Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
andydtwnwa7
Topic Author
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:59 pm

ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:34 pm

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...e-Buy-new-modernize-older-aircraft

Some of the stuff here isn't new. The highlights: He defends the need to cut the A-10, talks about the need to upgrade the F-22 (and mentions how few he has to work with), and defends the need for all 1763 F-35s.

He also talks about how much more expensive and less capable the Global Hawk is compared to the U2. Some of you may have already known this, but this is the first I had heard of it:

"Well, we are being driven by politics to take on a weapon system that is very expensive, the Global Hawk. It appears that I will be told I have to continue to purchase Global Hawks, and given the budget picture that we have, I cannot afford both the U-2 and the Global Hawk. I will likely have to give up the U-2. What that means is that we are going to have to spend buckets of money to get the Global Hawk up to some semblance of capability that the U-2 currently has. It is going to cost a lot of money, and it is going to take time, and as I lose the U-2 fleet, I now have a high-altitude ISR fleet that is not very useful in a contested environment. It will change how I am able to employ that airplane in a high-end fight or a contested domain."
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:21 pm

Quoting andydtwnwa7 (Thread starter):
He also talks about how much more expensive and less capable the Global Hawk is compared to the U2. Some of you may have already known this, but this is the first I had heard of it:

The Global Hawk has had a lot of trouble during development and cost overruns for years, and there has been extensive questions as to its demonstrated effectiveness and reliability. Coupled with a very high crash occurrence for the Global Hawk, it will make more sense to retain and upgrade the U-2 instead of buying Global Hawk's that are less capable, reliable, and more crash prone.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4944
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:48 am

Quoting andydtwnwa7 (Thread starter):
Some of you may have already known this, but this is the first I had heard of it:

Too many people see UAVs as wonder weapons and forget the real issues they have. This is ample evidence that we are still many years away from UAVs and their derivatives being capable of operating independently and autonomously, let alone the political will of giving weapons release authority to a machine.
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:08 pm

He'll be fired within a month for those comments, including the not-so subtle slam on Congress saying "politics" is driving procurement, not mission or need.

He may want more F-22s but he knows he won't get them. He's also playing the fear card by saying "oh dear, the F-15 and F-16, even with technological upgrades, will be overmatched by our opponent by 2025!" I think he doth protest too much, as, as far as I can tell, there aren't really a lot of adversaries that will "overmatch" the Eagle and Falcon by that time. Are we even sure about the PAK-FA or the crop of Chinese stealth aircraft? Surely he doesn't expect the Typhoon or Rafale to make such a tremendous leap in capability that will render US aircraft obsolete? I mean, that's not even counting that we are already making ridiculous leaps in systems capability that the airframe you hang it on will not really matter so much (IMHO)
 
bennett123
Posts: 9432
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:15 pm

Telling it how it is, is never popular.

Politics has always driven govt decisions.

Just because it is popular in margin constituencies does not make it a good decision.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:58 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 3):
He's also playing the fear card by saying "oh dear, the F-15 and F-16, even with technological upgrades, will be overmatched by our opponent by 2025!" I think he doth protest too much, as, as far as I can tell, there aren't really a lot of adversaries that will "overmatch" the Eagle and Falcon by that time. Are we even sure about the PAK-FA or the crop of Chinese stealth aircraft? Surely he doesn't expect the Typhoon or Rafale to make such a tremendous leap in capability that will render US aircraft obsolete? I mean, that's not even counting that we are already making ridiculous leaps in systems capability that the airframe you hang it on will not really matter so much (IMHO)

No, what he means is that by 2025, the existing legacy fleet of F-15 and F-16's will be unsurvivable in contested air space. A lot of unfriendly nations have heavily invested in their air defence systems which would make the survivability of existing fighters in their air space much more difficult.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9550
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:59 am

In all fairness the current USAF F-16s are over matched by Typhoons. All recent training exercises point to a very clear domination of the Typhoon and Rafale.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:55 am

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 3):
He may want more F-22s but he knows he won't get them.

Odd that you would say that as he never said that or eluded to wanting more. He explained the importance of getting them all up to date because it was such a small fleet.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 3):
He's also playing the fear card by saying "oh dear, the F-15 and F-16, even with technological upgrades, will be overmatched by our opponent by 2025!" I think he doth protest too much, as, as far as I can tell, there aren't really a lot of adversaries that will "overmatch" the Eagle and Falcon by that time.

As far as you can tell? If you were in the Air Force, you may have a different opinion. Our 15's and 16's are already being "overmatched".

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 3):
Surely he doesn't expect the Typhoon or Rafale to make such a tremendous leap in capability that will render US aircraft obsolete?

Of course not, nor does he elude to that. Those aircraft can only be dressed up too what your basically seeing in new F-15/F-16 production and not much else.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12524
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:43 am

Quoting checksixx (Reply 7):
Of course not, nor does he elude to that. Those aircraft can only be dressed up too what your basically seeing in new F-15/F-16 production and not much else.

Cute, so i guess an F4 Phantom would be sufficient today too, if you only slap advanced systems on it....

The F15/F16/F18 lack the agility of both the Eurocanards, last seen in India, where F16IN/F18IN failed to meet their flight performance minima, while the Eurofighter fulfilled them all, and the Rafale all but the dry trust hot & high take off iirc.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:45 am

Quoting checksixx (Reply 7):
Of course not, nor does he elude to that. Those aircraft can only be dressed up too what your basically seeing in new F-15/F-16 production and not much else.

And that's the main issue; our potential adversaries are getting aircraft that are technically fairly equivalent to the existing F-15 and F-16 fleets. Coupled with an much elevated dangers from ground based air defences, the US no longer has the qualitative edge that has been so key to how the US fights its wars for the past few decades. Upgrading the F-15 and F-16's will only bring you so far before you need to invest in a new platform due to diminishing returns.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:29 am

Analysts are predicting that the U-2, A-10, KC-10 and MC-12's will be on the budget chopping block in 2015:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...10-u-2-retirements-in-fy15-395693/

Quote:
Some of the US Air Force’s most venerable aircraft will likely head to the boneyard in fiscal year 2015, victims of projected military funding cuts, budget analysts predict.

Lockheed U-2s, Fairchild Republic A-10s, McDonnell Douglas KC-10 tankers and Beechcraft MC-12 surveillance turboprops will likely be retired next year, says Mackenzie Eaglen from public policy group American Enterprise Institute.

“I expect all of those to be near entirely retired, or most of the fleets,” Eaglen says on 6 February at a defence conference in New York City hosted by investment company Cowen Group.

