Combat Air Forces Restructuring

[Entropy]

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.

[J Wolfsberger]

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.

[Entropy]

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.

[Van]

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.

[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.

[Cliff]

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

[Entropy]

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.

[AlexTX ret]

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.