Combat Air Forces Restructuring

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123150197

Bottom line the AF is giving up 250 fighters, and instead of getting more F-22s is getting a grab bag of other capes:

Additional B-52 Sqdn
More MC-12W Liberty Bells
More UAVs
Munitions

It will be interesting to see if Congress intervenes - testimony on the Hill yesterday seems to point to "no":

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22784.html

The real key to watch will be the Guard - -250 jets means the Guard units will have no jets for a while unless F-35s go to the Guard 1st. Doesn't seem like that will be popular with Congress.

We are assuming a large risk in the Air Superiority arena - let's hope we can deter anyone from challenging us there.

-Cliff

Cliff,

The Air Force is already looking at SLEPing some F-15's and F-16's to fill the gap until the F-35 arrives - a move that I think makes the most sense at this point.

But Cliff, if the 187 F-22s the Air Force is getting are as capable as the Air Force insists they are, we'll maintain an overmatch for any 2 and most combinations of 3 or more opponents for decades. With the F-35s coming on line in the near future, the progress on the UCAV, and the continual upgrades to existing systems, doesn't seem a little wasteful to fight for more?

Now if the Air Force over-sold the F-22s capabilities, this is an integrity issue...

The great irony of this article is that the additional B-52 squadron could be interpreted as the Air Force getting serious about CAS (over 30 tons of PGM per aircraft is change I can believe in).

Van, it's not a question of capabilities - it's a question of having enough planes to fill squadrons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entropy

The Air Force is already looking at SLEPing some F-15's and F-16's to fill the gap until the F-35 arrives - a move that I think makes the most sense at this point.

---

I agree it makes the most sense. But those frames have a lot of hours on them. I have to wonder if they can be cost effectively slepped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

I agree it makes the most sense. But those frames have a lot of hours on them. I have to wonder if they can be cost effectively slepped.

---

Some tests are being done now to find out.

Entropy, that begs a seperate question; Given the F-22's capabilities, do we need as many squadrons? Or should squadrons be organized around fewer airframes to provide a comparable number of deployable units?

The Air Force has been pushing the F-22 as the be all, end all of combat aviation. You couldn't here an Air Force presentation without a reference to the F-22, and you couldn't see a video or graphic for the Air Force without an F-22 in for many years. It's been one of the most consistent, unified, and aggressive media campaigns any U.S. service has conducted

This tends to raise questions for a curmdgeon like me. Is the F-22 everything it was billed as? If so, the Air Force needs to accept this in good graces, even if it means squadron commands being eliminated. If the F-22 isn't everything it was billed as, they are just a little late saying so, and some very senior people have some 'splainin' to do. The phrase "The very survival of this unit!" in a political context usually implies that survival of the unit is valued over a rational consideration of whether or not the unit should be continued, and that individual players are more concerned with their power and position than the good of the larger organization.

Van,

We are talking about how to bridge a temporary gap in the number of available airframes, nothing more. If you think we don't need so many aircraft/squadrons, then that is a different argument to make. The number of flying squadrons is already being, and has already been, reduced, as has the number of F-22's.

That cut in F-22's is going to be "made-up-for" with F-35's - IOW, the we are going to buy more of those instead of F-22's. The fighter requirements did not change, only the platform to meet those requirements. The problem is that the F-35 isn't in production yet, while the F-22 is about to go out of production and that is really what's creating the gap - Aircraft (f-22's) that were going to be built from 2010-2014 are being replaced with F-35's that won't be built until after 2014 (my dates are estimates, I don't have the precise figures), hence creating a gap as older aircraft are retired.

Think of it this way: The Army is going to replace it's main battle tank. Because of whatever reason, many old tanks will reach the end of their service lives before a replacement becomes available. This obviously leads to a temporary shortage of tanks for armor units. So, what do you do? Do you refurbish some of the old tanks to keep them running for longer until production of the new tank catches up? Do you just live with fewer tanks for a few years? Or what? You probably wouldn't consolidate the tanks into fewer units, disestablish those units without tanks, and then reestablish them when production of the new tank catches up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entropy

Van,

We are talking about how to bridge a temporary gap in the number of available airframes, nothing more. If you think we don't need so many aircraft/squadrons, then that is a different argument to make. The number of flying squadrons is already being, and has already been, reduced, as has the number of F-22's.

That cut in F-22's is going to be "made-up-for" with F-35's - IOW, the we are going to buy more of those instead of F-22's. The fighter requirements did not change, only the platform to meet those requirements. The problem is that the F-35 isn't in production yet, while the F-22 is about to go out of production and that is really what's creating the gap - Aircraft (f-22's) that were going to be built from 2010-2014 are being replaced with F-35's that won't be built until after 2014 (my dates are estimates, I don't have the precise figures), hence creating a gap as older aircraft are retired.

Think of it this way: The Army is going to replace it's main battle tank. Because of whatever reason, many old tanks will reach the end of their service lives before a replacement becomes available. This obviously leads to a temporary shortage of tanks for armor units. So, what do you do? Do you refurbish some of the old tanks to keep them running for longer until production of the new tank catches up? Do you just live with fewer tanks for a few years? Or what? You probably wouldn't consolidate the tanks into fewer units, disestablish those units without tanks, and then reestablish them when production of the new tank catches up.

---

Entropy-

The tank comparison is valid... except...

you have to consider the numbers/math...

An F-35 has 4 A-A missiles. An F-22 carries 8...

8 missiles x 187 F-22s (realize 187 will not be available ever...) = 1496 AMRAAMs.

Threat AF = 1500+ fighters...

So take the Pk of the missiles x number of aircraft x number of missiles, compare to the number of threat A/C... not a favorable ratio.

Tough math there... Gen Schwartz admitted in his testimony today that 243 F-22s is the military requirement, and 187 is the affordable requirement. Again, let's hope we don't get challenged...

187 F-22s is not an overmatch by any means.

V/R,

Cliff

Cliff,

You're right the F-35 doesn't have the internal capacity to carry nearly as many A2A munitions as an F-22, but that will eventually be corrected. I don't think the risk is all that large and it probably only applies in the case of China and maybe Russia.

Maybe I have different sources...

The problem I have with our present day fighter strategy is that I hear great stories about the F 22 and the soon to be delivered F 35 but it is totally in a vacuum. I think we should start thinking are these aircraft are capable of defeating the supposed enemy. My Russian friends are fully stoked about the S 37 and I can see the path of their argument.

The newest aircraft, primarily the S 37 and its soon to added brothers and sisters follow a different strategy. The Russians ( and for the most part, the Chinese) believe that stealth is a good thing but in moderation. They think that the F 22 pays a penalty for its being completely tied physically to the stealth concept. Instead the Russians put there faith in the old concept of speed and maneuverability. Yes, it is partially stealthy but it depends more on electronic methods to spoof tracking radar. The Rand corporation did a study between the F 22 and it's primary competitors and while the F 22 was a good aircraft (far better than the F 15 or the F 16 systems) it is only treading water when put up against the newest aircraft. The report was first published and then squashed by the Military.

The problem is that it has we can't have just a good aircraft for the Russians usually build so many of a type that we need a far superior aircraft. We have always had the doctrine that one of our fighters was as good as up to five of the enemy. So we can achieve air superiority with fewer airframes then that the 2nd world countries.

However there is a catch to this senario. Did the Russians really build or will build as many of the S 37 as they claim. Or have they built a few prototypes (thats all we have seen at airshows and such) or a single squadron. Just enough to scare the West because we can look at the ones they show us and think that they have built 300+ or more. Maybe bad enough to build a large number of F 22 to combat a threat that is merely a paper tiger. The S 37 and newer prototypes are superior to our fighters (they too have vectored thrust engines and such) And the Russians plan to be very aggresive with their assets to take air superiority away from us.

Is the F 22 a good plane, yes. Is it capability to be a first class fighter that will be the mainstream for 20+ years I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexTX ret

The newest aircraft, primarily the S 37 and its soon to added brothers and sisters follow a different strategy.

---

What brothers and sisters? I interviewed to a senior director of Sukhoi, 2 years ago and he doubted there was any money to do any development. The S-37 is a flying tested made from spare aircraft that first flew 12 years ago.

In terms of pure capability, F-22 has no peer competitor, that is even close, in China or Russia, or for the foreseeable future, BUT it is not invulnerable.

Now, the Fleet Hours argument is another thing entirely. Basically 10 F-22 flying 100 hours each across 30 days, are always going to be less effective than 100 F-16 flying 10 hours each, across the same time period. Once you say, that the F-16 can fly 15-20 hours each, you suddenly get a very rapid increase in the threat the 10 F-22 face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexTX ret

Maybe I have different sources...

The newest aircraft, primarily the S 37 and its soon to added brothers and sisters follow a different strategy. The Russians ( and for the most part, the Chinese) believe that stealth is a good thing but in moderation. They think that the F 22 pays a penalty for its being completely tied physically to the stealth concept. Instead the Russians put there faith in the old concept of speed and maneuverability. Yes, it is partially stealthy but it depends more on electronic methods to spoof tracking radar. The Rand corporation did a study between the F 22 and it's primary competitors and while the F 22 was a good aircraft (far better than the F 15 or the F 16 systems) it is only treading water when put up against the newest aircraft. The report was first published and then squashed by the Military.

---

Alex,

The F-22 is actually very maneuverable, and doesn't give up much of anything in that or the speed area to be stealthy.

Here's a website with some information:

http://www.f22-raptor.com/

It is a Lockheed site but still has some good information. The F-22A does have thrust vectoring by the way.

The problem with the F-22 is more a numbers game... no matter how good it is, it still only has so many missiles per airplane.

I don't know what study you're referring to but I would tell you that the F-22 does a lot more than tread water against any fielded airplane in the world - even in the dogfighting realm.

V/R,

Cliff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Now, the Fleet Hours argument is another thing entirely. Basically 10 F-22 flying 100 hours each across 30 days, are always going to be less effective than 100 F-16 flying 10 hours each, across the same time period. Once you say, that the F-16 can fly 15-20 hours each, you suddenly get a very rapid increase in the threat the 10 F-22 face.

---

Wilf,

Totally agree, which is why 187 (-1!) F-22s is a higher-risk proposition. You will have to fly the remaining airplanes at a higher rate... leading to them wearing out quicker.

The same problem is true of SLEPing F-15s/F-16s/A-10s... at some point the fixes you are making become almost more costly than buying a new jet... having worked MX on these planes, they are literally falling apart on the inside. Metal can only last so long....

The other problem is that even a new F-15 or F-16 costs $50-60M... not chump change at all.

V/R,

Cliff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

What brothers and sisters? I interviewed to a senior director of Sukhoi, 2 years ago and he doubted there was any money to do any development. The S-37 is a flying tested made from spare aircraft that first flew 12 years ago.

In terms of pure capability, F-22 has no peer competitor, that is even close, in China or Russia, or for the foreseeable future, BUT it is not invulnerable.

Now, the Fleet Hours argument is another thing entirely. Basically 10 F-22 flying 100 hours each across 30 days, are always going to be less effective than 100 F-16 flying 10 hours each, across the same time period. Once you say, that the F-16 can fly 15-20 hours each, you suddenly get a very rapid increase in the threat the 10 F-22 face.

---

Putin is in a jam for now. Russia thought it could expand its prosperity to all facets of its economy. Now it looks like Russia is just a very big petro nation and the price of oil is down. The growth path that he promised last year isn't coming to fruition. So he's doing the time honored Russian tactic of creating a large military presense to shake at the West like a big stick. As of the first part of the year, the Russian govenment added 27 "b"illion US dollar equivalents to the budget. My sources say that is only the top of what is beling spent. Also, that this is only the opening shot. A large military also keeps your complaining populance in line.

So my latest information says that plan for the "few" S 37s are going to be to develop a true air superior fighter and such other aircraft as needed. I don't know if that means rebuilding the Russian airforce to pre-coldwar size or again if that this just a stick to make us concerned.

The problem isn't that the F22 isn't a desireable fighter. It is that between the Government not wanting to spend money of those projects that show promise or any military project for now. And the Russian building fighters that are either directly equal to the F22 or good enough so that we must fund our air superiority force at a greater level. The greatest concern for me is that the F22 isn't the big scary we always had to keep the Russians in line. The Russians aren't afraid of it. If the S 37 isn't the one to do it, then they are willing to do what is necessary to design and build it.

And as you say the F22 isn't invunerable.

Yes, you are right that the F22 supported by F15s and F16s can create a potent combination. However, we've always were the one with the big scary stick to keep the Russians in line. Nevertheless, does the whole US Military have the assets to show our "overwhelming" force abroad. My fear now is that Russian are much more savy to what is needed to pick the fights they want to win and they are building the force to do it. All the while, we stumble around in the dark.

I am not disparaging the present administration. It took time and hard work to get us into the mess we are in now. I just hope we have the leadership to get us out the situation, we find ourselves in now.