The Defense Department has so far avoided widespread aircraft retirements because Congressional spending bills in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 have largely mitigated the wider cuts known as the sequester, she notes.

But wider budget slashing is expected in coming years, likely forcing the Defense Department to retire entire aircraft fleets, she says.

Eaglen notes that the USAF “completely folded” to political pressure against the service’s desire to retire its Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawks.

“They are done,” Eaglen says of the USAF’s efforts. “They are not going to fight it anymore. It’s over.”

USAF officials have said Block 30 Global Hawks cost more to develop and sustain than flying U-2s.

More at the link.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:49 pm

The F-35 is not the answer to ACC's problem. It is part of the problem. Over 13 years of development and is still years from being IOC, if then.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 7):
If you were in the Air Force, you may have a different opinion. Our 15's and 16's are already being "overmatched".

Not when they are allowed to fully utilize their capabilities. Politics not only plays games with buying new weapons platforms, but in war games too.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 8):
The F15/F16/F18 lack the agility of both the Eurocanards, last seen in India, where F16IN/F18IN failed to meet their flight performance minima, while the Eurofighter fulfilled them all, and the Rafale all but the dry trust hot & high take off iirc.

India wants to hedge its bets against having a lone weapons provider (US). They learned that lesson from their Russian equipment.

The ROKAF selected the F-15SE over the F-35. But the Korean politicians overruled the ROKAF and wanted a more "sexy" weapon. They already have their offsets from the F-15K program, now they want offsets for the Typhoon, Rafale, or F-35.

People forget the Typhoon and Rafale are not Gen V fighters, they are Gen 4.5s. The Gen Vs prove to be unreliable and very expensive. The F-15SE will also be a Gen 4.5, but much more advanced than the two EU products.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sat Feb 08, 2014 6:13 pm

I dunno.

I still think the Army is getting screwed over by the Air Force fighter mafia. I never thought fighter generals gave two $#!^$ about ground troops. In my humble opinion that mission needs to be taken completely away from the airforce since there is no institutional desire to fly it.

The A-10 is a critically important piece of hardware in low intensity conflict such as Afghanistan. Half the time they start talking about how ineffective the A-10 is, the paint a ground fire environment that fits their argument.

This situation sort of reminds me how we developed some great ground support aircraft during WWII, used them to great effect in Korean but never developed suitable replacements. Which meant by the time the Vietnam war rolled around we where forced to provide ground support with F-100's and gunless F-4D aircraft.

What resulted was a big rush to develop air to ground aircraft, both quick solutions such as the USAF pulling retired Navy SPADS out of the desert, quickly improvising the T-37 into a trainer and more long-term clean sheet solutions such as the OV-10 and A-10 aircraft.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:52 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The ROKAF selected the F-15SE over the F-35. But the Korean politicians overruled the ROKAF and wanted a more "sexy" weapon. They already have their offsets from the F-15K program, now they want offsets for the Typhoon, Rafale, or F-35.

Incorrect. It was the ROKAF that protested very heavily in regards to the F-15SE selection. The original requirement called for a stealthy fighter as their replacement for their F-4's. The ROKAF, pressured by the politicians and bean counters, watered down the stealth requirements to allow more aircraft to compete in the competition. The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff rejected the F-15SE decision by DAPA and fully endorsed a F-35 buy instead.

The end result was that the F-15SE was selected on the basis of price, not performance, when the competition clearly favoured more capabilities.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
People forget the Typhoon and Rafale are not Gen V fighters, they are Gen 4.5s. The Gen Vs prove to be unreliable and very expensive. The F-15SE will also be a Gen 4.5, but much more advanced than the two EU products.

Any fighter is expensive. The Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, and F-35 are all equally very expensive. If you already operate a legacy fleet of generation 4 fighters, there is no point in investing in a generation 4.5 platform (unless you are expecting to fight a major war really soon and need quick delivery). From a long term planning perspective it makes no sense, and that is exactly what you are seeing from the Japanese and Korean competitions. Given the amount of money you are going to spend either way you might as well get the F-35 if you are eligible to do so.

If you go back to the original article, it's rather revealing and poignant actually, to hear Gen. Hostage come out and say, outright, that "I truly believe the only way we will make it through the next decade is with a sufficient fleet of F-35s. If you gave me all the money I needed to refurbish the F-15 and the F-16 fleets, they would still become tactically obsolete by the middle of the next decade."

So, the general goes out and says even if he had all the money in the world, he still needs F-35 instead of upgraded F-15's and F-16's in a few years time.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The F-35 is not the answer to ACC's problem. It is part of the problem. Over 13 years of development and is still years from being IOC, if then.

The extended development times for aircraft first appeared during the 1980's. Granted, some of it is due to increased sophistication of the aircraft themselves, and a more risk-adverse culture during testing (witness the relatively few, if any crashes of new fighter designs within the last 20 years), but the bulk of it has to do with the DOT&E process. When you have three separate and distinct review processes for testing the F-35, how fast testing can progress is noticeably slowed down, and of course, time is money.

DOT&E is a self-licking ice-cream cone. They'd be short of responsibility, authority, and funding if they actually did their job properly. The current level of testing, and over testing has gone way overboard. How the heck can one properly test and improve weapon systems when we slavishly adhere to an ever increasing process over functionality?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11171
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:41 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
Any fighter is expensive. The Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, and F-35 are all equally very expensive. If you already operate a legacy fleet of generation 4 fighters, there is no point in investing in a generation 4.5 platform (unless you are expecting to fight a major war really soon and need quick delivery).

The F-15SE would cost about $100M, the F/A-18E/F, about $75M, the F-16E/F about $50M. The F-35A will cost at least $135M, based on a USAF buy of all planned aircraft bought. Cut that number and the price goes up.

The USN and RAAF bought the Gen 4.5 F/A-18E/F, the UAEAF bought the Gen 4.5 16E/F.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
The end result was that the F-15SE was selected on the basis of price, not performance, when the competition clearly favoured more capabilities.

The F-35 is LESS capable than the F-15E of today, or the F-15SE Gen.4.5, if built. The F-15SE can carry a bigger weapons load out and a longer (unrefueled) combat radius. It also has a smaller frontal RCS than the F-35. Frontal stealth is all a fighter really needs. It is not like the deep penetrating B-2A, which has to escape through a longer distance.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:41 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The F-35 is LESS capable than the F-15E of today, or the F-15SE Gen.4.5, if built. The F-15SE can carry a bigger weapons load out and a longer (unrefueled) combat radius. It also has a smaller frontal RCS than the F-35. Frontal stealth is all a fighter really needs. It is not like the deep penetrating B-2A, which has to escape through a longer distance

Yeah, but I don't consider that an apples to oranges comparison considering the size difference of the two craft.

