I'm not quite as cynical about government. If anyone in government thinks he can get a promotion by running a spreadsheet that shows an 8% increase in fuel economy will definitely get attention. Maybe from his own DOD office but surely from OMB and the opposing political party. An 8% increase in "MPG" translates to many billions of dollars per year. Nobody in government ignores the billion word.
There's a lot more that goes into those decisions than just "hey we'll save some $ in fuel costs." You're adding an item to inventory so there's procurement costs associated with it, logistics costs, training costs not to mention the environmental impact statements you have to do under NEPA. Those are all significant expensive items that eat into whatever savings you get. And like I said before, when it comes to DoD, why screw with all that when you can just change the fuel specifications themselves? Get the fuel delivered to you in whatever form you want.
Putting all of our eggs in one basket with a smaller number of more $$$ and more complex machines.
I don't disagree. That's why I like the high/low mix of systems of the days of old.
Put the same latest whiz bang electronic packages on 3 or four s F-18F for the price of a single a F-35. Now send 6 to 8 F-18F's and 2of the F-35 out on an otherwise identical mission.
The F-18F's will carry more payload farther and more reliably than the F-35's. I would rather go into battle with 5 to 7 fellow F18F jockeys than one fellow F-35 jockey.
In your scenario you're basically trading procurement costs for operational costs. Operations and maintenance account for 75-80% of the total life cycle cost of a system and you're talking about consistently sending 3-4X as many aircraft to do the same mission. Not to mention that in certain high threat environments you have a higher probability of losses including losses in the most valuable and least replaceable part of the fighter system, namely the pilot.
That's where the high/low mix comes in. For high risk missions in contested airspace, you have a smaller number of F-35s that have a higher probability of surviving the mission just based on remaining undetected. Then for lower risk missions which comprise the bulk of any operation, you have a higher number of Super Hornets. You get the best of both worlds in the form of increased operational capability at a lower total lifecycle cost.
The latest F-18F with the blisk fans in the engines are stealthy and powerful.
The Hornet upgrades in development are nice and have decent front aspect stealth from all reports, but you won't ever get the same level of performance as you get in a purpose built design especially in side and rear aspects, which are the issue in heavily contested airspace. They're a great low end complement in the high low mix but unless you're happy losing pilots, I wouldn't bet the farm on them.
I would eliminate the folding wings and the tailhook to drop weight for F-18F's that will never be on carriers. Keep the HD landing gear.
Not that easy. Multiple variants increases costs in a variety of ways. Start making major structurual modifications like new wings and you'll erode the benefit you get from using an existing platform. More than one program manager has fallen into the trap of "just using existing system X and make a few changes" only to have the whole program crash and burn.
