US Air Force Wants 6th Gen Fighter, not More F-22s

a reply to: BigTrain

In fact, here, let me do the leg work for you.
This was from 2008:

For example, in 1986 fighter procurement fell from a high of 399 to 60 in 1993. The US Navy purchased 171 fighters in 1986. That fell to 36 in 1993, then climbed to current levels of 40-50 a year.

By contrast, the US Air Force in 1986 bought 228, by 1993 that had crashed to 24, and fell to 0 in 1995. In 2003 it climbed back up to 21, all 21 being F-22s. The average age of those fighters has gone from 11 to over 20.

In 10 years the cost of operating the F-15 has doubled. It's estimated that the cost to repair the $12,000 longeron was $250,000 in labor. It required peeling the skin back, and removing ribs to get access to the longerons, and then putting them back together. The average age of the 441 F-15s that were grounded is 25.5. It's expected that they will be operating 177 F-15s until 2025 at which time they will be 40-45.

In the late 1990s the F-16s suffered several crashes due to engine related problems. There are 63 that have been grounded due to structural cracking. The average age of the F-16 fleet is 16.7 years.

The F/A-18 by contrast is a relatively "young" 13.6.

The B-52 fleet is 46.6 and the KC-135 is 46-48 depending on the model of tanker.

2012:

His next point is about service life that has been used to date. Over 200 aircraft have used between 41-50% of their service life. Almost 700 have used between 61-70% of their service life. Then we come to the F-15. A disproportionate number of F-15s as compared to other aircraft have used between 71-91% of their service life.

1994 GAO report:

The F-15 would be able to maintain air superiority until the 2014 time frame the GAO said, and recommended that IOC for the F-22 be delayed seven years.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Lockheed has started poo-pooing the 6th gen fighter. At the recent media event, Lockmart started saying the fighter would not be needed for 30 years. Why? Because the Pentagon could just upgrade the F-22 and F-35 in the mean time.

I'd say they might have a conflict of interest (for one) and they might be worried with the bad press the F-35 has been getting they will be in the dog house for the next procurement if that procurement starts before the F-35 has finished working out its kinks.

Ive been musing about a theoretical war with the Norks, a day 1 strike would probably require every available B-2 to take out air defences, missile silos, followed be nearly every available F-22 to keep the fighters down whilst the B-2 go for another run. I don't know what stealthy UAVs they can use to bomb if any?

In between cruise missiles from subs to really degrade their SAMs it would take a while before the carriers and land based aircraft could do much without being in serious dangerous territory.

You need to get air superiority pretty quick if it went kinetic on the peninsular and I think with the current double digit SAMs probably winning over 4th Gen aircraft, the US does need to go all out for 6 gen and with the Navy not having any Stealth strike fighters to protect its F-35 or the fleet and the bulk of the airforce being 4th gen, then they need to (and are) upgrading.

a reply to: anzha

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: anzha

And with as long as it took to hit IOC for both aircraft, just how long do they think it will take to hit it with an entirely new generation? And what do they think will replace the 4th Gen?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I bet they are worried about the 6th gen going through like the B-21 (quickly) and Congress deciding to cut the F-35.

a reply to: anzha

More than likely. If it does, I'm sorry, they brought it on themselves. I like the -35 and the capabilities it brings to the table. Lockheed has screwed the pooch at every single step.