It's not quite as bad as saying an F-35 is a less capable aircraft than a B-1B because of the smaller payload.


F-16's and Mig-29'sre probably the best across the board comparison. F-18E and Rafele are starting to push the size envelope a bit.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:43 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The F-15SE would cost about $100M,

I think we've already gone over that, it was agreed that that number was highly improbable as it was an undeveloped aircraft. Not without a lot of features getting cut.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
the F/A-18E/F, about $75M

Last budgetary estimates says closer to $90 million for a fully kitted out Super Hornet, with the avionics, sensors, etc. The last Australia Super Hornet buy worked out to be around $272-million each for purchase and maintenance over a 20-year period. If we accept the convention that maintenance and upkeep is 2-3 times purchase price, then my numbers are correct.

Furthermore, the last Selected Acquisition Report for the Super Hornet (FY 2011) bears this out. The per-​unit reoccurring flyaway cost (basically the aircraft with no ancillary equipment or spares), comes to $82.88 million per the last SAR.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
the F-16E/F about $50M

There are lies and there are damned lies. This is the latter. When the UAE bought their Block 60's, they paid about $6.4 billion for 80 aircraft back in 2000. That worked out to be around 80 million dollars per aircraft, in then years dollars. Adjusting for inflation, a brand new Block 60 would cost $108.23 million dollars today.

And that's ignoring that the UAE paid $3 billion dollars separately just to develop the aircraft, plus various contracts to upgrade the Block 60 birds with new capabilities since introduction (such as the addition of MIDS-LVT data links for $401 million dollars back in 2011).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The F-35A will cost at least $135M, based on a USAF buy of all planned aircraft bought. Cut that number and the price goes up.

Funny, the last SAR report says otherwise. The most readily available SAR report was for FY2012, and it said the Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) was around $108 million dollars, while the Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) was $88 million. The average Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) which assumes “the quantity benefits of 61 Foreign Military Sales aircraft and 660 International Partner aircraft” is $65.9 million for the F-35A, $77.4 million for the F-35B and $77.9 million for the F-35C.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The F-15SE can carry a bigger weapons load out and a longer (unrefueled) combat radius.

Actually wrong. While the F-15E can carry more munitions, it sacrifices fuel to do so. Plus, the new conformal fuel tanks / bomb racks cut into range as they carry less fuel.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
It also has a smaller frontal RCS than the F-35.

That was the claim, but that assertion was never validated or tested.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Frontal stealth is all a fighter really needs.

That's the kind of thinking that gets pilots killed. The larger radar signature that's more visible from the ground, sides and rear hurts the F-15SE overall payload delivery and restrict the target options more than the F-35. Its not the enemy aircraft that should be feared; it's the ground based air defences coupled to enemy aircraft that should be feared.

So initially with the F-15SE you could deliver more payload, but not to the targets where you would like to deliver, and the payload advantage would not last very long due to attrition from enemy air defences. In the end, it doesn't matter if you carry one bomb or a million. Your payload means nothing unless you have the ability to deploy it over your intended target.

You seem to be confusing the amount of bombs an F-15 can carry with its ability to effectively deploy them. If an F-15SE can't get within range to deploy its weapons it really doesn't matter whether its not dropping 2 or 20.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9550
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:27 am

F-15SE is a better bomb truck but a lesser fighter than the Eurocanards, especially the Typhoon. It can not turn as good, it is not as fast, it can not super cruise and it accelerates much slower. Given the same AAM the kinectic advantage of the faster and higher flying Typhoon means that it will get the first shot, Meteor will give an even greater advantage to the the Tiffie. Add the frontal RCS adavantage and give both an AESA radar the Typhoon dominates in air-to-air.

But that is no surprise. People often forget that in the last years of the cold war, when Typhoon was designed, it was meant to work with the ATAF (F-22). The F-22 being able to fight inside the air defence zone of the WarPac, the Typhoon defending NATO area and using BVR AAMs to smack attacking WarPac fighter out of the sky before they cross the FEB.

In today's world however the better ground attack capabilities of the F-15 make it a still very attractive option. Although I must say the F-16E is quite close while being cheaper to operate.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18784
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:55 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Not when they are allowed to fully utilize their capabilities. Politics not only plays games with buying new weapons platforms, but in war games too.

So, F-15s and F-16s are not flying to their maximum capabilities, but Typhoon is?   

Seriously, if a Typhoon can't hand a plane that first flew in 1972 its ass on a plate, something is very wrong. The truth is, nothing is very wrong. You can take your head out of the sand now.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:43 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 8):
Cute, so i guess an F4 Phantom would be sufficient today too, if you only slap advanced systems on it....

The F15/F16/F18 lack the agility of both the Eurocanards, last seen in India, where F16IN/F18IN failed to meet their flight performance minima, while the Eurofighter fulfilled them all, and the Rafale all but the dry trust hot & high take off iirc.

Well I certainly don't think so, but you're free to your own opinion regarding the F4. Aren't they all retired now? As far as the agility goes, I really don't care if they are slightly less maneuverable. The systems and capabilities are nearly the same.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The F-35 is not the answer to ACC's problem. It is part of the problem. Over 13 years of development and is still years from being IOC, if then.

The only problem with your viewpoint is that what would be the answer?? Another aircraft to develop? Another billion dollars in development...this isn't new, its been going on for many many years.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Not when they are allowed to fully utilize their capabilities. Politics not only plays games with buying new weapons platforms, but in war games too.

Please...you can't see they are nearly over matched by the stuff coming out now? Everyone else can.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The F-15SE will also be a Gen 4.5, but much more advanced than the two EU products.

This gave me a good laugh...not much more advanced at all. Dressed up F-15E...and not by much at that!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 12):
I still think the Army is getting screwed over by the Air Force fighter mafia. I never thought fighter generals gave two $#!^$ about ground troops. In my humble opinion that mission needs to be taken completely away from the airforce since there is no institutional desire to fly it.

And given to who? The Army? They cannot fly it by law...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The F-35 is LESS capable than the F-15E of today, or the F-15SE Gen.4.5, if built. The F-15SE can carry a bigger weapons load out and a longer (unrefueled) combat radius. It also has a smaller frontal RCS than the F-35. Frontal stealth is all a fighter really needs. It is not like the deep penetrating B-2A, which has to escape through a longer distance.

LoL...the F-15SE is not in any kind of production...and if you think it has anything remotely smaller than the frontal RCS of the -35, your dreaming.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12524
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:53 am

Quoting checksixx (Reply 19):
Well I certainly don't think so, but you're free to your own opinion regarding the F4. Aren't they all retired now?

