In the United States, there were problems with the prospect of military aviation, or the abandonment of new aircraft platforms


I really respect our readers for their professionalism. And I write this without any sarcasm. Almost any topic that is voiced on the pages of the publication causes a very reasoned and deep discussion. You read such dialogues and marvel at the education of our people.


But sometimes it happens that personal communication with any of the readers leads to thoughts that do not even directly relate to the topic of conversation. Something like this happened with the topic that I will voice today. Talking about the vehicles in service with our aircraft pushed to a more global problem. What about those whom we call potential adversaries? How's it going?

It is no secret that the war in the air, I do not mean real clashes, is ongoing. Pilots of the world's leading aviation countries conduct daily battles for dominance in the aerospace industry. All means are used. From the training of ace pilots to technical superiority in technology and the creation of a developed structure of airfields and military bases.

Leading a conversation about aviation, we most often discuss the performance characteristics of aircraft, their combat capabilities, weapons and other advantages, or disadvantages, precisely from a technical point of view. But you do not often find material where the question of the age of cars would be raised. Yes, yes, just about age.

Any equipment, like any person, repair it or upgrade it, has a service life and its own “senile diseases”. Other things being equal, a fresh aircraft will have an advantage over an equal to it, but "age", machine. Overloads that a new aircraft will withstand are often fatal for an “old man”.

Hence a simple conclusion. A state with more recent aircraft has an advantage in the air. Wins the very battle for air supremacy!

We are used to the fact that the United States is our main rival in the air. It was the United States that interested me. Does the richest army in the world have problems? It turned out to be, judging by the American press. Specialized American publications have long been talking about the need to replace the fleet, while stating problems with the prospect of military aviation.

Today, the US Army is armed with 5600 aircraft of various types. It is clear that the average age of such a number of machines cannot be accurately calculated. There are completely new aircraft, and there are those whose age is already approaching 60.

According to American data, the life of most F-16C / D and F-15C / D fighters ends, and these are expensive cars, multi-purpose F-15Es, B-1B bombers, S-130 transporters. Imagine the cost of replacing them? This situation, by the way, was created despite the fact that annually the US aviation (from 1980 to 2018) spent $ 12 billion on the purchase of new aircraft!

Americans know how to count money. I will give one example of costs. So, the US Air Force in the coming years, it is necessary to replace the "obsolete" F-22 with the new F-35. With the current budget, the Air Force can purchase about 60 vehicles a year. It is necessary to replace 1800 aircraft. Further arithmetic. How many years will procurement be extended at current costs?

Moreover, after repeated examinations, American politicians came to the conclusion that the United States will not be able to implement the fleet renewal program in the form in which it was conceived. F-35s will be purchased to replace a specific decommissioned F-22. But that is not all.

America refuses to develop new platforms and focuses on the production of the F-35A, as a universal aircraft and ensuring air supremacy. “No money, but you hold on,” dear American pilots.

The arms race, especially in aeronautical engineering, is quite an expensive undertaking. For many years, the idea that we a priori lose in this US race has been pushed into our heads by all means. It turns out that according to American data, the USA also does not have the ability to globally update its flight fleet. This is not for the “consolation” of the Russian reader, but for the argument that even with an active printing press, there are enough problems in the military-technical sphere. Someone will say: we would have their problems. Well, here's how to look ...

