Occasionally, I delve into air force matters when warranted.
Hey air force (af), I understand spin and I understand
differences of opinion but don’t flat out lie to my face and insult my
intelligence.
Let’s look at the math on this. The af is claiming that updating 32 F-22s
would cost $3.5B. Doing the arithmetic,
that works out to over $109M per aircraft.
By anyone’s standard, that’s patently absurd. You could tear the aircraft down to the
wheels and rebuild it for that amount.
How stupid do you think I am, air force (I’ll capitalize their name and
give them respect when they begin respecting me, the taxpayer)?
Liar.
Moving on … a decade to convert 32 aircraft? Really?
Our entire industrial and military might could only convert 3 aircraft
per year? We can build a hundred brand
new aircraft from raw materials but updating existing aircraft has a limit of
3 per year?
Liar.
The NGAD will be flying in ten years? Really?
The F-35 has been in development for over two decades and isn’t yet
fully combat capable (Block 4 is required for that) and the automated logistics
support system is non-existent in any useful, functional form. But, we’re going to have the
as-yet-to-be-defined NGAD flying in ten years?
Liar.
_____________________________
Air Force officials argue that the roughly $500 million required annually to maintain 32 Block 20 F-22s — which they emphasize are not equipped with the most modern weapons — would be better spent on developing the Raptor’s successor, the secretive Next Generation Air Dominance fighter. Lt. Gen. Richard Moore, Air Force deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, further estimated in April that making the Block 20 fighters combat worthy would take about a decade of effort and cost approximately $3.5 billion — a timeline that, ideally, would already see the NGAD system flying.[1]
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/05/much-better-chance-usaf-can-retire-f-22s-in-fy24-kendall/
They can give more profit to Contractors on development jobs than they can upgrade jobs. More profit delivered means better retirement jobs. BTW Wiki says the cost of the F-22 was $138M (restart $228M) so the upgrade is close to the total aircraft cost.
ReplyDeleteSay, you bought a car. It is a lemon. Money you spent has been spent.
ReplyDeleteThis lemon costs you a lot to fix but rarely work for you. It is either in mechanical shop or on its way to be fixed.
One day, you may decide - enough is enough but your friend tells you - you have spent a lot to buy it, why.........
I'm sorry. You lost me on your analogy. What is your point?
DeleteHe thinks the F-22 is a lemon, and any funds spent fixing it (updating the Raptor, putting it back in production) will be better used buying (developing and then setting up a production line for) an All New, All Different stealth fighter.
DeleteIt's this attitude that devastated the US defense industry and put it behind China's. The latter learned "skipping a generation in technology" DOES NOT WORK, during the Great Leap Forward, and has refrained from repeating those mistakes; the US still hasn't learned the necessary lessons, despite ample opportunities to (the Gerald R. Ford and Zumwalt classes, the LCS TWICE OVER, the Army's FCS, the JSF).
I think that he meant you bought an expensive brand new car. Rather than work as you think, it keeps breaking down and costing you money to repair. You cannot refund nor the vendor honor its warranty. Rather than keeps bleeding, it had better junk it and buy a new one.
DeleteIn the same vein, that F22 that belly landed has been put back into service, after 5 YEARS of REPAIRS!
ReplyDeleteWe are so screwed when we go to war with China, anything that manages to get hit and survive to wallow back to port or airfield is a loss, forget it, this isn't WW2 or even Vietnam when we could still patch stuff up fast and go back into combat, anything hit TODAY is a mission kill for years!
"anything hit TODAY is a mission kill for years!"
DeleteWhy? Why is it taking us so long to repair/upgrade assets today as opposed to WWII?
I'm not disagreeing. I'm prodding you to think this through because there's an important (vitally so) aspect to this that I don't think you've recognized.
'The af is claiming that updating 32 F-22s would cost $3.5B. Doing the arithmetic, that works out to over $190M per aircraft.'
ReplyDeleteI assume the 0 and the 9 were transposed here - 3500 / 32 is about 109.
In any case, this rework cost is ridiculous. The F-14A => F-14D(R) rebuild was cheaper, and that included replacing the engines, replacing the radar, replacing the avionics, replacing the displays, and rebuilding the airframe to reset its fatigue life 'counter' from however many thousand hours had been accrued to zero.