Actually there are quite some still flying. Germany just retired their last Air defense Phantom a few month back and, with their upgrades, they still fared quite well in DAC training. But ultimately they could only win if the situation was advantageous, without it they where no match for the F16/F15s they mostly trained against.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 19):
As far as the agility goes, I really don't care if they are slightly less maneuverable. The systems and capabilities are nearly the same.

They are a lot more maneuverable. And they not just out-turn, they also out-climb, out-accelerate and outrun most of the Gen 4. fighters, even with nearly the same systems it gives the eurocanards a significant edge when it comes to shooting. Sustainable speeds are only matched by the F-22. They EF regularly wins one vs. many and two vs. many engagements vs. F15/F16/F18s even with a hand tied on its back (flying with tank and the "enemy" clean for a change). There are just 20 years between those aircraft, and a lot of that shows in its kinetics. For Bomb delivery of course it doesn´t matter.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
FSXJunkie
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:30 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:23 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 12):
I still think the Army is getting screwed over by the Air Force fighter mafia. I never thought fighter generals gave two $#!^$ about ground troops. In my humble opinion that mission needs to be taken completely away from the airforce since there is no institutional desire to fly it.

The Air Force is a very, very ill service

AFGSC is a farce, the rot in the missile force ha gotten to the point where the 341st Missile Wing is operating at 50% (and is over stressing that to maintain an "on paper" 100% capability.) Seriously, half the Wing is on suspension right now.

TAC/ACC has never had any love for ground attack birds, too much in common with bombers, and it takes a pilot away from dogfighting. It's a cultural thing with fighter pilots where their kill-sheet defines them.

As far as breaking up the USAF so more competent services can relieve the fumbling flyboys of responsibility, politically it's out of the question, in the eyes of politicians one less service looks like weakness and can indicate a loss in jobs for constituents, for example the cities that lost SAC bases after the Cold War took a hit to their economies.

At this point it's fair to contrast Fighter Mafia USAF management with Bomber Baron management, both cliques had 30 years in the big chair and the Bomber guys (i.e. LeMay) ran a far more competent operation over the course of their dynasty, whereas the Fighter dynasty went straight the Hell the day McPeak was appointed.

Quote:
The A-10 is a critically important piece of hardware in low intensity conflict such as Afghanistan. Half the time they start talking about how ineffective the A-10 is, the paint a ground fire environment that fits their argument.

The A-10 as a specialist aircraft is less prone to pilot error crashes, a pilot brought up to dogfight in a fighter built to dogfight will be doing a low strafing run too fast and all it takes is a mountain, CAS is a rather alien environment and one that a fighter jock would have minimal training in. Breaking the sound barrier in his run, he misjudges his distances and....*splat* he didn't have enough room the pull up on hearing the collision warning.

Dedicated attack aircraft and bombers are important because their missions require effective specialization in aircraft design and personnel training to minimize unnecessary loss of life

Quote:
This situation sort of reminds me how we developed some great ground support aircraft during WWII, used them to great effect in Korean but never developed suitable replacements. Which meant by the time the Vietnam war rolled around we where forced to provide ground support with F-100's and gunless F-4D aircraft.

It's actually different, after Korea in the 50's the US adopted a 'Nuke first, ask questions latter' strategy. Focus was on bombers and interceptors as the Eisenhower Administration saw WWIII as the only war worth America's attention (if the USSR sneezed in the wrong direction, Eurasia becomes a glass sheet.)

What changed was Kennedy, JFK wanted to butt into Vietnam because Truman's venture into Korea was so much fun, Ike in contrast was the 'cut the head off the dragon' type hence the 1950's Nuke build up. So when the US went to war in Vietnam Johnson had three options, Nuke it, bomb the snot out of it, or use aircraft designed for interception and soldiers trained in air defense. For the Johnson Administration the first two were appalling, especially the second as conventional bombardment of the whole country would kill more lives than just nuking the major cities.


The current game is one of shrinking budgets and cultural divinity, The Fighter Mafia want the hottest toys for themselves and are going to sellout the rest of the USAF to get them, fighter jocks view the other cultures in the USAF as inferior and theirs as the only ones worthy of attention, so they will starve the nuclear deterrent, sellout CAS assets, anything to get what they want now. It's the worst combination of pride and greed possible.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:38 am

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 21):

The A-10 as a specialist aircraft is less prone to pilot error crashes, a pilot brought up to dogfight in a fighter built to dogfight will be doing a low strafing run too fast and all it takes is a mountain, CAS is a rather alien environment and one that a fighter jock would have minimal training in. Breaking the sound barrier in his run, he misjudges his distances and....*splat* he didn't have enough room the pull up on hearing the collision warning.

Dedicated attack aircraft and bombers are important because their missions require effective specialization in aircraft design and personnel training to minimize unnecessary loss of life

Except for the fact that the A-10's got shot up like crazy during Desert Storm. When the USAF sent the A-10's against the Republican Guard, in one day alone, the USAF had 14 A-10's needing extensive repairs from battle damage, and 2 shot down. After that episode, the USAF general in charge, Chuck Horner pulled the A-10's off the battle line with the Republican Guard and onto the regular Iraqi Army units, and put F-16's on the Guard instead.

22% of the Coalition's fixed-wing combat aircraft attrition resulting in either a loss or severe battle damage were all surrounding the A-10. This includes everything from controlled flight into terrain, crashes, AAA and SAM losses. Losses + damaged equaled 15% of A-10 fleet deployed. The A-10s operated below 12k ft because they didn't have the systems to effectively operate any higher. Desert Storm forced the rest of USAF to go medium altitude due to the very high MANPAD and AAA threat. That is despite a really effective SEAD USAF.

The A-10 really needs to be baby sat to be remotely effective. That means it needs fighters to provide counter air, and SEAD and jamming aircraft to protect it against most SAM's.

If one looks at potential aggressors, most studied the Yom Kippur War and really boosted their low-level airspace denial capability with highly effective AAA, low level SAM's. The reason for this is because most nations took notice was how CAS failed due to airspace denial in the 1st 48 hours (50% of air losses came in this period) by SAM's/AAA. Others who have bigger budgets are learning from Desert Storm to try contesting the medium altitude.

