USAF of the 21st century [Archive]

View Full Version : USAF of the 21st century

sunjerem

July 2nd, 2006, 08:41 PM

Occum

July 2nd, 2006, 11:33 PM

And, what will replace A-10 Thunderbolt for the dedicated ground attack role, or will the Army's AH-64D Longbow Apache take on this role completely?

The Warthog is currently scheduled to fly through to 2030+ with a spiral development program underway to upgrade to A-10C configuration with MIL 1760 for J series weapons, new digital cockpit with HOTAS, EOTS pod capabilities, new low level TA computing and twice the power generation capability. New wings are in the mill for the variants with the earlier wing design.

Question: Given the endurance and weapons load of the HAWG, how many JSFs will be are required to replace the A-10C for the CAS/BAI mission?

gf0012-aust

July 3rd, 2006, 03:06 AM

Question: Given the endurance and weapons load of the HAWG, how many JSFs will be are required to replace the A-10C for the CAS/BAI mission?

what percentile of missions are likely to stretch those A-10's beyond the 2030 parking date?

the USAF already knows that F-16's and F-18's don't do parallel or equivalent CAS/BAI roles "properly" - hence the A-10 SLEP.

Isn't it a question of what platform will be deployed circa 2025-2030 for CAS/BAI? I'd suggest that UCAV's and TUAV's are already tagged for that role in that timeframe.

Occum

July 3rd, 2006, 04:44 AM

gf0012-aust

July 3rd, 2006, 05:13 AM

Dear GF,

The phrase 'percentile of missions' sounds impressive but is not a term with which I am familiar.
If my post caused you to infer that 2030 was, as you say, 'the 2030 parking date', then I apologise. My understanding of the HAWG airframe and related fatigue life is that with the re-wing program, the life could be well beyond 2030, even with quite high utilisation. Since battle damage tolerance and battlefield survivability were key requirements in the design, this not so little muther is built like the proverbial brick out house and, therefore, was designed to last. Having spent some time on the aircraft, I can vouch for its robustness.

Clearly, one of the role expansions that the A-10C configuration brings to the HAWG is the persistent bombardment or 'kill-box interdiction' mission operationally trialled so successfully in Gulf War 1 and used to effect in Afghanistan and Iraq - a tactic first developed here by Peter Criss and his team up at Amberley in the late 1980's and taken back to the US by a USAF Exchange Officer.

Though I would not call it a SLEP, the spiral development program on the A-10 has been some time coming and is in recognition, firstly, of the demonstrated capabilities and performance of the HAWG and, secondly, the cost effectiveness of such spiral development and technology insertion programs on platforms that have proven themselves. The A-10C update is being done for around US$300 million on some 265+ aircraft.

Since the experts can't agree on when the AI and related computer technologies will likely be available, I think your suggestion is somewhat premature. Besides, not sure how the ground folks would feel about having unmanned vehicles with a couple of tonne of HE flying autonomously over their heads.

Which gets back to my prev - the JSf isn't intended to replace the A-10 - and no other platform within their availability structure is suitable either. So its been extended out to 2030.

Are you suggesting that there are suitable alternatives leading up to 2030?

As for autonomous platforms and capability - I still think we're going to have some pretty significant changes in direction by 2030. At the moment we've already seen that happen with USV's. Range has gone up by almost 800% in the last 18months - and mission options which were deemed almost "buck rogers" stuff are now being trialled. That compares dramnatically with the position that we were in circa 2003. That technology was regarded as leading edge and is now almost considered obsolete.

I'm not suggesting that aviation advances are emulating UDT advances - but there is a relationship between some aerodynamic technologies and fluid mechanical solutions. If air is bouncing along at the same rate as the UDT successes, then controlled platforms delivering precision weapons are closer rather than further. (I'm ignoring totally autonomous combat platforms dependant on AI for manouvre and battlefield behaviour)

rjmaz1

July 3rd, 2006, 05:23 AM

What about a dedicated SEAD plane? The EA-18G Growler is for the Navy. So, what the the air force have for its new SEAD plane to replace EF-111 Raven?

Now with agile stealth aircraft they will be doing the SEAD and DEAD missions.

The F-22 has demonstrated that it is more than capable of taking out Surface to air missiles better any previous aircraft.

The JSF will have all the ground attack capabilities of the F-22 as well so it will be able to take out SAM's just as easy.

Its funny how the A-10 is not being replaced by the JSF anymore. The JSF is now way too expensive for the close air support mission and first hit the plane would crash, unlike the A-10's that some have half a wing missing and still manages to land!

It seems the JSF is the jack of all trades and the master at none ;)

The F-22 on the other hand is the master of many trades.

gf0012-aust

July 3rd, 2006, 05:51 AM

Now with agile stealth aircraft they will be doing the SEAD and DEAD missions.

when did air superiority fighters pick up the SEAD and DEAD role on day1->day7 events?

The F-22 has demonstrated that it is more than capable of taking out Surface to air missiles better any previous aircraft.

How, when and where?

The JSF will have all the ground attack capabilities of the F-22 as well so it will be able to take out SAM's just as easy.

actually - what ground attack capabilities does the F-22 have at the moment?