My guess is that the lie is in the spec, as this is easier to defend before the GAO or a similar entity. $3,500 million for 32 aircraft is likely a roughly-accurate cost for a proposal that was designed to be excessive in scope in every regard so as to lead to a bloated cost figure, which would then be used to justify the Air Force's a priori preferences (new spending on NGADs).
It's a demonstration of fundamental unseriousness within the flag-level officer corps. China's demographic and economic foundations are stronger now than they will be ten or more years in the future, meaning we ought to focus on maximizing short- to medium-term capability, thus of course we do the opposite by 'divesting to invest' because the NGAD is cool and sexy.
"I assume the 0 and the 9 were transposed here"
DeleteOops! Spastic typing. Corrected. Thanks.
Your article brings to light several interesting points re the f22, costings and the methods and operation of the usaf. In an article in air and space forces magazine Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall explained to the Senate Armed Services Committee in May (23), the issue isn’t that the Block 20s “have no capability or that they have a defective design—[they’re] just not upgraded to the state that we need to meet the current threat.”The article went on to state - The cost to bring them up to that capability, Kendall said, is “about $2 billion to upgrade these aircraft; $50 million apiece, roughly.” ( 32 x 50 = 1600 so a bit of extra put in there! after all what is another 400mill the taxpayer will cough up ))
DeleteHowever your article takes statements from
Lt. Gen. Richard Moore, Air Force deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, wherein he indicated - "further estimated in April that making the Block 20 fighters combat worthy would take about a decade of effort and cost approximately $3.5 billion.
leaving aside the question as to whether the upgrade is worth the cost ( I would argue it is a no brainer and v small sum to pay to keep the premier fighter at the forefront for the next ten years and in my hand as opposed to spending the monies on a Bird in the bush. )
However it is surely also very enlightening that the Air Force Secretary and the Air Force Deputy Chief of staff have wildly differing figures which they are both quoting as being accurate and correct.
One figure is almost TWICE that of the other.!
They cannot both be correct and yet they are giving these figures to lawmakers and the legislature as per as the poor schmuck paying for it.
The article also brought to light that in the past when upgrades were proposed for the f22 usaf Air Combat Command did consider that upgrade, but each time it has in the past it has ultimately chosen to pass.
This repeated decision has in effect rendered a sizeable section of the f22 fleet, arguably the most effective air combat unit in the usaf, more and more outdated from the remainder of the f22 fleet and led to the upgrade and maintenance problems the usaf is again faced with. foot and shot come to mind.
Thank god it's not only me. Now, mind you, the cost on the f-22 upgrade goes up each time the Air Force is asked. First stab was $50 mil per I believe, which is a pittance for a jet that is only halfway through its life and is about to get most of the "NGAD Like" upgrades and be basically the most advanced figher we do have. Yes, f-35 has better avionics, but the F-22 is getting some of the newest advances that the inflexible yet modular f-35 won't get that will be the testing ground for the follow on NGAD. So we could in essence upgrade 32 of them, or hell, let's just do a squadron with 2 spares of 26, which at first before lying quote was 50 mil and that comes out to 1.3 billion. 26 new f-35a's with the new inflation cost is what about 85 mil per, so you'd be over 2 billion for a squadron plus 2. Best potential killer in the world, the f-22, and that seems like a bargain. You could deploy the squadron in the Pacific, don't care where, in fact make it flexible with a flight of 4 at several bases. But no, we will save the $ to instead go towards a fighter not yet here, one that they are going to only build 200 at first glance of- because we have the awesome no need of humans due to our huge advanced drone fleet of CCA's, none of which has remotely proven they can handle an air superiority task (how many of these attritable, is that a real word, and what price is acceptable to be blown out of the sky and how fast can you really make them? I think a good chance a Chinese J-20 or hell Russian SU-35 might shoot them down prior to even being a threat). The Air Force said it needed at least 7 fighter squadrons I believe in '17 to add to the existing total for commitments, and many a think tank said 7+. The fact they are burning out fighters due to not being able to spread airframe hours around would seem to confirm yes, please have more of them, fly each less. But instead don't upgrade already built f-22's, stand down 2 ANG f-16 squadrons in full prior to them getting their f-35's (AL/WI), retire 4 f-15 squadrons, only half of which had f-35 replacements (in Japan and England, no enemies near either of them, just China and