Twitch and, sorry, do not tear the navel. We must systematically engage in daily work to strengthen our own Armed Forces. Haste, as is known from the Soviet film, is needed only in one case ... The main thing is without the slogans from the “catch up and overtake” series. Already passed ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. gridasov 15 January 2020 13: 57 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    No matter how much water is pounded in the mortar, they do not spend money, do not shout about their superiority, but the speeds remain the same. Maneuverability and efficiency, payload and the ability to fly in space and under water remain unattainable dreams and low rates. There is only one reason - the lack of technologies for using the elastic properties of the medium in engines and primitive propulsors at the core.
    1. Bobrick 15 January 2020 17: 33 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And these texts are definitely not an alien writing?
      It's just that these are some characteristics of a UFO (both into space and under water).
      If in many fantastic universes in which there are space travels (from Star Wars to Warhammer) they still burn fuel and use a jet nozzle as a propulsion device, what new propulsors can we talk about?
      Rather, there will be a third world war, so that "the whole world is in ruin" than the appearance of new technologies and fundamentally new propulsors (gravitational or spatial electromagnetic, apparently).
      1. gridasov 15 January 2020 17: 53 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        It's funny, but the person wants to build the same AI on cloud principles and on binary logic. You only learned to add one to another, forgetting about the essence of individual parameters. But is it difficult to consider one in the other and large amounts of data cost as systems one in another according to capacitive and fractal principles. At the same time, not expanding the space but working with its density. Therefore, you see engines not as a process and algorithms of successive stages of a process, but as a system of addition. It’s ridiculous and only! And excuse me for what fundamentally differs space from airspace and underwater — only by the density of connections of its constituent structures. Therefore, you can control the potential of the surface everywhere.
  2. Alexander X 15 January 2020 13: 57 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, unless the Americans will produce work to extend the resource? Will be. Therefore, a completely different "arithmetic" will be than the one given in the article .... IMHO
    1. knn54 15 January 2020 15: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      As the author (s) amicably forget that there is NATO, the Japanese with South Korea and Australia. And you can’t take Swedes and Finns to your friends.
      And "We need not hysterical impulses, but a systematic tread of the builders of communism" also passed.
  3. rocket757 15 January 2020 14: 13 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Twitch and, sorry, do not tear the navel. We must systematically engage in daily work to strengthen our own Armed Forces. Haste, as is known from the Soviet film, is needed only in one case ... The main thing is without the slogans from the “catch up and overtake” series. Already passed.

    All clear. We are doing better, faster, "toothier", "smarter" ... doing quietly, according to plan, as it should.
    1. NordUral 16 January 2020 08: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The main thing is without the slogans from the series "catch up and overtake. "Already passed.

      But they would have caught up if the distiller hadn’t intervened. But even so almost caught up, and would catch up, at least, if the faithful had not changed the country and people.
      1. rocket757 16 January 2020 08: 51 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        It is useless to regret the past. Not making such mistakes in the future would be wise.
        1. NordUral 16 January 2020 08: 53 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Regret is not worth it, but you need to know and remember. There will be fewer mistakes.
          1. rocket757 16 January 2020 09: 02 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: NordUral
            Regret is not worth it, but you need to know and remember. There will be fewer mistakes.

            Never offered to FORGET! Our memory, our history, this ... archie is important.
  4. Oleg83 15 January 2020 14: 16 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    F-35s will be purchased to replace a specific decommissioned F-22

    When did it decide to decommission F22? F35 will replace F-16, F / A-18, AV-8B
    America refuses to develop new platforms

    When did it refuse? The developers received less money than planned, but no one canceled the work. Although now all the work is just determining the parameters of the next generation
  5. Avior 15 January 2020 14: 43 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    . So, the US Air Force in the coming years, it is necessary to replace the "obsolete" F-22 with the new F-35. With the current budget, the Air Force can purchase about 60 vehicles a year. 1800 aircraft must be replaced

    The author is not confused with f-16?
    1. dzvero 15 January 2020 15: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      1800 - about the same number of F-35s for the needs of the United States flickered from the beginning of the program as a replacement for the F-15 and F-16.
      About F-22 - probably the author has information about the decision of the Air Force about those twenty-odd cars that suffered damage from a hurricane last year. Perhaps some of them cannot be restored to full readiness or even had to be attributed to spare parts. I am speculating, of course.
      1. Avior 15 January 2020 17: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The author writes in several places that the f-22 will be changed to f-35, but this is not so.
  6. dauria 15 January 2020 14: 53 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Other things being equal, a fresh aircraft will have an advantage over an equal to it, but "age", machine. Overloads that a new aircraft will withstand are often fatal for an “old man”.


    It was not worth writing this, dear author. The plane has no age. There is a remainder of the resource. Inter-regulatory, overhaul, designated, etc. Within the resource, the aircraft is operational. That is, "healthy, fit" and will do everything the same. Regardless of whether yesterday he was stuck together, or half a century ago.
    1. Bobrick 15 January 2020 17: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In principle, everything is correct, in the ideal case.
      In reality, most likely, the old plane will turn out to be worse, especially in critical situations (if the engine fails, another engine may not give out critical mode parameters, etc.).
      Yes, and no one has yet canceled cases of imperfections in the design, small defects in the material (permissible of course), unplanned operation, and increased wear, and it is not clear what the resource will be for such factors.
  7. horus88 15 January 2020 14: 56 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    did I somehow miss the construction of almost two thousand f22?
    or local authors and editors are no longer even trying to somehow check the article?
  8. YakimovSS 15 January 2020 15: 02 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    What about those whom we call potential adversaries?

    Do we have a potential adversary in military doctrine? It seemed to me that since perestroika we did not have a potential enemy, we were left without him, but for some reason with the Moscow Region.
  9. cherkas.oe 15 January 2020 15: 22 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    I agree with the author that we need to know not only the advantages of the enemy but also his problems, but also our
    We also need to solve problems taking into account the appropriateness of the composition of the aircraft fleet, unification within one species, for airborne systems, control and navigation systems, engines and weapons. This will give an economic effect. And the maintenance of single-purpose machines (Su-27SM, Su-27SM3, Su-30M2, SU-30SM, Su-35S) With different engines, radars, avionics, navigation, etc.) increases the cost of maintaining these machines, reduces the productivity of technological and production capacities and distracts them from the main task - saturation with technology of a new generation of our air forces.
  10. vitinka 15 January 2020 15: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    130 v god F35 delajut, no i mnogo ujezajet za granicu, ja dumaju cifra 60 vpolne prijemlima.
  11. TANKISTONE 15 January 2020 15: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Americans know how to count money. I will give one example on costs

    How Americans know how to count and spend money can be found in the book The Peter Principle. It describes why everything happens so crookedly with them, with us, with everyone ...
  12. eklmn 16 January 2020 06: 01 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    “I greatly respect our readers for their professionalism. ”
    And we, dear readers, would also like to respect the authors for their professional analysis. With links ...
    Almost orig. article here
    Jan. 11,2020 NI,
    “The Air Force may soon say goodbye to the legendary American F-22”
    F-35 is just good!
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/air-force-could-soon-be-saying-good-bye-americas-storied-f-22-112201
    Indeed, Alexander Staver (author) very well conveyed / translated / explained the analysis of an article from NI. But there are many such publications in the USA, and everyone has their own opinion.
    One of them:
    sept. 2019 DefenseNews
    “The radical plan of the US Air Force to create a future fighter can lead to flight in 5 years”
    https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2019/09/16/the-us-air-forces-radical-plan-for-a-future-fighter-could-field-a-jet-in-5-years/
    “On October 1, the service will officially change its next-generation fighter program, known as Next-Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD,” said Will Roper, Air Force acquisition chief executive, in an exclusive Defense News interview.
    “According to Roper, in the new office, headed by a still unnamed program manager, NGAD will take a quick approach to developing small series of 6th generation fighter aircraft with the participation of several companies, like Century Series aircraft built in the 1950s.”

    Or another edition:
    Oct 2019 Military.Com
    “The Air Force opens an office to plan future fighters"
    https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/10/04/air-force-launches-office-plan-future-fighter-jets.html
    “Three years after the US Air Force outlined initial plans for what its future fighters might look like, the service opened a new office whose goal is to make the dream a reality.
    Dr. Will Roper, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Procurement, Technology and Logistics, cut the ribbon on Wednesday at the Office of the Advanced Aircraft Program during a ceremony at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, the service said in a release.
    “Roper called Colonel Dale R. White the head of the office. According to his official biography, White was previously a senior manager of the material and technical base for the B-21 raider program at the Pentagon Air Force Operations Department. The Stealth Bomber will be the largest Pentagon aircraft acquisition program since the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ”

    Well, etc.
    Dear Alexander. Making a conclusion about the future of the US Air Force is very difficult under one article, a serious analysis is needed not only of the opinions of journalists from popular military publications, but comments and speeches / speeches from the tops of the US Air Force must be found and cited. Surely the generals and leaders know the future of the country's air force.