It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CBO says funding too low to replace aircraft

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

They just got 7980 to Tinker a couple weeks ago and are stripping her out. There are conflicting stories on her condition, with some saying she's in great shape, and others saying she was a pain in the ass to work the last few years, and had lots of problems. Low hour aircraft, but had to have a specialized PDM that ran upwards of $10M, and would have been $60+M to bring her back to R model standards.


edit on 12/18/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Now the CBO is floating cost cutting ideas, including buying 510 F-16s and 349 F-18s, while canceling F-35 purchases between 2019 and 2028, possibly retiring the F-22 and or B-1, and deferring the B-21.

www.flightglobal.com...


Why in the HELL would the Air Force want to buy F/A-18's????? I couldn't understand how the Navy bought them. Tomcat 21 and the A-6F would have been better in the long run. I smell the hand of Boeing here.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Tomcats were more maintenance heavy I thought.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

The Hornets would go to the Navy and Marines. Either way it's a great plan to allow potential adversaries to close the gap even faster.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I am staggered at the time frames for heavy maintenance you are quoting there. In 1991 it (KC-135) was averaging just over 153 days! Even the heaviest "D" check on a commercial older airframe type like the 747 would never run much over 40 to 45 days max without there being a very good reason like major rebuild of a sub assembly due to damage or corrosion. I never experienced the Section 41 rebuilds that were mandated for all early model 747's but I have been involved in airframe stringer replacements, tension tie mods, fuel tank corrosion work, strut rebuilds, corrosion and fatigue cracking surveys, full landing gear replacements and pressure bulkhead replacements done. None of them ever took that long. Of the two major accidents we have had over the last 30 odd years that required major custom rebuild work of fuselages and wings and incorporated other mods and upgrades in the down time, none of them went for more than about 9-12 months for the worst one. That included investigation, planning, custom tool and jig builds and the actual work being completed. And as for 300-600+ days that is just unbelievable.

I really would love to discuss the exact mechanics of what is happening in these depot checks and what kind of work and the time frames to complete it. Is it a case for example of airframes sitting around for months/years at a time because of a work backlog? Or is it actually how long they take to complete this work?



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

We don't upgrade airliner design "because it works".

We upgrade military tech because " it may not always work".

Ok?!?

Our enemies got more lethal by copying our R&D.

We got poorer. If we lose a few F-22s we will retreat and gasp. We need kill ratios of 30 to 1 for the F22 and F35 to make sense. Even 3 to 1 would be too much for us to bear for very long.

Had we NOT developed the F22 and F35, or many other systems just in case, then our enemies could not steal the information and build 5th gen planes and upgraded everything.

Also we gave our best new tech to everyone and their mother. We have VERY BAD allies. In a decade or 2 our enemies will have the means to produce planes like us.

I really don't care what people who stand to gain monetarily say about it. 1000 F16s will kill everyone short of immortals.

A few dozen F22s will die after they run out of missiles.

We need numbers. Banking on tech has ALWAYS been our problem. Then we just do whatever the hell and get the job done anyways.

Missiles were supposed to eliminate guns on planes.

Kind of like how the F22 is set to eliminate all fights except those beyond the visual range. Yeah. BS.

When the few missiles are gone, so goes the plane that shot them. Then a whole bunch of ancient planes will fill the sky and fly farther beyond their life expectancy to do what they do.


edit on 12 18 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

Back in the 90s, we'd see our birds sit maybe 30-45 days before going into the line. I saw a couple come back at almost a year after leaving for PDM. We'd get them back with large portions of fuselage reskinned. They'd remove the engines, then the wings, and if they found any corrosion, fuselage skin. I used to have pictures of a -135 that was bare metal, no vertical fin, no stabs, no wings, no gear.

Corrosion checks and repair is the biggest part of the time that they're looking at. They're fairly low time aircraft (980 was at around 21,000 hours or so), but with the locations they operate from corrosion is a major concern.
edit on 12/18/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Zaphod58
I really don't care what people who stand to gain monetarily say about it. 1000 F16s will kill everyone short of immortals.

A few dozen F22s will die after they run out of missiles.

We need numbers. Banking on tech has ALWAYS been our problem. Then we just do whatever the hell and get the job done anyways.

Please explain where you plan to base those 1000 F-16s in the Western Pacific Theater.
The Pacific has not one tenth of the military infrastructure of Europe in 1985.


So yes, you need numbers. But not platforms you cant support over thousands of miles. Short legged, land based fighter jets are next to useless when your opponent sits inside an A2AD zone deeper than your average combat radius.
The solution is obvious - AtA capability on platforms with much greater range and increased weapons load.
The ideal AtA platform in the Pacific is a B-21 variant, not a F-anything.



Missiles were supposed to eliminate guns on planes.

Kind of like how the F22 is set to eliminate all fights except those beyond the visual range. Yeah. BS.

When the few missiles are gone, so goes the plane that shot them. Then a whole bunch of ancient planes will fill the sky and fly farther beyond their life expectancy to do what they do.

This is not how it works.
When the missiles are gone the 5th Gen platform will simply disengage.
The 4th Gen platform will not be able to force an engagement.
It lacks the detection capability. Even if you add an advanced IRST capabbility, the 5th gen platform will always be able to detect the 4th gen first, enabling to simply slip away or at the very least make it impossible for the 4th gen to generate a valid intercept vector.
Then there is the combat range issue. The whole bunch of ancient planes filling the sky will simply lack the range to chase 5th gen platforms anywhere. 5th gen combat range is bad for the pacific, any legacy jet in actual combat does worse.



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian
Being I think a second or third year tinbasher at the Red Rat I helped with one or two section 41,s.It was AWESOME!!!!Lot of it was helping the tradesman with rivetting or thrown a handful of Hiloks to install and a loooot of time in the avionics bay going through insulation bags chasing schwarth with a vacuum cleaner.




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join