And regarding your assertion that the A-10 is less prone to crashes. Try flying an A-10 in a very high-threat environment at 500 ft above the ground, navigating using a handheld map, compass, and watch. The F-16 had the advantage with a more modern avionics package, coupled to the LANTIRN targeting and navigation pod.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9550
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:46 am

But today the A-10 has the systems to be as accurate as an F-35 when it comes to dropping a bomb. Back in 1991 most F-16s had no fancy avionics either. It was all "put the piper on target and run" dumb bomb throwing. The heaviest beating the Republican Guards took were from F-111s using their LGBs against the dug in tanks. LANTRIN was partly operational with the F-15Es in 1991, no F-16 had it. The best precision bombers were F-111s and F-117s.

And while the A-10 is probably not the aircraft to use on day one in a conflict with any sophisticated enemy, it still is great for lesser conflicts. It has a longer loiter time than the F-16, it is cheaper to operate, it has no problems with rough operating locations and it carries a huge load of weapons, when needed.
 
bilgerat
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:16 am

A few years ago I read the book Joint Force Harrier - written by a Royal Navy pilot relating his experience flying mostly CAS in Afghanistan.

He had one interesting comment about the A-10 - that it was so slow it took an age to get anywhere. This was apparently something of an issue when the CAS is "on call" and the troops on the ground under fire need support ASAP. The faster jets could get there much sooner than an A-10.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12524
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:10 pm

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 24):
He had one interesting comment about the A-10 - that it was so slow it took an age to get anywhere. This was apparently something of an issue when the CAS is "on call" and the troops on the ground under fire need support ASAP. The faster jets could get there much sooner than an A-10.

Makes sense by flight performance and doctrine. After all the A10 was planned to circle in holding areas shortly behind a rather well defined small segment of the front line where high speed is not needed to proceed to target on call, but low speed with its maneuverability helping to use every natural or artificial obstacle the landscape offers, so that AA won´t get a chance to fire at them as the LOS is never uninterrupted. CAS on call over a wide area of responsibility is not what the A10 has been made for, CASCAP with an dawn till dusk uninterrupted availability to troops near by, that is what its made for and excels in.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:16 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 23):
But today the A-10 has the systems to be as accurate as an F-35 when it comes to dropping a bomb.

Yeah, but do you know the reason why? All of those upgrades help give the A-10 a bunch of capabilities that other fighters have had for a long time, and bring it up to speed for the modern CAS battle.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 23):
Back in 1991 most F-16s had no fancy avionics either. It was all "put the piper on target and run" dumb bomb throwing.

And that's where you are incorrect. the F-16's avionics by then were extremely modern, and part of it was the Modular Mission Computer, which among other things, had a superb computerized bomb sighting system.

If you look at the Israeli Osirak bombing raid, the Israeli F-16's dropped their unguided bombs with unparalleled accuracy. 14 of the 16 bombs dropped hit the reactor dead on on the dome. The attack was accurate enough to avoid damage to a smaller neighbouring reactor and lab.

The only reason why the A-10 in its early days was any accurate at bombing was because they dropped their bombs while flying extremely close to their targets. Even a B-747 could be accurate in bombing if you didn't drop until you could see the whites of the enemy's eyes...

The A-7D's that the USAF had before the A-10's were a superior bombing and CAS aircraft compared to the A-10. For one thing, they had an extremely accurate bombing computer, had good speed, and was also better at the long range interdiction mission than the A-10 ever was.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 23):
LANTRIN was partly operational with the F-15Es in 1991, no F-16 had it.

The F-16 was LANTRIN capable with the Block 40 aircraft, which rolled off the assembly line in 1988. The Block 40's introduced the LANTIRN navigation and targeting pods and the associated holographic HUD, the GPS (Global Positioning System) navigation receiver, APG-68V(5) radar and ALE-47 decoy launchers, digital flight controls (replacing the old analog ones), automatic terrain following, and a diffractive optics heads-up display. Also included were full provisions for internal electronic countermeasures, an enhanced envelope gun sight, and a capability for bombing moving ground targets.

Furthermore, the Block 40 birds were integrated with a number of guided bombs, such as the GBU-10, GBU-12, and GBU-24 Paveway family of laser-guided bombs as well as the GBU-15 glide bomb.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 23):

And while the A-10 is probably not the aircraft to use on day one in a conflict with any sophisticated enemy, it still is great for lesser conflicts. It has a longer loiter time than the F-16, it is cheaper to operate, it has no problems with rough operating locations and it carries a huge load of weapons, when needed.

And that explains in a nutshell the problem with the A-10. It needs a permissive air environment to be effective and survive. There's no guarantee of that in any conflict in the near future. Any time you put against someone that's more sophisticated than a enemy armed with with an AK-47, it's going to get chewed up.

And in the event of a low intensity conflict, existing fighters, attack helicopters, and specialized mission aircraft such as the AC-130 and Harvest HAWK can do the job nicely.
 
User avatar
Kaphias
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 6:29 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:34 am

Great couple of videos here from PBS covering the potential A-10 phase-out. They interviewed A-10 designer Pierre Sprey, who, while obviously biased, provides great insight into the design of the A-10. An interesting watch regardless of your stance on the issue.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...s-warthogs-unique-characteristics/
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3387
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:24 am

Quoting Kaphias (Reply 27):
Great couple of videos here from PBS covering the potential A-10 phase-out. They interviewed A-10 designer Pierre Sprey, who, while obviously biased, provides great insight into the design of the A-10. An interesting watch regardless of your stance on the issue.

FYI: Sprey likes to declare himself the designer of the A-10. Pierre Sprey has never ‘designed’ anything with wings. Sprey was a weapons system analyst on the OASD/SA staff during the 1960's, working with theorists such as John Boyd and Everest Riccione. At the closest he has ever been to aircraft design and manufacturing was when he graduated from Yale and worked at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation for space and commercial transportation projects.

At most he's a researcher and an analyst. Nothing more.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9550
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:26 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):

And in the event of a low intensity conflict, existing fighters, attack helicopters, and specialized mission aircraft such as the AC-130 and Harvest HAWK can do the job nicely.

Yet an AH-64 costs more to run per hour than a A-10, carries less ammo, is slower, has less range and is more in danger of conventional AAA groundfire than the A-10. Now if you would suggest to replace the A-10 with a limited number of Super Tucanos for CAS in low intensity conflicts and use the saved money (operating costs) for the F-35, than I would agree with you.
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:51 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 4):
Telling it how it is, is never popular.

Very true. He's quite direct which I like.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
F-15 and F-16's will be unsurvivable in contested air space

Well I am glad he mentioned the F-22 and the fleet size given the flame fest in the other forum. He clearly understands the importance of this plane. You really need a true air superiority fighter in the F-14/F-15 mold with the speed and fuel capacity go get incoming planes or cover an area. Trying to swap out F-15s for F-16s loses some of that ability same way swapping F22s to F35s does.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 6):
All recent training exercises point to a very clear domination of the Typhoon and Rafale.

I would not call it domination. F16 is still very close in perf to those planes.

The A-10 everyone saw coming. Though its a wonderful plane, it's easy to re-activate in the event of a ground conflict or peacekeeping mission. Pilot training is easy too. Eliminating an entire fleet type saves a lot of money. I would like to see more Spectre's and Predators though to cover ground forces. Those are existing fleets anyway.

The main issue though is that A-10 is not a fleet type you need from day 1. The rest of the airforce planes are needed right away potentially in a conflict.

Global Hawk and U2 I don't know enough to say. When I read the comments though, my real thought was we should have kept those Blackbirds.
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:23 pm

"the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet, I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be."

It seems to me that building a Super Raptor some time in the next decade should come way before pouring untold billions into a putative sixth gen Fiasco Fighter. The effectiveness of our Air Force can't rest on a handful of F-22s. They and their pilots are far too vulnerable to unconventional ground strikes.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:57 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 6):

In all fairness the current USAF F-16s are over matched by Typhoons. All recent training exercises point to a very clear domination of the Typhoon and Rafale.

Not only the F-16 are over matched by Typhoons count also F-15, F-18, and all other older Fighters like Mirage 2000 and Tornado. Oh wait it did even win in Dogfights at Red Flag 2012 against the invincible F-22.

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content...12/07/df_3030_neuburg_18-07-12.jpg

In 2010 2 spanish Typhoons won against 8 USAF F-15, two years earlier 7 Typhoons beated 21 airplanes.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
People forget the Typhoon and Rafale are not Gen V fighters

Some people forget that a arbitrary classification does not say half the truth about the capabilities of a fighter plane.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The F-15SE will also be a Gen 4.5, but much more advanced than the two EU products

That's utter load of rubbish.    Also a really ignorant statement and you know that.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 17):
F-15SE is a better bomb truck but a lesser fighter than the Eurocanards, especially the Typhoon. It can not turn as good, it is not as fast, it can not super cruise and it accelerates much slower. Given the same AAM the kinectic advantage of the faster and higher flying Typhoon means that it will get the first shot, Meteor will give an even greater advantage to the the Tiffie. Add the frontal RCS adavantage and give both an AESA radar the Typhoon dominates in air-to-air.

   Even without counting the IRIS-T which is in a other level compared to the AIM-9 or the use of two way Datalink Meteor.

Now to the Topic, IMHO it's a big mistake to cut the A-10 and think it can be replaced with the F-35.

It seems now the US cannot longer sustain such a Budget and has to accept cuts like we in Europe are used over decades.

I guess this are the consequences of the Obama Administration?

How much can the congress block this cuts?
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:19 am

Quoting autothrust (Reply 32):
Oh wait it did even win in Dogfights at Red Flag 2012 against the invincible F-22.

This was already discussed in length in another topic, yet you continue to applaud kills by a fighter that was given every conceivable advantage to fight the F-22. It was nothing more than a training exercise between two allies, yet you continue to use it as a d**k measuring tool.
 
FlyingSicilian
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:53 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:34 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 33):
This was already discussed in length in another topic, yet you continue to applaud kills by a fighter that was given every conceivable advantage to fight the F-22. It was nothing more than a training exercise between two allies, yet you continue to use it as a d**k measuring tool

exactly, multinational flag exs and other allied x v x events are most often done with ROEs and limits in place by participating countries. They are great for cross-cultural experience, mission planning practice, and large scale coordination, and BFM for some of the fighters and currency practice for the heavies (and drinking at the bar later).

They are not even close to good indicators of how well fighters can perform. As open source media often states modern US tactics tend to go BVR but one cannot start every push with the 22s or 15 Chucks getting a quick dec from AWACS and hitting everything BVR-that is not fun for the other players now is it?

And without ACMI pods (and even with them on occasion) unclass debriefs (which many a media rep has attended) can almost be comical with certain country's guys calling valid kills in situations that are highly questionable, but this doesn't get debated much-people do not want to argue much in those situations. This is just the way it is at most of these. I say that having participated in over a dozen of them.

Though I did watch a funny Maple Flag debrief where the Canadian Defence Minister was backseating in a CF-188 and got shot down-lots of beer on that one.

My cousin told me of an int'l Red Flag (I've done several myself also) where German F-4s declared valid kills on Israeli F-16s at comical distances and angles. The Israelis just smiled and said OK.

The point is take public data on these x v x scenarios with a big grain of salt.

That does not mean 15s or 16s are perfect, and upgrades are certainly needed or better precure. but you cannot believe every aviation mag you read as gospel.
“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:43 am

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 31):
It seems to me that building a Super Raptor some time in the next decade should come way before pouring untold billions into a putative sixth gen Fiasco Fighter. The effectiveness of our Air Force can't rest on a handful of F-22s.

Where were you guys when the Marine Corp Gunny was flaming me for saying more Raptors were needed? Gates moved some money to MRAPs that came too late and scuttled Raptor way too early. At $150m a piece (flyaway cost) it was better to run off more of those.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 31):
It seems to me that building a Super Raptor some time in the next decade should come way before pouring untold billions into a putative sixth gen Fiasco Fighter. The effectiveness of our Air Force can't rest on a handful of F-22s.

The problem is we have the wrong fleet mix of Air Superiority vs. Mulit-role fighters. There will probably be another $80B project down the road to fill the gap in air superiority which is unfortunate. Or perhaps we'll just deal with what we got. You don't need 1700 F35s either, you need the right fleet mix.

I do agree its time to downsize DoD. I am not worried about dollars, its % of GDP. 4.5-4.8% is high but not outrageous. We need to get down to 4% though. That's what I would consider normal. Europe is at 1.8% which is too low IMO. The way to 4% won't be pretty but I can live without active A10s and U2. Make a TARP pod for F22 and be done with it.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:34 am

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 35):
. At $150m a piece (flyaway cost) it was better to run off more of those.

Actually the cost of the F-22 would have been lower still since you would have had more airframes to spread the fixed cost of development around. So each aircraft would have carried a smaller share of the burden of paying the development cost.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 30):
The main issue though is that A-10 is not a fleet type you need from day 1.

I think the guys who are getting true ground support will disagree with that.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4944
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:03 am

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 35):
The problem is we have the wrong fleet mix of Air Superiority vs. Mulit-role fighters.

On the contrary, what you soon get is a fleet where the multi-role fighters are better than the air-superiority fighters from the previous generation (pilot skill being equal, the F-35 will dominate an F-15C, not only in the BVR realm but WVR as well) and which will more than hold its own against even its most capable western rivals.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 35):
You don't need 1700 F35s either, you need the right fleet mix.