Its funny how the A-10 is not being replaced by the JSF anymore. The JSF is now way too expensive for the close air support mission and first hit the plane would crash, unlike the A-10's that some have half a wing missing and still manages to land!

Ever looked at how the A-10 does CAS and then wondered why pointy jets (eg F-22 and JSF) can't do it as well? have you read the reports from US troops where they bemoaned the fact that Hornets and Eagles could not do the jog of the A-10's. What part of the F-22/JSF flight profile makes them suitable for CAS at the level that US soldiers were bitching about? I guess what it does point out - is that the USAF listened to their embedded controllers in the ground teams.

It seems the JSF is the jack of all trades and the master at none ;)

Again - how when and where?

The F-22 on the other hand is the master of many trades.

Again - how when and where has this been demonstrated? I know you love the F-22 and you are against the JSF - but I'd like to see where the F-22 has apparently become the anointed one and does all that you say.

Gee - I guess thats why the USAF has a Hi-Lo mix.

Occum

July 3rd, 2006, 05:56 AM

Which gets back to my prev - the JSf isn't intended to replace the A-10 - and no other platform within their availability structure is suitable either. So its been extended out to 2030.

This is not what the marketing spin and the JSF afficianados up in Russell Offices (aka LM Marketing Office - Detachment 'A') keep telling people - particularly Government members. Thus my original question which still remains (though the answer is pretty easy to work out - the hints being endurance and weapons load!).

Are you suggesting that there are suitable alternatives leading up to 2030?

From where did you get this idea? Certainly nothing I have posted to this thread since I agree the USAF are doing the right thing with the HAWG.

;)

gf0012-aust

July 3rd, 2006, 06:00 AM

.

From where did you get this idea? Certainly nothing I have posted to this thread since I agree the USAF are doing the right thing with the HAWG.

;)

it was a question.

abramsteve

July 3rd, 2006, 06:41 AM

Might as well ask a few questions seeing as this thread seems to be the one to do it in :)

The KC-135, how long have they got left? Im particulary fond of them but thought they were fast approaching replacement, not sure what with though...

I heard somewhere that the B-52 was to stay in service till somewhere round the 2040 mark? Im hopeful but they would be practiacaly ancient by then... but hey, the C-47s still around!

The B-1, my favourite modern bomber, how long have they got?

Cheers

rjmaz1

July 3rd, 2006, 07:31 AM

when did air superiority fighters pick up the SEAD and DEAD role on day1->day7 events?

Straight from the horses mouth?? - Lockheed states that it performs SEAD 3 times better than conventioanl aircarft (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17470&rsbci=0&fti=112&ti=0&sc=400) Look at the title of this thread, it says the future doesn't it? Just because the F-22 cant do the SEAD mission in its first 12months of operation does not mean that it will not be doing it in 5 years time. Because it will be and you know that as well as i do.

actually - what ground attack capabilities does the F-22 have at the moment?

How about - Supersonic Raptor Drops First Guided Bomb (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,82739,00.html)???

I thought you of all people would know that the F-22 can and will be dropping bombs in its first day of combat

Ever looked at how the A-10 does CAS and then wondered why pointy jets (eg F-22 and JSF) can't do it as well? have you read the reports from US troops where they bemoaned the fact that Hornets and Eagles could not do the jog of the A-10's. What part of the F-22/JSF flight profile makes them suitable for CAS at the level that US soldiers were bitching about? I guess what it does point out - is that the USAF listened to their embedded controllers in the ground teams.

I said the JSF CANT replace the A-10. The US originally planned that the JSF would replace the A-10, which i said was funny as the aircraft is no longer replacing it as the JSF cannot physically stand up to the job. Its like getting a lawyer in a suit and tie to lay bricks for a day, not gonna happen even if the US thinks so.

Again - how when and where has this been demonstrated? I know you love the F-22 and you are against the JSF - but I'd like to see where the F-22 has apparently become the anointed one and does all that you say.

The F-22 is the MASTER of the air to air.
The F-22 is the jack of all trades in that it can do reasonably well:
SEAD/DEAD taking out sam sites.
Intercept bombers.
Drop bombs on ground targets.
Sink ships at sea.
Provide limited air support, destory tanks on the ground etc. The only reason you wont see an F-22 doing Close Air support is because of the risk of destroying a 200 million dollar aircraft. It can do it easily, just because they dont use it in that role doesn't mean it cant do it.

Now look at the JSF.
Is it the master of the air? Nope the F-22 is better.
Is it the master of long range bombing? Nope the B-2 is better
Is it the master of SEAD or DEAD? Nope the F-22 is faster and stealthier
Is it the master of Close air support? Nope the A-10 is better.

Sure the JSF can do all of these things very well, but so can the F-22 and not one of these things is it the best in the world at.
Gee - I guess thats why the USAF has a Hi-Lo mix.

Incorrect in a few years the JSF is High and the F-22 is Very High. So its a Very Hi-Hi mix, which aint good at all.

