John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, the forthcoming election will be a huge factor and the outcome will likely be ugly no matter who becomes President.
USAF News and Discussion
- Thread starter RobWilliams
- Start date
Air Force Brat
Member
This study has of course been ordered by the House Armed Services Committee, that General Welsh has not ruled it out, is evidence of the considerable respect the F-22 still engenders in the USAF, the F-22 remains the premier "Air Superiority" aircraft on the planet.
This does not affect F-35 production or the need for same, the F-35 is a very capable air to air platform in and of itself. As GF has stated, a resurrection would involve a great many upgrades, and would likely carry an electronics package similar to the F-35.
This whole scenario is driven at present by the "heating up" of relations with "near peers" and the fact that those peers are attempting to bring their own fifth gen aspirations "up to speed"? It is helped along by the fact that there is at present NO "sixth gen" technologies that would encourage an abandonment of our nascent fifth gen capabilities, the F-22 and even more particularly the F-35 are just beginning to come up to speed, the two aircraft will sync up perfectly, and already are beginning to transform our own air to air capability.
Sensor fusion will revolutionize the battlefield in ways that are difficult to imagine, but no fourth gen upgrade of an F-15 will be competitive in the extremely hostile AA environment of the future IMHO??
there are 3 current 6th gen aircraft already underdevelopment... logically you'd be wondering why you would dilute resources from one program to another
Congress is considering restarting F-22 and increasing JSF production.
something else will take a hit
Exactly, my bet is the maintenance and upgrades of existing fleets the F-22 restart and F-35 will supplement and replace. Maintaining aging platforms is hideously expensive and when planing capabilities out more than a decade it can actually work out cheaper to replace than to retain legacy platforms.
SECDEF Carter would be in a good position to gauge the likely impact a go-ahead for the F-22 re-start would have. Still Congress will get it's study but DoD knows that it's going to come up with some pretty big numbers. Maybe once they see the numbers the sticker shock will do the rest.
Secretary Carter Opposes Restarting F-22 Production - Blog
5/13/2016
Secretary Carter Opposes Restarting F-22 Production
By Jon Harper
An F-22 Raptor
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado – Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter weighed in on the recently revived debate about the F-22, telling reporters May 12 that he is against resuming production of the stealthy fighter jet.
... During a press conference following a visit to the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Carter was asked about the idea being floated by members of Congress.
“I’m concerned” that it could take money away from other high priority programs, he said. “Restarting the F-22 — that’s an inefficient way to proceed. It’s not something the Air Force has recommended to me.”
Secretary Carter Opposes Restarting F-22 Production - Blog
5/13/2016
Secretary Carter Opposes Restarting F-22 Production
By Jon Harper
An F-22 Raptor
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado – Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter weighed in on the recently revived debate about the F-22, telling reporters May 12 that he is against resuming production of the stealthy fighter jet.
... During a press conference following a visit to the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Carter was asked about the idea being floated by members of Congress.
“I’m concerned” that it could take money away from other high priority programs, he said. “Restarting the F-22 — that’s an inefficient way to proceed. It’s not something the Air Force has recommended to me.”
Last edited:
Because they have limited dollars and they would have to take money from another program or programs to get this up and running. The initial mistake was cancelling the program in the first place against all advice, but now it is to late to rectify it.
That's neo-cons for you "making the hard choices" otherwise known as ferking things up for purely ideological reasons, the ideology being to be seen to be balancing the books by cutting expensive programs that it takes the ability to see / plan more than twelve months into to future to comprehend the value of. They are every bit as damaging as anti defence left wingers in that they seem not to comprehend that cutting the wrong things at the wrong time will cost far more in the long run.
It costs far more to restart a program or rebuild a capability than to keep it ticking along in some form. It costs far more to upgrade and retain aging, but still necessary, capabilities longer than planned due to the late cancellation of of the replacement program especially as a new program is now needed and has to be paid for. It costs far more to cancel a program after most of the work has been done and money spent, than start from scratch, even on a supposedly cheaper alternative, especially when the alternative is less capable, as that mean yet another capability will be required to fill the gap.
The USAF Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan. It's a capability assessment plan as part of ongoing developmental upgrading.
The continuing soap opera of the USAF hierarchy and the A10 Warthog. First of all they tried retiring it claiming that they can't afford it, because it costs to much to operate and that the F35 can undertake CAS. Congress threw a hissy fit replying "das ist verbotten". Then the USAF released figures which they claimed showed the operating costs for the Warthog and these figures were shown to be somewhat economical with the truth. Congress remained unimpressed. Now they have come up with a plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel. Even that great English aristocrat Edmund Blackadder would be impressed.
They are considering having two different aircraft types to replace the Warthog; a low end light attack OA-X to assist the Warthog and a A-X2 for medium threat environments with the F35 handling high treat environments. So one wonders if they can't afford to operate the Warthog, how can they afford two new aircraft types, especially considering all the other new platforms that they are in the process of developing and introducing during the next two decades? This is the question that analysts are asking as well.
They are considering having two different aircraft types to replace the Warthog; a low end light attack OA-X to assist the Warthog and a A-X2 for medium threat environments with the F35 handling high treat environments. So one wonders if they can't afford to operate the Warthog, how can they afford two new aircraft types, especially considering all the other new platforms that they are in the process of developing and introducing during the next two decades? This is the question that analysts are asking as well.
said it before, will say it again.
CAS is not a platform issue, its a capability issue, and the continued hand wringing over the demise of the A-10 ignores all the real data about how CAS has been done for the last 25 years, and indeed ignorfes a raft of comments made by snr USAF generals about those realities
CAS is not a platform issue, its a capability issue, and the continued hand wringing over the demise of the A-10 ignores all the real data about how CAS has been done for the last 25 years, and indeed ignorfes a raft of comments made by snr USAF generals about those realities
The A-10 has a cult following. Like all religions all the facts in the world won't change their belief that the A-10 is the best CAS solution for every situation.
walter
Active Member
Well to be fair i'm not an airframe expert,but will give my views or beliefs(so you will)on this aircraft.
Not denying that is has(as you say)a strong(maybe cult)following,heck even i love this thing and i'm dutch(allways hoped we fitted a squadron with these beasts)
But no one can deny that it's a boost lifter for GI jane or joe on the ground and puts the fear of god(so you will)in the enemy forces,when these flying tanks(wich they bassicly are)come flying over.
Not saying that it's perfect for each and every situation but to fully discart it would be foolish in my eyes.
As said here it's strange to read that the airforce wants to retire it on financial grounds and replace it by 2(maybe more) types.Not very cost effective in my eyes(or it must be so that these other planes are allready in the inventory)
Also read that a 3rd option is to see whether it's possible to upgrade/modernize so you will, the wharthog itself(sure hope they go for that),but as said i'm a (dutch)fan.
Have had a conversation about this subject with dutch pilots on the dutch defense forum and they said that CAS is done very differently nowadays(from greater hights for example)and that thunderous and low overflying is something of the past.I get that,but still would love(if i where there,in need of protection)to see this thing diving and sitting fire on the enemy(maybe it's the sight of these things)
gr,walter
as AegisFC said, it has a cult following where reality is ignored.
The majority of CAS, and especially danger close CAS has been done by B1's and B52's. They have range, persistence, projection, precision and payload advantages
Other CAS has been provided by a combination of rotary precision launched weapons and by arty.
all ground missions are planned around CAS/CAR, apart from the visceral displays, rotary, arty and high flyers have done the majority CAS for the last 20+ years
all done in locations where the A10's could not have deployed from and supported in time
emotional attachments serve little purpose or benefit when compared to the realities of what CAS requires in the contemp environment
The USAF view is that anything in the area of interest suitably bussed up should be able to provide CAS
Don’t get me wrong, I love the plane as well but it is not survivable in anything but a permissive environment. Every once in awhile an A-10 squadron goes to Red Flag and they tend to die quickly.
These days it provides CAS with sensors hanging off it and firing stuff at medium altitude, same as the F-16’s and the Strike Eagles, so why keep another type in service with a different logistical tail, training piple line and other associated costs?
I was being a bit facetious when I made my previous post. This is the US Joint Document on CAS - JP3. Basically it states that CAS is not platform dependant, i.e., dependant upon one specific platform type and does not need to be low and slow.
yep, knew you were fighting the good fight, we're just reinforcing it and having a crack at those shibboleths of absurdity used to prop up the A-10 argument....
