyond 70-80 will cause operational disruptions. Any short-medium or long term fighter squadron growth beyond that would have to come from elsewhere. One way to do that is by adding about 12-15 years of operational life on your existing fighters..especially if they are being re-tasked and being pushed down to the ANG and reserve where they both deploy less and fly less than the Active AF component.
This obviously does not mean that the Guard and the Reserve will become an exclusively fourth gen. or F-16 force. They will continue to maintain a mix of F-35's, F-15's and F-16's among other aircraft. The first F-35A for an ANG unit was handed over just last month and the USAF has already announced additional Air Force Reserve bases that will be getting the F-35A starting next summer. All in, the Active AF will be predominately F-35 heavy (compared to F-16) while the Guard and Reserve will see a mix and may even be legacy heavy through the 20's, 30's and even early 40's.This too is not atypical. The last operational sortie flown by a USAF F-4 was in 1995-96 just a year before the F-22A first flew (5-6 years after the YF22 and YF23 flew). The USAF was buying F-22's, F-15's and F-16's concurrently through a period of 1990's and early 2000's. You never wipe the slate clean and have a clearly demarcated transition. Usually it is a process that is spread over many decades.And there are sound operational reasons to do it this way besides just purely economic ones.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... n-vermont/
https://www.military.com/defensetech/20 ... th-fighter