The right mix are aircraft that can fulfill multiple roles. Look at the current USAF fleet. In 2010 they had 1805 fighter/attack aircraft across both active, ANG and reserve units not including F-22 & LRIP F-35. That number is down from 2545 in 2001. http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...2011/May%202011/0511facts_figs.pdf

- Of the F-15C/D manufactured, the USAF has half in service. All these aircraft were manufactured before 1991.
- Of the F-16C/D manufactured, the USAF has two thirds in service. 95% of these aircraft were manufactured before 1997.

The USAF will never have all 1700 F-35s in service at the same time. Many of the early production aircraft will be retired as later production aircraft are brought into service, just as was done with F-15, F-16 and F-18. Those retired will go to AMARC in case they should be needed again.

Hence even if all 1700 F-35 are purchased, it will still result in a reduced fighter/attack fleet compared to 2010 and certainly less compared to the USAF of 2001 or before.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:38 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 33):
yet you continue to applaud kills by a fighter that was given every conceivable advantage to fight the F-22

Yet you forget that the Germans Typhoons are nowhere as capable as a full standard Typhoon with several parts missing. Like the extremly important PIRATE Sensor, several DASS components. No Captor -E or Meteor.

With a full equipped Typhoon without advantage the result would surprise many.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 33):
It was nothing more than a training exercise between two allies, yet you continue to use it as a d**k measuring tool.

You missed my point totally. First i know that simulated kills scored don’t prove a fighter plane is better than another one, Also in the BVR Area the F-22 wins.

My point was to show that with right tactics and a good use of the Typhoon it's even possible to deafeat enemies which have even more capabilities.

If you make out of this a d**ck measuring tool, i'm not surprised.

[Edited 2014-02-27 01:39:13]
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:27 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 38):
My point was to show that with right tactics and a good use of the Typhoon it's even possible to deafeat enemies which have even more capabilities.


Okay. So now what.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9550
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:42 pm

Nobody says EF is better than F-22 but EF makes one important point, which is that the large fleet of F-16s and F-15s in the US inventory is not only getting old and hard to maintain, it is also losing its edge in air combat. And not only to the 5th generation designs of Russia or China but also to the 4.5 generation desgins of various countries.

The US is facing a aircraft shortfall in the future. First it is questionable if enough F-35s can be bought secondly it is questionable if there will be enough of a budget to allow this F-35 fleet enough the same number of flying hours. And while it looks sensible today to withdraw planes of limited use like the A-10, the A-10 is also a cheap airplane to operate and excels and missions for which the might of the F-35 is not needed. Just imagine the Kandahar raid would have destroyed F-35Bs no AV-8s. That would have been one billion dollar gone....
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23492
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:21 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 40):
The US is facing a aircraft shortfall in the future.

Which can be addressed by buying larger numbers of aircraft, or by changing the mission. The SecDef Hagel thread clearly indicates that the US is changing the mission.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:07 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 36):
I think the guys who are getting true ground support will disagree with that.

Don't get me wrong, the A-10 is the finest CAS airplane in the world IMO and I love the gun on it. But...and this is a big butt, they aren't forward deployed usually unless you are in real ground war. What they are saying is that we can re-activate 100 if another Iraq War turns up down the road. In short quick conflicts or Bin Laden raids, you'll have Spectres, Predators and F35s available to ground forces. But you don't need a fleet of 200 A10 all day 24/7 waiting for a ground invasion anymore.

Its the same with the downsizing of the Army. Having a standing Army capable of invading and occupying a large area isn't affordable anymore. You'll need to draft soldiers and reactivate A10s unless its something easy or small.

Remember, A10's original role was to destroy Soviet tanks in mass with its gun invading from Eastern Europe. That scenario isn't likely and adding 5-7 spectres would help offset the CAS support. You would only need it fully active if the potential for a quick sudden land invasion was likely.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):

On the contrary, what you soon get is a fleet where the multi-role fighters are better than the air-superiority fighters from the previous generation

That's true. If you expect all of your adversaries to be Gen 4 or below then go cheap. I don't see that over a long period of time though. I think you need a true interceptor too.
Having the F-15C go chase Tu-95s around was probably overkill, granted. I suspect the next gen of bombers we face from Russia or China will not be flying airliners though. I am expecting to see something along the lines of the B-1. Stealthier, faster and capable of firing from much greater distances. That's the yet another reason USAF really wanted a viable fleet of F22s. The extra stealth, speed and range helps in that scenario.
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:34 pm

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 34):
The point is take public data on these x v x scenarios with a big grain of salt.

That does not mean 15s or 16s are perfect, and upgrades are certainly needed or better precure. but you cannot believe every aviation mag you read as gospel.

100% agree. I laugh when I read stuff like this:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 32):
Not only the F-16 are over matched by Typhoons count also F-15, F-18, and all other older Fighters like Mirage 2000 and Tornado. Oh wait it did even win in Dogfights at Red Flag 2012 against the invincible F-22.

When from my vantage point, I have and get a much different perspective of these "engagements" and capabilities of aircraft.

Some people will cheerlead anything that confirms their preconceived bias.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23492
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:04 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 42):
What they are saying is that we can re-activate 100 if another Iraq War turns up down the road.

Not plausible. The time it would take to get the frames de-mothballed and the pilots and support troops and the supply chain up and running would be such that they would not be available should a ground war of the scale of Iraq be necessary.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 42):

Its the same with the downsizing of the Army. Having a standing Army capable of invading and occupying a large area isn't affordable anymore. You'll need to draft soldiers and reactivate A10s unless its something easy or small.

Nonsense. The army won't be the same size it was at the peak of fighting two ground wars, but it won't be 'small' and won't need to constrain itself to 'small' engagements.

The US DoD will STILL be spending more than the next dozen nations combined.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 42):
adding 5-7 spectres would help offset the CAS support.

Not a bad idea.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:47 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 44):
Not plausible. The time it would take to get the frames de-mothballed and the pilots and support troops and the supply chain up and r

Yeah, I mean they say they can but actually its finding pilots and training that takes a long time. I don't think what they are proposing is a true boneyard mothballing though.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 44):
he US DoD will STILL be spending more than the next dozen nations combined.

Yeah, like I said we look at GDP %. It has to get to 3.5 or 4%. 4.5 is not sustainable without raising taxes or cutting elsewhere. The Europeans are too low (1.8% GDP ) so that comparison doesn't do much for me. 2.5-4% is the historic norm. Not 1.5%
 
Ozair
Posts: 4944
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:59 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 42):
That's the yet another reason USAF really wanted a viable fleet of F22s. The extra stealth, speed and range helps in that scenario.

The F-22 may initially be slightly more stealthy than the F-35 but the significantly reduced burden of maintaining an F-35's stealth compared to the F-22 would provide either an overall reduced signature through the course of a conflict or greater availability of the F-35 airframe by requiring less maintenance.

For 95% of it's mission time the F-22 will fly the same speed as the F-35. The supercruise capability of the F-22 is typically used for 100nm dashes. It does not fly around all day supercruising as irrespective of the fact it doesn't use burner to do so supercruising uses significantly more fuel, fuel the F-22 is rather short on given its two large engines.

The F-22 has a stated combat radius flying subsonic of approx 590nm. Add a 100nm of Supercruise to that profile and the combat radius drops to 450nm. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-irwcM2ov73...4/PBBm_UVa5Ng/s1600/F-22range.jpeg

Compare that to the F-35A which has a combat radius, in a significantly heavier A2G load which includes a less optimized flight profile, of 600nm. That figure is calculated as a worst case scenario of engines with 20+ years of service. Change that to an optimized flight profile with an A2A config and you will likely see the F-35 reach a 750-800nm combat radius. Engine improvements are already in development that will increase that range by 5-10% as well.

What that translates to are F-35s in A2A config flying further than F-22, being just as effective in BVR as F-22, requiring less tanking assets than F-22 and needing less maintenance to return to the air than F-22. That is before we factor in F-35 being cheaper to purchase and less than half the hourly cost to operate.....

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 42):
That's true. If you expect all of your adversaries to be Gen 4 or below then go cheap. I don't see that over a long period of time though. I think you need a true interceptor too.

Its pretty clear the F-35's advanced sensors and stealth will, in almost all cases, allow it a first shot opportunity against all fighter aircraft currently in production or testing. Look how long it is taking the Russians and Chinese to develop and deploy their supposedly 5th generation aircraft. Both will not see operational squadron service until 2020 and will not be manufactured in anywhere near the numbers of the F-35. Therefore I see no valid competitor to an F-22/F-35 combination for 25+ years especially given that F-35s coming off the line 20 years from now will be significantly improved/upgraded over the current model.

Edit: Removed error in F-22 internal load.

[Edited 2014-02-27 14:05:11]
 
Cross757
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:32 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:19 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
Yeah, but do you know the reason why? All of those upgrades help give the A-10 a bunch of capabilities that other fighters have had for a long time, and bring it up to speed for the modern CAS battle.



Not correct. Effective CAS has less to do with what avionics are on-board the aircraft and more to do with how the aircraft performs and how those avionics are used. Even the A-10A (before the A-10C upgrade) was better for CAS than an F-16 or F-15E because the pilots flying it (and the airplane itself) are optimized for that mission.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
The only reason why the A-10 in its early days was any accurate at bombing was because they dropped their bombs while flying extremely close to their targets.



Slant range to the target is only one small piece of the bomb triangle puzzle. The best bombing systems in the world are still subject to human error. I know pilots using iron sights that could drop a bomb just as accurately as when using the full system. It's called "experience". The CCIP system in the A-10A was just as good as that in the F-16. In fact some pilots I know even preferred it.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
The A-7D's that the USAF had before the A-10's were a superior bombing and CAS aircraft compared to the A-10. For one thing, they had an extremely accurate bombing computer, had good speed, and was also better at the long range interdiction mission than the A-10 ever was.



With all due respect, none of these attributes about the A-7D make it a better CAS platform than the A-10 except perhaps its speed which would have allowed it to reach the CAS area sooner. However, being able to orbit around the CAS target area at the relatively slow speed of the A-10 is of significant advantage over "fast movers". And by defintion, "long range interdiciton" is not CAS. Apples to oranges.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
Any time you put against someone that's more sophisticated than a enemy armed with with an AK-47, it's going to get chewed up.



I sense your over-exaggeration in that statement, but that statement is WAY over generalized. ALL combat aircraft are vulerable in some way...even the fifth generation ones coming online now. For every defensive countermeasure out there, there is someone working to develop something that will make it vulnerable again. Believe it.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
And that explains in a nutshell the problem with the A-10. It needs a permissive air environment to be effective and survive. There's no guarantee of that in any conflict in the near future.



In order to perform effective CAS, localized air superiority over the current CAS battle is a must no matter what aircraft is providing the CAS support. If the pilot is having to divert their attention to matters of say, checking their radar and engaging air threats, then they are unable to devote the full attention that CAS needs. Regardless of the aircraft providing CAS, I don't think you would see much CAS support until some measure of air superiority has been established anyway.
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:19 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 46):
Its pretty clear the F-35's advanced sensors and stealth will, in almost all cases, allow it a first shot opportunity against all fighter aircraft currently in production or testing.

You seem to be in agreement I think with most of my contentions but I think understating the impact and differences. If you talk to most of the pilots, the verdict is pretty clear, in a dogfight they want a Raptor not, F35. I'm still leaving out thrust vectoring and turn radius which are substantially better in F22.

Even if each difference in a category were minor, taken as a whole, the cumluative differences are signifcant. Even down under there was a lot of concern of F35 vs Su-35. For the price difference I don't think you're making up much. The hourly cost is very difficult to determine at this point as well. If F35s start cracking in their frames above 9,000 hours you're going to see that number go up quickly. I do agree that the difference between F22/F35 is narrower than F15/F16 though. I take what lockheed is providing with a little bit of a grain of salt at this point.

Quoting Cross757 (Reply 47):
And that explains in a nutshell the problem with the A-10. It needs a permissive air environment to be effective and survive. There's no guarantee of that in any conflict in the near future.

Lets hope not. Spectre has same issue.
 
Bacon907
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:57 am

RE: ACC Commander On Upgrades/Cuts- F22,F35,A10,U2

Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:03 am

There is tons of fraud, waste and abuse in the DOD.
I'm of the opinion that the DOD needs a top to bottom reorganization and budgeting overhaul.

In my experience, nobody looks out for their own interests better than the individual services.

I think the Army and USMC should be given or share their own fixed wing CAS platform. The Air Force has never wanted that mission, they just didn't want the Army to have it. They should also have their own fixed wing inter theater transport aircraft(C-27, CASA 235/295).

The USAF should be given strategic transport, bombing, refueling, SEAD, recon, ect.....

The Navy should continue doing whatever they do.....but bring back the sexy F-14......just kidding...I know all the "it's super expensive vs. the super bug.

Just my thoughts on the matter.....take it or leave it...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PaddyOMaddy and 36 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos