Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USAF Reveals 30-Year Plan: Replacement for F-22 to start development in 2020
Phaid    2/15/2010 4:53:17 PM
The US Air Force (USAF) has revealed a raft of fighter, strike, transport, special mission and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) development programmes in a 30-year plan released in February. The proposals were included within the US Department of Defense's (DoD's) Aircraft Investment Plan covering the period between FY11-FY40 that it submitted for the first time in February as part of the FY11 budget request. Under the plan, USAF expects to allocate funding to initiate the development of replacements for both the Lockheed Martin F-22 multirole fighter and C-5 Galaxy strategic transport aircraft by Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw100215_1_n.shtml
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT
Heorot    This is for those who want more F-22?s.   3/5/2010 4:32:17 PM

"So yes, I do not get how that miniscule number along with a couple hundred creaky F-15's is supposed to bear the air superiority requirements for the United States Air Force for the next 30 years."

 

Well, ask yourself this...

 

How many dedicated air superiority fighters did we need the last 30 years?


 

Besides, we are also anticipating having hundreds of F-35s, Super Hornets, and Strike Eagles in service for a long time to come, none of which are deficient performers in air-to-air.


 

There is no threat anywhere in the world today or the foreseeable future that could not be addressed with the current number of F-22s. 

 

The scenarios that are the most challenging aren't the most challenging because of a lack of F-22s, but geography. 

 



Apparently, the Air Force asked Rand to calculate the costs involved in re-opening the F-22 line in order to produce additional aircraft.

 

Rand's analysts explain in their report that the study was commissioned by the US Air Force before the decision was made to terminate production.

Rand's analysis calculates the costs of restarting production after a two-year hiatus, producing 75 "zombie" F-22s (zombie=back from the dead) between 2012 and 2016. The study concludes that the average unit cost for the 75 F-22s is $227 million, including re-start costs. The average flyaway unit cost, which exclude re-start costs, is $179 million.

 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       3/5/2010 4:55:11 PM
the USG has completely missed the boat on how its sub fleet is degrading, and the fact that the PACRIM red sub levels are escalating beyond a blue management ability.
 
 
I would think the Virginia Class is weathering the storm to a degree. Are you suggesting we don't have the ability to counter a Chinese sub threat?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       3/5/2010 5:06:33 PM
"How many nuclear missiles have we been required to use in the last 30 years? Does the former U.S.S.R attempt to spread communism throughout Europe, the only deterrent being an enormous U.S. military buildup to counter it?"
 
Well, there are two points I would like to make about this. 
 
The first is that the nuclear weapons analogy is pretty accurate in my opinion.  You need a certain number for deterrence but past that point how many do you really need? 
 
The US's conventional deterrence is intact with 180 F-22s.  Any potential adversary knows that at the very least they will be facing a massive massive war with the potential to escalate into a nuclear disaster for everyone involved. (and that really only applies to Russia and China, anyone else would be stomped outright.)
 
I really don't believe it is any more likely that the US will end up in a full scale war with China than it was that we would end up in a full scale war with the USSR.  I think we should keep a close eye on China, but that doesn't mean we need to structure our military around beating them in a war on their turf.  Even if we were going to plan around such a scenario, additional F-22s still wouldn't be the highest priority.
 
"George Washington once said that the best way to preserve peace was to be ready for war.  What Congress has done by cancelling the F-22 is ensuring that we're not ready for war--only "adequate" in case one should break out.  We're also making a mistake by thinking that, just because it makes no sense to us, that China would never go after Taiwan or Russia would never go after Georgia.  Oh wait...they did. "
 
I would never say it is impossible that we might end up in a war with Russia or China, but I do think it is unlikely.  
 
I would rather single out your reference to George Washington.  In George Washington's day "security" for the United States meant being able to defend itself from potential attackers. 
 
In the closing days of the 20th century "security" for the United States somehow became "the ability to fight and win a war against anyone, anywhere."
 
Russia is no threat to the US in any conventional war scenario.  They can push around a few of their immediate neighbors, but that is about all. 
 
China is much the same way.  They are a formidable threat within and along their borders, but that is all. 
 
The US can't be the whole world's security blanket.  The Taiwans and Georgias of the world are going to need to make sure they do everything they can to make themselves more trouble than they are worth, and watch their step while they are at it. 
 
