MILAVIA Forum

Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: BigsWick on August 18, 2009, 12:22:58 AM

Title: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: BigsWick on August 18, 2009, 12:22:58 AM
Guys,

I'm wondering what shutting down the F-22 production lines will mean for the USAF. I can't believe 183 (?) F-22s will be enough to fill the need once current F-15s are withdrawn from service due to age and hours on their airframes.

Is the USAF now going to depend upon the F-35 to fill the need?

Could Boeing/McDonnell Douglas reopen the F-15C production lines or offer a new Eagle model that would be cheaper than an F-22?

Could an Air Force version of the F/A-18 Super Hornet be an option?

Does the USAF believe the nature of warfare has or will soon evolve to the point that large numbers of F-15/F-22 type aircraft are no longer needed?

Any opinions?
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: AVIATOR on August 18, 2009, 12:56:47 AM
See my post last week for the answer to this Big.

http://www.flightforum.org/index.php/topic,2986.0.html (http://www.flightforum.org/index.php/topic,2986.0.html)
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: BigsWick on August 18, 2009, 01:56:37 AM
Interesting read, Aviator

Shortly after the F-22 was chosen over the F-23 I remember reading where many military aviation analysts believed that the F-22 would either be the last manned air superiority fighter built for the US or it would be built in numbers where perhaps 1/2 were manned, 1/2 were ROVs.

The growth in the use of and dependence upon ROVs/UAVs is certainly undeniable, but I have to ask if we aren't setting ourselves up to repeat mistakes we've made in the past. In the mid 1950s it was thought by many that guns were no longer needed on fighters because of combined closing speeds and the development of AAMs. Experience in Vietnam (and to a lesser extent the 1991 Persian Gulf War) proved this wrong. A few short years later (early 1960s) the US military began phasing out traditional dogfight type aircraft from front line service in favor interceptors and missile equipped jets for use in knocking down Soviet bombers. Again, the decision was proven during Vietnam to have been too hasty.

Technology's push often causes us to look in less traditional directions, but I wonder if this is necessarily a good thing. Take the F-22. I'm not an expert, but I've seen the plane up close and personal, and it is awesome- at least at air shows. Nevertheless, production has been halted. The original number requested was something like 750. That was cut to 339, now the USAF has got 183. So, is that it? Is there no alternative or plan to bolster the number of F-22s? Would the USAF had been better off in the long run if it had pressed for an updated Eagle (F-15X), one with cutting edge avionics and perhaps thrust vectoring and engines capable of super cruise, and left the deployment of an F-22 style plane for a future generation to decide if it was needed?

I guess a broader question would be has the apex of the air superiority fighter been reached, and do we now find ourselves at the dawn of a new era, one where the traditional fighter will soon join the cast iron cannon, cavalry, and the battleship as weapons of bygone eras? In a future war can air superiority be achieved and maintained using UAVs, especially if we are fighting an enemy with a traditional air force? If not, and we no longer have large numbers of tactical aircraft with which to fight, what are our alternatives?

I don't mean to ramble on too long, but I think a lot about these things and believe a lot of other members here do too. Thanks for listening.
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: AVIATOR on August 18, 2009, 02:43:02 AM
Absolutely refreshing read Big. So rare on here to see a big article actually composed by the member themselves.

See another article I put up this week in regard to what you are talking about. The use of UAV s where the US doesn't have control of the air space. Even in that scenario they are talking about stealth and speed in the future and not manned flights.

http://www.flightforum.org/index.php/topic,3038.0.html (http://www.flightforum.org/index.php/topic,3038.0.html)

The main consideration in the US is the competing aviation companies. For the US military to turn their back on any company and it's product is to put that company into bankruptcy and see it cease to exist. These companies and their skilled labour force are the backbone of the US air superiority and Obama is on a dangerous path to losing that by these radical cost cuts.
It is the reason that huge orders have been placed in the past. To keep them going.

Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: Webmaster on August 20, 2009, 01:15:23 AM
I'm wondering what shutting down the F-22 production lines will mean for the USAF. I can't believe 183 (?) F-22s will be enough to fill the need once current F-15s are withdrawn from service due to age and hours on their airframes.

There will be some 40 F-15s selected for a comprehensive life extension and upgrade package, featuring the latest AESA and other technology. Uhm, maybe if you google "F-15 Golden Eagle" you'll get some more details.

Is the USAF now going to depend upon the F-35 to fill the need?

No and yes. No, it will be a force reduction, the USAF has to get leaner and meaner. Yes, the F-35 should fill part of the gap, however it's unclear how and where as there will be probably less F-35s than F-16s as well. Hence the call for new F-16s by some experts. On the bright side, as the A-10 will no longer be replaced by the F-35, due to A-10C and the UAV/UCAV, there should be more room for F-35 acquisitions to fill the fighter 'gap', but I don't know... Still, the main answer is the USAF will have to do with less planes, however they should be flying more due to longer maintenance cycles than currently the case.

Could Boeing/McDonnell Douglas reopen the F-15C production lines or offer a new Eagle model that would be cheaper than an F-22?

The F-15 line is open, but for the F-15SG/F-15K and other possible foreign orders of the Strike Eagle derivative. There's the F-15SE concept for a stealthier Eagle. So it's a possibility. However the point is they aren't getting more planes until the government agrees. Now from a tax payer perspective, if that would be the case, it better be before the F-15/F-16 totally goes out of production. From the usaf perspective, why not get more F-35s quicker.

Could an Air Force version of the F/A-18 Super Hornet be an option?

Yes and no. Boeing is developing a lighter version for foreign customers, which would make it a good air force multi-roler. However, it will be costly without any further orders from abroad (most likely, it doesn't get any). So they might as well go for advanced F-16s then! IMHO the USAF should be getting some Growlers though, part of the HARM capable F-16s can then go to the ANG units.

Does the USAF believe the nature of warfare has or will soon evolve to the point that large numbers of F-15/F-22 type aircraft are no longer needed?

Any opinions?

You've answered that yourself. Some very good points! I've said all I have to say about ROV/UAV/UCAV/UCAS elsewhere on the forum already, but I like your broader view. I don't have much to add and it wasn't long or boring to read at all. It's almost like an editorial in a good aviation magazine.

Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: Raptor on August 21, 2009, 04:57:49 PM
Don't mean to go off topic, but i noticed the F-15SE mentioned. You can actually see the engine blades on that one. How stealthy is that to the F-22.  :-\
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: AVIATOR on August 22, 2009, 12:21:22 AM
Why would it be off topic and why would that matter anyway. Getting anyone to join in discussion here at any time is a minor miracle.
I'm no expert and I'm still back in either the 1940s with military planes or today with civil aviation, but when they say that they could upgrade an F-15, doesn't it really mean that they would use the same moulds and replace the outer shell metal body panels with some sort of stealth fibre?
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: Raptor on August 26, 2009, 03:28:59 AM
Basically something like that, but 'stealth' per se relies greatly on low RCS, which is generally achieved using RAM, deflective surfaces, or in the case of the Russians, the more effective plasma stealth. I would imagine that the engine blades would provide quite a massive RCS for an enemy's radar to work on...
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: Webmaster on September 17, 2009, 02:57:01 AM
What's your point Kukuruza... seems your posts aren't making a lot of sense... ? confirmed spammer, deleted

@ Raptor et al: apparently one of the biggest RCS-reduction is achieved by carrying the weapons internally, or (semi-)recessed. As I said, stealthier, than the current F-15 that is. Your right about the engine blades, but that's from only part of the hemisphere. I don't know, but considering ground radar, it's a very small problem. But again, all those changes, reduce the Eagle's RCS, but that doesn't make it undetectable... and probably neither to the point where the RCS can be reduced to the point where most modern radars won't pick it up at all. But if it reduces the detectability by and thus effective range of some of the older systems still in use by many non-aligned countries, thus improve survability... there will be certainly parties interested, most notably Israel and Japan for starters. The USAF has the F-22/F-35, I don't see the need for it as a capability, but anything to improve survability is of course a good thing.   
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: shawn a on November 05, 2009, 10:14:30 PM
We should just buy a lot of J-11Bs from china. I'm sure we could afford that.
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: shawn a on October 22, 2010, 08:16:14 AM
I know what the USAF should do now....
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: Webmaster on February 20, 2011, 04:01:58 AM
When will you fill in the dots shawn?
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: shawn a on February 20, 2011, 09:56:05 AM
Ha Ha.....
There was an excellent article on the last page of the April 2010 issue of Flight Journal, by Walter Boyne.
Basically, he states that the US is making the same strategic mistake Japan made prior to WWII. In a few words, "the US is choosing to field an extremely small force of capable aircraft flown by highly skilled aircrews".  and he says "even worse, our limited forces are totally dependent upon two fragile factors: stealth and our sophisticated, but very vulnerable, navigation, communication and intelligence satellite systems.
What do I think the USAF should do?
Convince a moronic congress that more should be spent on defense and military preparedness.
Adopt the "Political Correctness" of china. ("call a spade a spade") ((if you are unfamiliar with that phrase, look it up))
Reduce our obsession with "Collateral Damage" when our troops are being shot at. ("Show of Force" passes)
Stop putting all our eggs in one basket with the naive assumption that one aircraft can do all things (F-35)
Col. Boyne also mentions the fact that any serious conflict involves attrition on a large scale. (187 F-22s).
....
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: vanaheim on March 07, 2011, 11:54:14 AM
Can't say I could find an error in Shawn's sentiments. I too am a firm believer that sustained warfare operates under such classical stylism as Clausewitz's rule of strategic consumption. Sustained warfare is attrition and half of any conflict is a preparedness, in commitment and materiel to sustained (conventional) warfare. This shortfall of the USAF flagships for coverage, a hypothesis is elicited that a highly compartmentalised tactical doctrine will be used, that is to say predictable and cannon fodder will play a holding/front line role. It's almost the Soviet doctrine, with stifling interservice rivalry where the VVS/KVMF have this pretty much absent.

And despite the fact I do believe the primary objective of High Survivability/Low Observability technology is abject air supremecy over small nation and rogue state forces, particularly around the Middle East and Balkans. But secondarily there is concern for that rather large and roguish southern (Russian) defence district around the caucasus and the big fat question mark represented by the Ukraine, which still maintains possibly some 15% of the old Soviet strategic capability (esp in mobile, air launched and MRBM nukes) and are absolutely nutbaggers politically and sociologically at the moment. Worse back in the 90s when they were feeding Russian enemies like the Tblisi government black market war materiel. But c'mon they're having exorcisms in the village square for chrissakes.

Now considering US military bases under the flag of NATO are basically encircling the Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions from Romania to Afghanistan, and that's where the Russian/CIS main supply of fuel oil (and gas and general petroleum products) is at, and the UN's NATO members have been essentially harrassing Iran on the hollow claims not unlike the justification for Iraq invasion, blablabla WMD gonna kill the world with nukes in backpacks and Cessnas crap. Then there was that Euro missile defence system of NATO's back in the 90s, the challenge of Turkish and Ukrainian customs operations on the Black Sea in preventing arms trading with known terrorist organisations.

All in all I'd say the concern is mainly strategic with the F-22 representing the tactical spearhead should push come to shove perhaps around Iran and the south-Caucasus, whilst Vipers and a casual modernisation with the F-35 is doing the bulk of the bomb trucking sans self protection and wild weasel like business as usual.

Other than a face off with the Indians or a sabre rattling with China, I can't really see the cost/benefit ratio falling favourably with very many F-22 because in only fairly limited numbers of scenarios they'll actually prove necessary. The Eurofighter is a cheaper prospect with better returns perhaps, because it was designed with defeating Flankers in mind, where the F-22 was designed with abject air superiority in mind, being a step ahead of everything.

That's awe inspiring and conan the barbarian cool and everything, but kind of expensive and some conservation of resources are sometimes handy, particularly in sustained warfare.

F-22 is first and foremost a high survivability warplane however, what you'll probably find is the USAF secretary probably figured this into sustainable operations estimates. Maybe on average F-22 will account for a 20% higher E/A production due to its high missin survivability rates by comparison.
Title: Re: What Does the USAF Do Now?
Post by: Webmaster on March 08, 2011, 03:57:30 PM
Ukraine, which still maintains possibly some 15% of the old Soviet strategic capability (esp in mobile, air launched and MRBM nukes)

Do you mean back when the F-22 was ordered into production?

Because if you mean today, I would like to know what you are talking about. Ukraine entered the NPT as a non-nuclear state. Most strategic weapons were returned to Russia, the rest disposed under START. Weapons-grade uranium was disposed by Russia in exchange for fuel-grade for the nuclear plants. Since we're on aviation here, I am curious to what you think the air launched nukes are and which aircraft would deliver them? The Su-24? It's like the RAF Tornados, hardly a strategic weapon and its "nuclear capability" consisting of a weapon that is no longer in the inventory.

Actually the whole scenario sounds dated to me. Unless you mean a NATO reaction to a Russian intervention in the Ukraine? Of all Caucasus states I think Ukraine is the least of your worry, with exception of arms exports, but don't need F-22s to prevent those.


PACAF has F-22s in Alaska deploying to Guam/Japan, ANG in Hawaii has F-22s, ACC Langley's F-22s deploy to Japan regularly. I think it's pretty clear to which threat the F-22 force is geared.