a shooting war), retire another squadron of f-16c's that could have stood up another squadron (find the pilots, take them off cute projects and use ex pilots, old guys/gals that don't fly, not 32 year old certified f-16 pilots) from the training squadrons, and AMARG has nearly a full wing in long term storage of f-16 c/d and a squadron of f-15c/d. This is not the maintenance hulks either, these are the category types of do not touch in any way these are spares. There's your fighter shortage, all bought/paid for, get the pilots, hire a merc force from our ex Euro pals, don't care. But don't p*ss down my back and tell me it's raining and saying how all this is going to pay for the next gen of fighters that will rule the skies, and they won't be here prior 2030. I'd add, there are enough b1's in AMARG that can shoot LRASM's, one thing we need desperately more of, that we could give the Navy, if the AF doesn't have the stones to bring them back, to easily do 40, 5 squadrons, upgrade them, spend 4 billion for 15 more years of life, and now you have a ship killing fleet of jets that would be launching beyond SAM distance with missiles that can seek out ships with their seekers (the targeting dilemma we talk on). And oh, who was supposed to get invaded in say 2027 in the Pacific? And we are retiring more jets than we can afford to and of course the Navy with ships to stop that invasion in 2027? We really don't want to win anything except new contracts for certain defense vendors is what it sure looks like. Somebody needs a defense review that says we really need this amount of standing forces, we need to pay them, cut the fat everywhere, close the horsecrap bases, horsecrap training and woke programs, and prepare for the bloody war that can be prevented by looking stronger than the next foe. Enough ranting, sorry.
ReplyDeleteWow! Feel better? LOL :)
DeleteI hate seeing flying condition jets that are desperately needed put in the boneyard and hear every excuse used, from not enough pilots (figure out how to retain them then), costs to maintain them (we have something free to maintain?), it's cheaper to buy new (BS), blah blah. I do feel better.
Delete" I do feel better."
DeleteGood!. Navy Matters is not just a blog. It's a place of healing and spiritual renewal. : )
Now, go forth and spread the word of the Blog !
"Hey air force (af), I understand spin and I understand differences of opinion but don’t flat out lie to my face and insult my intelligence."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Sorry to say the Airforce lies. A lot. And they're not even good at it. They tell an obvious lie and when it's not believed they tell another even more obvious lie in a devolving, stupid, and embarrassing cycle. Here I'd guess they think that by claiming the F-22 upgrade would cost about as much as a new airplane they'll get support for retiring very valuable planes. Tho, why they would want to do that boggles the mind. Deep down I would like to believe that the Generals know something I don't and are making a good decision.......unfortunately I do not believe that..
The F-22 is the most capable, lethal fighter plane in the world ... and we want to get rid of them.
DeleteThe Ticonderoga class is the most capable, lethal AAW ship in the world ... and we want to get rid of them.
The Los Angeles class submarine is surpassed only by the Virginas (maybe - that's unproven) and we've early retired a bunch of them.
A Chinese agent could not do what we're doing to ourselves.
"The Ticonderoga class is the most capable, lethal AAW ship in the world ... and we want to get rid of them."
DeleteThe Ticonderoga class are approaching the end of their service life. The issue is not having a replacement in time.
But, how less capable and lethal are the Burke destroyers?
"But, how less capable and lethal are the Burke destroyers?"
DeleteAs you know from reading this blog, the Burkes are capable AAW ships although they lack the number of VLS cells, have one less fire control illuminator, one or two less CIWS, lack the C2 facilities to be a group AAW coordinator, generally lack Harpoon racks, and have 1600 nm less range at 20 kts, among other things.
"On the Ticonderoga, the placement of the illuminators "
DeleteComment deleted as factually incorrect. Look at a drawing of a Ticonderoga. It can readily present all four.
How about those two (Tico and AB) compares to China 055?
DeleteMy brother in christ, I am not the other dude whose post you deleted, and I am not here to argue: I genuinely want to learn because I took your advise to look at an image, and I just don't see it:
Deletehttps://imgur.com/G1iueAl - USS Vincenes, with illuminator positions marked.
Looking at this top-down view of Vincennes, it looks to me like at best, we can get 3 illuminators pointing for a broadside engagement. The side by side layout of the bridge illuminators looks to me like that the broadside facing illuminator will block it's sidecar partner. I can't see an angle where we can get all 4 illuminators on the same facing - either the mast or the superstructure or the illuminators themselves are in the way. If you do have that angle, please, by all means, show me - what am I missing?
Direct ahead 12 o'clock, the mast blocks the aft illuminators, and the bridge superstructure blocks the illuminators from looking ahead and down at the sea. Only the bridge illuminators seem to have an unobstructed view to the horizon. Direct aft 6 o'clock looks like we have the same issues in reverse.
If we look 9 o'clock, both aft illuminators can look in that direction, as well as the port bridge illuminator. We can turn the starbord bridge illuminator to look 9 o'clock, but isnt it's view going to be blocked by the port illuminator?
Other views of Ticos from different angles. They're not pretty ships, but they're respectable ships.
https://imgur.com/SXbnJq5
https://i.imgur.com/gGl7KPb.jpeg
"The side by side layout of the bridge illuminators looks to me like that the broadside facing illuminator will block it's sidecar partner."
DeleteA few degrees off of a straight broadside will clear the forward illuminators and all four will have clear views.
Also, any elevated target can be seen by all four illuminators in any broadside angle.
Note that the aft illuminators have 360 degree fields of view since they're taller than any structure on the ship except the masts and those would cause little if any obstruction. Similarly, the forward illuminators have close to 360 degree fields of view. Look at a profile view and note the heights and clearances.
This is too obvious to belabor.
I'm wondering more about interference, really. Obviously in the grand scheme of things the masts are not that big, but they've got all sorts of electronic things on them, and depending on how big the illuminator beam is, wouldn't these things all mutually interfere with each other? It's all EM and microwave energy being emitted out there.
Delete"I'm wondering more about interference"
DeleteEvery radio, radar, network broadcast antenna, and whatever that emits has its own frequency so there should be little interference. Frequencies aside, the Navy goes to fairly extensive lengths to locate each piece of equipment so that they don't interfere with each other. As you'll note from photos of any ship of any type, there are numerous emitters located near each other and yet they don't interfere or cancel each other out.
Beyond this, if you're still unsure, you need to research and bring yourself up to speed on electronic emissions.
It's not that different from the Eurofighter whose 1st Tranche has that many structural and systemic differences with later production examples that after upgrading one airframe to newer standard it's not considered viable to upgrade them, they will be retired in the coming years after about 20 years of service, some have already been retired. They don't have enough electrical and cooling outout to support never radars and computers.
ReplyDeleteThe F-14 rework was easier as the tooling and the production line at Plant 6 was functioning. Unfortunately, the tooling and such for the F-22 was destroyed and the production line was retooled for the F-35. As far as the F-22 from JBER that was rebuilt in five years, they cannibalized parts from a Raptor down in Eglin AFB.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jber.jb.mil/News/News-Articles/NewsDisplay/Article/2880182/crew-chiefs-rebuild-f-22-after-fiery-crash/
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-f-22-raptor-rebuild-naval-air-station-fallon-mishap/
(TomcatTweaker63A)
Chief Master Sgt. Adam Willeford, the 3rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron senior enlisted leader, said in a statement. “Every aircraft in the fleet is highly valuable for mission success, so returning this one to operational status is a big win for the team.”...
DeleteNow, this statement makes sense, F22s are very unique weapon system BUT sure doesn't jive with USAF position that we need to retire 32 of them...so which is it?!?
And, we still don't know why it took 5 YEARS to fix it, even so they had to use parts from another F22, that seems to me like a crazy amount of time for supposedly a high value asset!
"Unfortunately, the tooling and such for the F-22 was destroyed"
DeleteThis is incorrect. See, F-22 Production Line Restart Costs
" even so they had to use parts from another F22"
DeleteParts? Parts? Parts ... I thought the military was fully committed to 3D printing? They assured us that by now they could print a F-22, if not in a single pass then at least part by part. Hmm ... were they misleading us?
Wait, Comnavops,........u think they might have been lying?
DeleteWhy the skepticism on the 10 year timeline? Didn't the air force secretary promise the digital century series, with faster development and iteration?
ReplyDeleteRoper, the Air Force Secretary who proposed the "Digital Century Series," left US government service before he could implement the (likely EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible, to implement) plan.
Deletehttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/t-7a-delays-compound-pilot-shortage-expose-digital-engineering-pitfalls.
ReplyDeleteSo much for all the fancy technology word salad.....11 years to get a TRAINER in service? Just ridiculous....