However in 20 years time the JSF will become cheaper and eventually reach the "low" level, thats providing that the expensive future upgrades are left to the F-22 so it stays in the High role.

swerve

July 3rd, 2006, 07:36 AM

F-35A "name to be chosen soon" as a light fighter and attack plane to complement the F-22A

Sorry, but I can't let this pass. Lots of people call the F-35 "light". It isn't. It weighs about the same as an F-4, more than an F-18A, slightly less than an F-18E, a lot more than an F-16, even the latest fat ones. However you redefine light, medium, & heavy, the F-35 isn't light.

Gripen, JF-17 & Tejas are light fighters. If the F-50 version of the Korean T-50 is built, it'll be a light fighter. Something twice as heavy as them is NOT light.

gf0012-aust

July 3rd, 2006, 09:25 AM

Straight from the horses mouth?? - Lockheed states that it performs SEAD 3 times better than conventioanl aircarft (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17470&rsbci=0&fti=112&ti=0&sc=400) Look at the title of this thread, it says the future doesn't it? Just because the F-22 cant do the SEAD mission in its first 12months of operation does not mean that it will not be doing it in 5 years time. Because it will be and you know that as well as i do.

You're seriously going to quote a Lockmart press release as evidence of capability and evidence of mission role when the USAF itself has just decided to extend the life of all her heavy bombers because fighter aircraft (not matter how sexy they are on paper) can't deliver volume and mass on target? Thats as good as the rubbish that Boeing promote with the notion that the SuperHornet is a 5th Generation aircraft!

How about - Supersonic Raptor Drops First Guided Bomb (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,82739,00.html)???

I thought you of all people would know that the F-22 can and will be dropping bombs in its first day of combat

What? are you seriously telling me that an F-22 will enter battlespace in the opening stages and undertake the bombing missions of the Bone, B2 and B-52's? It may well be able to go in on day 1 - but in contested battlespace are you blithely sitting there telling us that the F-22 will run primary for the decapitation roles? I don't think so somehow.

I said the JSF CANT replace the A-10. The US originally planned that the JSF would replace the A-10, which i said was funny as the aircraft is no longer replacing it as the JSF cannot physically stand up to the job. Its like getting a lawyer in a suit and tie to lay bricks for a day, not gonna happen even if the US thinks so.

The JSF is not a direct replacement for the A-10 - so why the angst? Ever noticed the history of other aircraft who's primary mission role changed as they evolved. It also doesn't mean that the JSF cannot undertake some of the mission sets. What did the US army complain about? weight and rate of fire in controlled suppression rather than fast and passed with a turning radius that would cover Lichtenstein. Fast movers aren't designed for that role - geez, a helicopter gunship can undertake some of those missions better - eg the Hind. You run whats appropriate.

The F-22 is the MASTER of the air to air.
The F-22 is the jack of all trades in that it can do reasonably well:
SEAD/DEAD taking out sam sites.
Intercept bombers.
Drop bombs on ground targets.
Sink ships at sea.
Provide limited air support, destory tanks on the ground etc. The only reason you wont see an F-22 doing Close Air support is because of the risk of destroying a 200 million dollar aircraft. It can do it easily, just because they dont use it in that role doesn't mean it cant do it.

Can it? whats it been certified for to date? A Hercules can roll out a FAE and act as a bomber - hell they've been chucking cruise missiles out the back - it doesn't mean that its going to happen as part of the standard respoonse de rigeur

what anti-shipping missiles are going to be certified for the F-22? The only role its had in anti-shipping exercises is to act as a radar and sensor picket for the F-15's. If you whack a pair of anti-shipping missiles on the F-22 it will light up like a nun in a nudist colony.

Now look at the JSF.
Is it the master of the air? Nope the F-22 is better.

are you being deliberately obtuse? do you actually understand that JSF is not a day 1 air to air supremacy asset for the americans? It may well be a primary air to air asset for the other countries who don't however have the same level of force mix and compression as the USAF. Thats why their primary aircraft will be JSF. Stuff me, If I wanted the best low level bomber maybe I'd look at B1, if I wanted low vis entry then a B2 - if I wanted to drop PGM's at 40,000 feet in uncontested air-space ala Op Anaconda - then the B-52. But if you seriously believe that F-22's are good opening bombers and can deliver PGM's en-masse in pre-sanitised battlespace - then you've been suckered as much as the other others you vigorously disagree with.

Is it the master of long range bombing? Nope the B-2 is better

why would you even begin to compare load outs between a fighter sized aircraft and a bomber?

Is it the master of SEAD or DEAD? Nope the F-22 is faster and stealthier

considering that SEAD and DEAD are "in concert missions" - it means that JSF could do the job just as effectively - or are you making things up again?

Is it the master of Close air support? Nope the A-10 is better.

its not supposed to be the master of CAS! why do you think the A-10's been extended. The attached USAF controllers on missions like Op Anaconda reinforced that no pointy fighter was able to deliver approp mass on target peristently. Shornets were often able to deliver one pass before they ran out of time and fuel - it's the same for any fighter that has to operate at range and doesn't have the fuel efficiency of a Fiat Bambina.

Sure the JSF can do all of these things very well, but so can the F-22 and not one of these things is it the best in the world at.

its a strike asset for crying out loud - and outside of the USAF its probably more than competent in taking on likely threats - especially seeing that all the airforces lining up for it actually operate under a combined arms philosophy and do/will have assets such as AWACs in play.

Incorrect in a few years the JSF is High and the F-22 is Very High. So its a Very Hi-Hi mix, which aint good at all.

However in 20 years time the JSF will become cheaper and eventually reach the "low" level, thats providing that the expensive future upgrades are left to the F-22 so it stays in the High role.

and thank you for publicly demonstrating that you don't understand the principle of Hi-LO operations. Your analogy has got nothing to do with the way that they've structured their force.

btw, everyone knows my background - whats yours? you're extremely confident and talk about capability that even one of the F-22 Program Mgrs that I know of doesn't talk about - and he's on the email group of 3 of the people registered at this site.

he's far less dismissive of the JSF - but I guess you know more than him?

oldsoak

July 3rd, 2006, 01:24 PM

Why would anyone bother sending any mega dollar manned aircraft over enemy territory on the opening day of the war when you can drop off cruise missiles from a couple of hundred miles away ? Surely there is an arguement for knocking out what you can from a distance with loads of relatively cheap missiles before commiting very expensive assets to a thoroughly pacified airspace ? Is there a case for more money being spent on quantities of precision stand off weapons and less on mega dollar aircraft - given that you will only be operating in airspace that s either friendly or had its air defences flattened ?

cruise missiles and lancaster bombers - thats what we need ...:p:

sunjerem

July 3rd, 2006, 02:08 PM

Waylander

July 3rd, 2006, 02:13 PM

A little bit of topic

@gf0012-aust

You use "angst". Is this the german word I think it is or does it mean something different and is only written in the same way?

swerve

July 3rd, 2006, 02:53 PM

The words "heavy" and "light" are specific to a particular air force.

In the USAF, F-22A is classified as "heavy" and F-35A is classified as "light".

You sure? I've not found such a classification used anywhere in any of the official stuff I've read on either F-22 or F-35.

SABRE

July 3rd, 2006, 03:06 PM

Sorry, but I can't let this pass. Lots of people call the F-35 "light". It isn't. It weighs about the same as an F-4, more than an F-18A, slightly less than an F-18E, a lot more than an F-16, even the latest fat ones. However you redefine light, medium, & heavy, the F-35 isn't light.

Gripen, JF-17 & Tejas are light fighters. If the F-50 version of the Korean T-50 is built, it'll be a light fighter. Something twice as heavy as them is NOT light.

The words "heavy" and "light" are specific to a particular air force.

In the USAF, F-22A is classified as "heavy" and F-35A is classified as "light".

I think by heavy & light fighter he means high-low combinition. - High Priority/Performance fighter & Low Priority/Performance fighter (as designated in some airforces). high-priority fighters include heavy air-superiotity fighters designated purely for Air to Air combat i.e F-15 & low-priority fighters include Multirole fighters i.e. F-16s.

In near futue it would be F-22 as High & JSF-35 as low.

gf0012-aust

July 3rd, 2006, 10:44 PM

A little bit of topic

@gf0012-aust

You use "angst". Is this the german word I think it is or does it mean something different and is only written in the same way?

angst in english is typically referring to "concern" or more or less "interesse" or "druck"

its spelt the same but has a different connotation

rjmaz1

July 3rd, 2006, 11:07 PM

the USAF itself has just decided to extend the life of all her heavy bombers because fighter aircraft (not matter how sexy they are on paper) can't deliver volume and mass on target?

I never suggested the F-22 or JSF will be doing heavy bombing. Not all bombing/strike missions require mass on target. The F-117 was an excellent bomber and it carried only two bombs, a JSF or F-22 can strike more ground targets than an F-117 can.

Also look at the F-15E its a fighter turned bomber/strike with a few systems upgrades.

What? are you seriously telling me that an F-22 will enter battlespace in the opening stages and undertake the bombing missions of the Bone, B2 and B-52's?

I never said that the F-22 would undertake the bombing missions of the Bone, B2 and B52 aircraft. I said that the F-22 would drop bombs in the SEAD and DEAD role, it can carry missiles and bombs at the same time.

Can it? whats it been certified for to date?

What weapons on the JSF have been certified to date?

The F-22 and JSF will both be certified to drop JDAM and SDB in the coming years. We both know that only air to air missiles are currently being carried by the F-22. You know as well as i do that the F-22 will be certified to carry bombs by the time the JSF arrives.

why would you even begin to compare load outs between a fighter sized aircraft and a bomber?

Notice how i said bombing? I never mentioned if 100 bombs or a single bomb had to be dropped. If a single bomb has to be dropped then a fighter sized aircraft CAN be compared between that of a bomber. The Fighter aircraft would most likely be the prefered option if the target is medium/short range as its more flexible. Load out is irrelevent.

considering that SEAD and DEAD are "in concert missions" - it means that JSF could do the job just as effectively - or are you making things up again?
Both aircraft would most likely be using small diameter bombs to take out ground targets. As these weapons use kinetic energy the speed of the aircraft is very important at extending the range of the bomb. The F-22's ability to cruise 50% faster than the JSF allows it to perform SEAD and DEAD better.

The main problem is that there is a severe limit on the number of F-22 and any will be used for Air dominance first. Remaining aircraft can then become multirole, if there are in aircraft left at all.

Also regarding the ship destroying functions. JDAMS and small diameter bombs will soon be able to be updated in flight with co-ordinate updates for moving targets. This feature will be added to the JSF but the F-22 may never see it as the aircraft would never be available to do that role anyway.

Instead of me having to always provide evidence to prove myself right, i think you should provide evidence that disprove me. However, most of our sources of information are not on the internet for public viewing.

gf0012-aust

July 3rd, 2006, 11:57 PM

I never suggested the F-22 or JSF will be doing heavy bombing. Not all bombing/strike missions require mass on target. The F-117 was an excellent bomber and it carried only two bombs, a JSF or F-22 can strike more ground targets than an F-117 can.

Also look at the F-15E its a fighter turned bomber/strike with a few systems upgrades.

so if its precision decapitation why isn't the JSF going to be able to do the job - after all its primary role in the USAF is strike - whereas in other airforces it will be air supremacy and strike. Considering that the software sets on the JSF are a later generation, that it is designed for strike - why would it be less capable?

I never said that the F-22 would undertake the bombing missions of the Bone, B2 and B52 aircraft. I said that the F-22 would drop bombs in the SEAD and DEAD role, it can carry missiles and bombs at the same time.

SEAD and DEAD has been done by PGM's and standoff - why would you commit an air supremacy fighter to that role when for the same frame price you could launch 150+ tomahawks? In every recent event the bulk of the SEAD and hence DEAD has been done by PGM's with F-117's carrying out roles that the PGM's were unable to delivered to. Considering that the F-117 is already considered to be AMARC ready - and that the JSF and F-22 both have superior stealth characteristics - then I can't see how JSF is "less capable"

What weapons on the JSF have been certified to date?

The F-22 and JSF will both be certified to drop JDAM and SDB in the coming years. We both know that only air to air missiles are currently being carried by the F-22.

and JSF can carry air to air as well - are there 8-9 other airforces buying JSF without an air defence capability - I don't think so. ;) so whats your point? (apart from selective disection to promote the F-22 over the JSF for everything from killing SAM sites to pouring milk). So, do you use the air supremacy fighter in preference over the strike platform to conduct strike missions? (and lets assume that they're both available for the mission set)

You know as well as i do that the F-22 will be certified to carry bombs by the time the JSF arrives.

Nimrods are certified for AAM - that doesn't make them fighters.

Notice how i said bombing? I never mentioned if 100 bombs or a single bomb had to be dropped. If a single bomb has to be dropped then a fighter sized aircraft CAN be compared between that of a bomber. The Fighter aircraft would most likely be the prefered option if the target is medium/short range as its more flexible. Load out is irrelevent.

Of course load out is relevant - its a fundamental requirement of mission planning and logistics. Logistics dominates how you win wars - not the toys.

Both aircraft would most likely be using small diameter bombs to take out ground targets. As these weapons use kinetic energy the speed of the aircraft is very important at extending the range of the bomb. The F-22's ability to cruise 50% faster than the JSF allows it to perform SEAD and DEAD better.

So now you're suggesting that supercruise is better for lobbing inert ordinance at a target? How the heck can lobbing within 50 miles of a SAM target or EW shack be more effective than launching a PGM at a greater standoff range and where the plane and pilot are no longer loss factors. (and for 1/90th the cost at far greater range)

The main problem is that there is a severe limit on the number of F-22 and any will be used for Air dominance first. Remaining aircraft can then become multirole, if there are in aircraft left at all.

no - they were always primarily air dominance - hence the ref to Hi-Lo structures. Do you seriously think that if the F-22 was the sole weapon of choice to do all the magical things that you suggest that there would even be a JSF. and please don't trot out commercial conspiracy theories.

Also regarding the ship destroying functions. JDAMS and small diameter bombs will soon be able to be updated in flight with co-ordinate updates for moving targets. This feature will be added to the JSF but the F-22 may never see it as the aircraft would never be available to do that role anyway.

JDAMs were successfully trialled on a moving vehicle at convoy speeds from 50 miles and successfully destroyed the vehicle - that was 18 months ago. If it can carry JDAM's - and if its talking to the right GTMI assets - then it can probably kill it. The issue is platform relevance - as the capability has already been tested.

Instead of me having to always provide evidence to prove myself right, i think you should provide evidence that disprove me. However, most of our sources of information are not on the internet for public viewing.

You're disproving it yourself. and don't give me the rubbish about what can and can't be said on the internet as I'm well aware of the rules. I'm still cleared to a "Protected" level - so I know what can and can't be said.
When you make claims about the F-22 and JSF that one of my very senior sources on the F-22 project doesn't - then I have a doubt as to where your info is coming from. 90% of what he tells me doesn't hit here - and he's far from being as bold in making capability claims - he certainly recognises that F-22 is not the primary choice for some missions over the JSF.

Keywords to remember: Mission requirements - Platform relevance.

rjmaz1

July 4th, 2006, 01:03 AM

GF you keep insisting that the JSF can "do the job" i never once said that it couldn't do its job, the JSF will be hard to contest in most missions.

However this also applies to the F-22.

I use a logical break down of numbers to compare the aircraft, bare with me.

In my opinion once both aircraft are operational and both have ground attack cababilities we can then analyse the F-22 and JSF in regards to sortie rate, aircraft price and capability. The F-22 can fly a much higher sortie rate (~50%) due to its speed which makes up for the lesser number of aircraft due to its ticket price (~50%). For arguments sake we will call it a 50:50 match up to this point. Sure there are heaps of other things like maintenance etc but dont nit pick :p:

So now we can compare the aircraft on capability alone, assuming that both aircraft have ground attack capabilities as they should have in 5 years. The F-22 and JSF will be able to strike pretty much all the same targets as eachother from a weapons and avionics points of view (in stealthy config).

The radar and speed advantage gives the F-22 the egde over the majority of missions from air to strike. The JSF being slower has longer endurance so the only mission this is an advantage is close air support, or escorting slower aircraft.

The JSF has a few extra networking and weapons guidance functions however its highly likely that these features are added to the F-22.

he certainly recognises that F-22 is not the primary choice for some missions over the JSF.
I bet he also recognises that the JSF is not the primary choice for some missions over the F-22 as well. If enough F-22 aircraft were available i bet it would be the primary choice for more missions than the JSF.

You make such a well constructed argument, if you were in the room when Carlo Kopp was trying to praise the F-22 you would have shot him down and had everyone on your side :)

gf0012-aust

July 4th, 2006, 01:27 AM

if you were in the room when Carlo Kopp was trying to praise the F-22 you would have shot him down and had everyone on your side :)

My primary message is not that the JSF or F-22 can supplant each other. They are complimentary assets within (for the USAF) a very coherent and complimentary response and force structure.

Both aircraft have specific roles that the other was not touted or designed to do. They are primary platforms for different requirements.

I'm not even trying to argue against what Dr Kopp (or anyone else believes) - I'm just not convinced at a personal level at some of the arguments presented that dismiss one platform in toto over the other.

I find it really hard to enthusiastically accept some of the F-22/JSF arguments when I know that there are very few in Australia cleared for real information - and certainly no one who presented arguments in front of the recent Committee had current and relevant clearances. That might get some excited when they think that they can make more qualified conclusions with less access to the right data - but so be it.

The USAF has a force mix of F-22 and eventually JSF for a reason. Other airforces (except for the Japanese and RAF) don't have the financial and logistical mass to support disparate capability in volume to the same scale. Someone has to pay for capability - and someone has to get the balance right so that it doesn't neutralise the rest of the national ability to wage and prosecute the military will of the govt across all 3 force levels.

If we could get F-22's without financially jeopardising the rest of the national military capability across all 3 services - then I'd be as happy as larry. I just don't see it happening. A platform capability that is predominately about air supremacy when Aust has responsibility for 1/9th of the Worlds major oceans, where 98% of our trade comes by sea - where our immediate threats have to reach out and touch us and are thus at a greater logistical disadvantage seems a somewhat over-leveraged dependance on a platform skillset that has other capability priorities.

To be blunt, I'd rather see more ASW/Orions, AWACs and AAR in the mix.

alexsa

July 4th, 2006, 01:53 AM

Okay. The USAF of the 21st century will comprise the following:

F-22A Raptor heavy fighter for the fighter role and the ground attack (including CAS) role

F-35A "name to be chosen soon" as a light fighter and attack plane to complement the F-22A

B-2 Spirit bomber for the bomber role

E-8 JSTARS for the AWAC role

C-17 GlobeMaster for the transport role

KC-135 StratoTanker for the aerial tanker role

What about a dedicated SEAD plane? The EA-18G Growler is for the Navy. So, what the the air force have for its new SEAD plane to replace EF-111 Raven?

And, what will replace A-10 Thunderbolt for the dedicated ground attack role, or will the Army's AH-64D Longbow Apache take on this role completely?

Out of curiosity, what about the B1-B Lancer? The USAF is upgrading the radars on the operational birds and don't appear to be in a hurry to get rid of them.

Secondly F-22 ground attack? not in its current form. Similalry the term 'light fighter' appears inappropriate for the F-35 given its size and intended ISR role.

rjmaz1

July 4th, 2006, 02:26 AM

To be blunt, I'd rather see more ASW/Orions, AWACs and AAR in the mix.
Definitely agree there however..

You should ask your contact in the F-22 program to truthfully tell you just how high and fast the F-22 can really fly. We're talking Mig-31 territory here.

There are alot of capabilities that have not revealed to the public, but have been leaked. Reconnaissance is the big one.

Once your above 60,000ft the radar horizon of the APG-77 is huge! The search and tracking capabilities that it could provide Australia is well beyond most peoples expectations. It would reduce the need for more AWACs considerably.

gf0012-aust

July 4th, 2006, 02:38 AM

You should ask your contact in the F-22 program to truthfully tell you just how high and fast the F-22 can really fly. We're talking Mig-31 territory here.

He only tells me what its appropriate to say. I do have a high degree of confidence in what he tells me already. Again, the stuff in the public domain has little in common with actual data - even the so called "leaks".

There are alot of capabilities that have not revealed to the public, but have been leaked.

and a lot of the leaks are also rubbish as well as enthusiastic speculation. I haven't seen any leak which has been qualified from within the program.

Reconnaissance is the big one.

I'm aware of its capabilities

Once your above 60,000ft the radar horizon of the APG-77 is huge! The search and tracking capabilities that it could provide Australia is well beyond most peoples expectations. It would reduce the need for more AWACs considerably.

Its a bonus - but F-22's don't have organic range and hence persistence depth like that of an AWACs - and the APG-77 certainly does not have the same depth of capability as an AWACs. The inference is that the sensor capability of the F-22 is something discrete and that it can't be migrated to something like the JSF. Considering the pace and scale of sensor system development in the last 3 years - then one doesn't need to speculate at how different sensor systems will be in 2012 on a platform where broader integration is possible.

Magoo

July 4th, 2006, 03:23 AM

You should ask your contact in the F-22 program to truthfully tell you just how high and fast the F-22 can really fly. We're talking Mig-31 territory here.
Very true - when I flew the simulator in December (which I was assured was, although cleansed for my unclassified rating, representative), I saw FL550 and climbing @ Mach 1.8 without reheat, and lobbed JDAMs and AMRAAMs distances far in excess of their nominal ranges.
There are alot of capabilities that have not revealed to the public, but have been leaked. Reconnaissance is the big one.

Once your above 60,000ft the radar horizon of the APG-77 is huge! The search and tracking capabilities that it could provide Australia is well beyond most peoples expectations. It would reduce the need for more AWACs considerably.
While this is also true, where the F-22 falls down against AEW&C, and indeed against JSF and even Super Hornet to an extent, is that it does not yet employ a two-way datalink. It can receive data from an off-platform sensor (i.e. AEW&C, B-2, SPECOPS, AEGIS, JSTARS etc), but cannot yet send it in a voiceless format. There is a development of the APG-77 to allow this, although it's currently unfunded and is sitting on a shelf for now.

Magoo

Occum

July 4th, 2006, 10:59 AM

If we could get F-22's without financially jeopardising the rest of the national military capability across all 3 services - then I'd be as happy as larry.

A simplified, somewhat crude but conservative look at the cost/budgetary data and the costing models that I have been privy to provides the following:

1. NACC/Air 6000 Project Budget (refer Defence Capability Plans published in 2001, 2004, 2006 and Defence Annual Reports 2001 to 2005) = A$11,500 million to A$15,500 million (2004 dollars),

minus

2. Cost of 55 x F-22A systems @ US$116 million average unit procurement cost (Then Year - 2008 dollars) = US$6,380 million. At a risk hedged exchange rate of 0.7000, this equates to A$9,115 million

plus

3. Saving from not doing remaining F/A-18 HUG Phases, R3+ Deeper Level Maintenance, Repaint, Kapton Wiring Replacement, Fuel Tanks, etc = A$2,700 million (2004 dollars) - Note: This figure does not include the increases made or flagged in DCP 2006-2016 nor further cost increases in HUG Phases 2.3, 2.4 and 3.2

plus

4. Saving in total operating and maintenance expenditure (not including 3. above) from not operating F/A-18s out to 2015+ = A$4,500 million (2004 Dollars)

minus

5. Total operating expenditure of F-111s out to 2020 (based on highest of the RAAF's figures provided in the Air Combat Capability Paper dated 03 June 2004 tabled to the Australian Parliament by AM Angus Houston) = A$3,500 million (2004 dollars)

Net Result = better than A$6 Bn to A$10 Bn savings in 2004 dollars.

Are you now happy?

:)

rjmaz1

July 4th, 2006, 11:05 AM

Occum well done at working out the price. Doesn't seem so out of reach after all. Based on those figures we could even purchase more than 55 F-22's. However personally i think 55 is more than enough as its quality not quantity. That way more money could be put towards inflight refueling as we will need new tankers anyway as the F-22 uses different inflight refueling.

and lobbed JDAMs and AMRAAMs distances far in excess of their nominal ranges.I've heard that the longest distance a SDB has been thrown on the simulator is over 60miles. Thats absolutely sensational in my books, as the aircraft could drop half a dozen of them at once and hit 6 different targets and by the time the bombs hit the F-22 has already disappeared. :)

I didn't think about the AMRAAM range extension however this would put

The only thing severing limiting the F-22's speed is the intakes not being variable as the stealth would be compromised. So with reheat the speed top speed doesn't increase by that much, so reheat is mainly used for acceleration only and boy does it accelerate!! :cool:

I find it cool just the fact that within 30 seconds of leaving the ground the F-22 breaks the sound barrier and the entire mission is performed supersonic.

While this is also true, where the F-22 falls down against AEW&C, and indeed against JSF and even Super Hornet to an extent, is that it does not yet employ a two-way datalink.
Very true however its nearly certain that a two-way datalink will be added down the track, when though is anyones guess. If Australia orders F-22's at the end of the production run this feature might already be in the process of being added.

Even without the datalink the F-22 once it detects a target at long range, unlike a conventional AWAC that then has to send fighter to intercept, the F-22 would intercept the enemy itself. So really all u'd need is two of three F-22 in the air at any given moment for complete protection of the northern border.

Whiskyjack

July 4th, 2006, 05:44 PM

A simplified, somewhat crude but conservative look at the cost/budgetary data and the costing models that I have been privy to provides the following:

1. NACC/Air 6000 Project Budget (refer Defence Capability Plans published in 2001, 2004, 2006 and Defence Annual Reports 2001 to 2005) = A$11,500 million to A$15,500 million (2004 dollars),

minus

2. Cost of 55 x F-22A systems @ US$116 million average unit procurement cost (Then Year - 2008 dollars) = US$6,380 million. At a risk hedged exchange rate of 0.7000, this equates to A$9,115 million

plus

3. Saving from not doing remaining F/A-18 HUG Phases, R3+ Deeper Level Maintenance, Repaint, Kapton Wiring Replacement, Fuel Tanks, etc = A$2,700 million (2004 dollars) - Note: This figure does not include the increases made or flagged in DCP 2006-2016 nor further cost increases in HUG Phases 2.3, 2.4 and 3.2

plus

4. Saving in total operating and maintenance expenditure (not including 3. above) from not operating F/A-18s out to 2015+ = A$4,500 million (2004 Dollars)

minus

5. Total operating expenditure of F-111s out to 2020 (based on highest of the RAAF's figures provided in the Air Combat Capability Paper dated 03 June 2004 tabled to the Australian Parliament by AM Angus Houston) = A$3,500 million (2004 dollars)

Net Result = better than A$6 Bn to A$10 Bn savings in 2004 dollars.

Are you now happy?

:)

I can't see any cost added for training and logistics etc. I would think (not an expert by any means) that 30%-50% would be added into the overall cost going by other programmes.

What are your thoughts on this?

Occum

July 4th, 2006, 07:40 PM

I can't see any cost added for training and logistics etc. I would think (not an expert by any means) that 30%-50% would be added into the overall cost going by other programmes. Without the correct infrastructure, it would be difficult to achieve the specified target of a 30% reduction in the life cycle costs of the F-22 aircraft on that of the legacy platform (ie. F-15). This reduction was demonstrated in IOT&E to be well on track. A similar situation in relation to infrastructure will apply for the JSF though, for the US, the cost will be somewhat masked by the fact that the F-22 Program will have already resulted in some of the infrastructure for the JSF being in place with some economy of scale being achieved due to the 'learned out' costs for such infrastructure.

What are your thoughts on this?

Hi WhiskyJack,

In (2), the unit procurement cost (UPC) includes GSE/GTE, training, initial spares, tech data, govt charges, etc - that required to get the capability operational. What is not included in this figure is in country infrastructure and project office costs. Someone more knowledgable than I could put these in to the mix.

The other figures are drawn from the total operating expenditure column of the department's financials and reports provided to the Parliament that also refer to these figures as 'total operating expenditures'.

Hope this helps.

Davyd

July 10th, 2006, 11:31 PM

It's kinda hard to compare weapon load outs and performance issues for a plane that has yet to even first fly in its' finalized guise. I mean, seriously. Where has a good illustration even been seen yet that shows what the weapon placement on the X-35?

That being said, weapon load outs would have to be comparable to an A-10 at least - remember, it wasn't solely built to replace the -10, but the -16 and -18 as well. Which in true US military parlance means, 'replace and augment'. And since it is slated to 'replace' the -10s and -16s, it will be the -35s that WILL have the SEAD/DEAD role, not -22s. I wonder how much the final version will be cleared to fly with....? I also wonder how cost effective it will be for the USN to buy EA-18s to replace EA-6s when the SEAD/DEAD versions the USAF will have should be able to also do the job effectively?

And its weight issue is related to what variant it is, anyway. The CTOL version is quite a bit lighter than the VTOL version.

I also think it highly dubious that the KC-135 will last much longer. I believe what scares the USAF more than anything about replacing just the tanker variants is the logistical nightmares it would have in more than likely replacing ALL the -135 variants since the tanker is the most abundant in the inventory. OCs, ECs, RCs... These might all get the replacement axe.

brad_arsenxpt

July 10th, 2006, 11:38 PM

swerve

July 11th, 2006, 06:54 AM

I also wonder how cost effective it will be for the USN to buy EA-18s to replace EA-6s when the SEAD/DEAD versions the USAF will have should be able to also do the job effectively?

Yes, but the rationale of the USN SEAD/DEAD force is that it can operate off ships, so it can reach places the USAF can't. What happens if there's no USAF or other friendly base within range? SEAD/DEAD has to be done by B-2s - of which there are very few. The USN drops SEAD because the USAF can do it the day they retire their carriers.

Bone-B

July 16th, 2006, 03:22 AM

Out of curiosity, what about the B1-B Lancer? The USAF is upgrading the radars on the operational birds and don't appear to be in a hurry to get rid of them.

The B-1 and the B-52 aren't going anywhere anytime soon. There are still upgrades coming in for the both of them. The B-1 has been testing the Sniper targeting pod for sometime now I believe.

Occum

July 16th, 2006, 08:25 AM

The B-1 and the B-52 aren't going anywhere anytime soon. There are still upgrades coming in for the both of them. The B-1 has been testing the Sniper targeting pod for sometime now I believe.

Planning for this situation started back in 1999 and has been further consolidated by each of the QDRs since that time.

See what is euphemistically referred to as 'The Bomber Road Map' for where this all began -

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/bmap99.pdf

:coffee