 
I like the F-22,  I really do, but I have a pretty good understanding of the funding realities facing the US right now and there are just much higher priorities.   I would like to see the production of the F-22 continued, I just can't imagine how barring a simply massive increase in defense spending.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/5/2010 6:01:19 PM


I would think the Virginia Class is weathering the storm to a degree. Are you suggesting we don't have the ability to counter a Chinese sub threat?
 

your own blackshoes are saying that.
 
its not about the capability of the virginias, its about having enough subs to cover off the wide variety of mission setsidentified  and dealing with concurrent but disparate  "red" threats
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Air Superiority Fighters   3/5/2010 7:53:38 PM
The force structure requirement of the USAF for 10 AEF's is 10 air superiority fighter sqdn.  The plan is to keep the best 178 F-15C's (Golden Eagles) in service for another 20 years for half and the other half are the 187 F-22's.  One can not argue there is not a stated requirement for air superiority fighters within the AEF.  For the next 20 years the plan is half the time the tip of the spear is going to be an F-15C.
 
Firstly if this is good enough why did we bother with F-22?  Secondly, if it is good enough show me the study showing even those remaining F-15C's will make it another 20 years.  Finally, given the known delays in F-35 (forget about the additional delays that will arise when we actually get the flight test program along) and the short fall in tac air we simply need more airframes.  If the F-15C can do the job fine buy more for active duty in the AEF's and transfer the Golden Eagles to the ANG units doing air sovereignty mission- 16 or 18 locations are ANG.
 
That said I would humbly suggest comparing a new built F-15X, Typhoon, or whatever to an F-22 in the air superiority mission.  
 
For all those planning for the last war if the requirement does not exist tell the USAF.  There is a stated requirement for 10 air superiority sqdn's in the 10 AEF's and 6 air superiority wings of 18 sqdn's of 72 aircraft each.  The entire rationale for cutting F-22 production was budget driven and had nothing to do with force structure requirements.  We did  not buy enough F-22's so F-15C's will soldier on another 20 years.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       3/6/2010 6:32:21 AM


Apparently, the Air Force asked Rand to calculate the costs involved in re-opening the F-22 line in order to produce additional aircraft.

Rand's analysts explain in their report that the study was commissioned by the US Air Force before the decision was made to terminate production.

Rand's analysis calculates the costs of restarting production after a two-year hiatus, producing 75 "zombie" F-22s (zombie=back from the dead) between 2012 and 2016. The study concludes that the average unit cost for the 75 F-22s is $227 million, including re-start costs. The average flyaway unit cost, which exclude re-start costs, is $179 million.



I posted this study earlier.  The numbers you quote are the worst case, meaning if the production line is shut down for 2 years before restarting to produce those 75 aircraft. 
 
If instead production is allowed to continue, the unit flyaway cost is $139 million with a program cost of $173 million when you factor in infrastructure costs to maintain the production line.
 
And regarding costs.  As LB points out, we have a requirement for 365 air superiority fighters going forward.  178 of those are supposed to be "Golden Eagles", the newest of which was built in 1986.  Those aircraft cost nearly as much to maintain as F-22s do now (CPFH of $17.5K for an F-15 vs 19K for an F-22, in 2008) and will only cost more over time, while the CPFH of the F-22 has consistently dropped year over year.  The F-15s will have to have expensive upgrades to bring in AESA, more networking, more comms, presumably updated EW, etc, to keep them reasonably current, and they still won't be anywhere near as capable as F-22s.  What it comes down to is that the only thing you "save" when you stick with ancient F-15s is the F-22 acquisition cost, and even that is a false savings since the aircraft will not last as long and could very well develop unforeseen problems that will take them out of service sooner than expected.  After all, in 2003 nobody expected half the fleet to be retired prematurely due to longeron defects, did they?
 
Again, we have the requirement, everyone acknowledges we have the requirement, and the only reason we are not funding the aircraft to meet the requirement is entirely political.  
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       3/8/2010 6:00:01 AM
And yet more proof that the current USAF procurement schedule is dangerous and ill-considered.
 
The USAF currently maintains a total of 18 Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) sites around the United States.  These are bases where a couple of aircraft are maintained on alert to handle air policing and homeland security emergencies.  The number of aircraft actually on alert at any one time is low, but the operational tempo requires a large number to be dedicated to the overall mission.  However, there is no longer any such thing as a dedicated air-defense fighter / interceptor unit; all units that participate in ASA tasking are susceptible to being deployed overseas, at which point some other unit must take over.
 
So the GAO did a report on the status of the USAF's ASA capabilities.  The impact of the current procurement schedule and the accelerated decrepitude of the fighter fleet on ASA capability is pretty scary:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/in_a_coma_dial_999/asashortfall.jpg" />
 
By 2020, the USAF's ability to provide ASA coverage will have dwindled by more than half.   This is largely because of the more-rapid-than-expected drawdown of the F-15 fleet, and to a lesser extent the F-16 fleet, due to unforeseen defects, high airframe use due to 8 years of war, and not procuring sufficient replacements.
 
This is not really a new issue; the director of the Air National Guard has been making a lot of noise about it recently, noting that "Within about eight years 80 percent of the ANG's F-16 inventory, which carries out the bulk of the Nations Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) operations, will reach the end of their planned operational life span."
 
But, yeah, we don't need fighters.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/8/2010 1:20:52 PM
Phaid/LB,
 
It's hilarious to read you and some others like LB blindly assert that the USAF needs more F-22s or that you don't think F-15C's can last yet you can't cite any threat or example, NOT ONE, that justifies WHAT YOU think the USAF should have. For god sake articulate some type of support. Also, thanks very much Phaid for repeating over and over that fighter numbers are shrinking and will continue to shrink. In case no one told you that Taliban don't have an airforce and Rufus mentioned that North Korea and Iran fly barely operational HEAT SHOOTERS that are basically flying blind in any conflict with us. Russia, no longer has the VSS and China is also task organized for homeland defense and not in anyway what the USSR circa 1980 was. I mean come on guys. THINK. $hit changes. Your problem is you have fixed in your mind that there is some constant number of fighters the USAF has to have at all times of all hell breaks loose. That isn't how this works.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       3/8/2010 1:43:57 PM
Your problem is you have fixed in your mind that there is some constant number of fighters the USAF has to have at all times of all hell breaks loose. That isn't how this works.
 
You're completely correct.  Other than the fact that the USAF has unequivocally expressed a requirement for the number of fighters I am advocating, I mean.  But other than that, spot on.  I don't know how many ways it can be explained to you: wing equivalents in QDR, total number of air superiority fighters projected to 2025, number of F-22s required for a medium or low risk force, number of ASA sites that can operate given optempo commitments, etc.  What we are buying does not add up to what we need.
 
As far as numbers vs threat levels, I really hope you are not as naive as those arguments make you seem.  The number of aircraft available for any particular operation are a tiny fraction of the total number in your force structure.  The rest are stateside because they just came back from deployment, in training, committed to another mission, etc.  And what it comes down to is that we are not procuring a force sufficient to meet our operational commitments and remain a credible fighting force.  The fact that political appointees like Gates lie about it in PowerPoint and silence the combatant commanders with gag orders doesn't change this.
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       3/8/2010 3:11:23 PM
"But, yeah, we don't need fighters."
 
I think we can agree that the US needs many many new fighters.   (and many many new UAVs)
 
The place where we seem to disagree is on whether or not there is a need for more F-22s.  

It is easy to say that the US should have continued buying fighters in the 90s so that it wouldn't be facing its current aging airframes crisis.  What is harder is deciding what to do today.
 
 
Personally I would like to see the Navy and Marine Corps go in for a relatively significant multi-year purchase of Super Hornets.  The Navy would use theirs to replace some original model hornets and help plug its "fighter gap," reducing the urgency of an F-35 buy.
 
The Marines could use Super Hornets to replace their two-seater F-18Ds which are mostly used as "fast forward air controllers."  This is a mission that really requires a backseater and would not be a logical fit for the F-35.  The Marines could also replace their Prowlers with Growlers rather than trying to keep the Prowlers flying until an EW variant of the F-35 can be developed. 
 
 
On the Air Force side of things it is a little more complicated.  It wouldn't make sense to buy Super Hornets for the Air Force considering it isn't a type they currently operate.  The question then is whether it is worthwhile to buy more F-22s, F-15s or F-16s. 
 
In the F-15's favor, something like a Silent Eagle, which is based on the F-15E, would be able to perform competently as an interceptor while also offering an excellent strike platform.  The downside is that such an aircraft is not honestly all that much cheaper than an F-22.  It raises the question of where your priorities are.  If you want a multi-role aircraft then the Silent Eagle is the way to go.  It can carry darn near everything the US has in service.  The F-22 on the other hand is limited to exactly two air-to-ground weapons, the 1,000 JDAM and the 250lb SDB, but is of course the superior performer in an air-to-air mission. 
 
The F-16 is the F-16,  the gold standard of multi-role fighters.  It is cheap, ubiquitous, and capable of doing just about anything you would ask a modern fighter to do, so long as you don't need stealth.  
 
In the long-run the F-35 is going to be the workhorse of the US Air Force, but in the short term additional airframes are needed.
 
Personally I would go with a purchase of a hundred or so F-15SEs(The minimum number that would be worth buying) and a couple hundred F-16 block 60s.  These aircraft would serve in the interim until the F-35 is available in sufficient numbers for front-line use before moving down the the National Guard. (You don't need stealth to chase around Cessnas or bomb third-world hellholes, and neither of those missions are going away any time soon.)
 
The obvious problem with any proposal to buy new aircraft is money... neither of these purchases make sense if you have to pull money away from higher priority needs.  Ideally one last war supplemental bill could be passed to fund a multi-year buy of each of these aircraft types. 
 

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics