JA Boomer

F-117 Knighthawk

The Knighthawk has already begun its retirement. I believe it will be completely withdrawn for service in the year 2009. Sadly, I think this was a poor decision by the USAF. I believe the rationale behind the retirement was that the F-117 mission can be accomplished by the F-22A, and that the retirement would mean additional F-22A airframes. However, I think the operating costs of the Knighthawk over several years led to an additional purchase of 4 F-22A’s, not a great trade-in in my opinion. Also, although the Raptor is faster, stealthier, more maneuverable, and far more capable at taking care of itself, I don’t believe it can perform the most basic mission of the F-117. Operating as a first-day-of-way strike aircraft, the F-117 is able to penetrate enemy airspace and self-designate 2000 lb laser-guided bombs onto target. The F-22A with its JDAMS’s cannot achieve the same accuracy and precision that the F-117 has shown. Also, with only 183 Raptors currently scheduled to enter service, how can the USAF expect these squadrons to train and practice enough to take over this very important mission. The F-22A is first and foremost the air dominance fighter of the USAF, the strike mission will always come second. Thus, I believe there is a significant capability loss here. Perhaps this loss is justified, given the limited scope of the F-117 mission, but anyone has to admit, that this airplane and mission has come in handy several times during the last 20 years.

A-10 Thunderbolt II

The Worthog is currently undergoing a significant upgrading program, updating them to fight in the modern battlefield. The A-10C will be able to deliver more weapon types, more accurately, and be able to communicate with other military assets in ways it has never been able to. Perhaps the biggest improvement will be at the pilot’s station, where an improved cockpit should make the pilot’s job far easier, and make the aircraft even more lethal. I have to give the USAF a hand for funding this improvement, even though the Worthog has been threatened with retirement on several occasions. It is an amazing aircraft that does its few missions extremely well. I believe the entire 367 aircraft fleet is currently scheduled to receive this upgrade, and a portion of the fleet is to receive brand new wings as well. The USAF is now planning on having the A-10C on staff until the 2028 timeframe. Just as well because no existing or future platform comes close to matching its capabilities. Perhaps we will see a re-engine program for the A-10 down the road to enhance its capabilities further, although the USAF might be happy with the A-10C fleet as is.

F-16 Fighting Falcon

Not much to say here. The Falcon is in good shape, although there hours and wear have been adding up even more due to the recent F-15 groundings and are already high due to the current conflicts the USAF is involved in. The last F-16A/B models were recently retired, leaving only the more advanced F-16C/D currently in service. These F-16s are undergoing an upgrading process to keep them modern and in the fight. The USAF currently has 1280 F-16s on the roster, and they will be phased out on a one-for-one basis when the F-35 comes into service.

F-15E Strike Eagle

The Strike Eagle is also in good shape; these 224 birds are structurally different from the earlier models and as such, have not been affected to the same degree by the groundings and fatigue. Although I believe the first few Strike Eagles were modified F-15D airframes, and I would be curious to know if they were also structurally modified. The Strike Eagles are going to be getting advanced AESA APG-63V(4) radars in the future, further enhancing their capability. They are currently expected to serve into the 2035 timeframe.

F-15 Eagle

The F-15A/B/C/D Eagles are in rough shape. Everyone is aware of the recent fatigue issues and the groundings. 180 airframes were determined to need some sort of repair to get them back into the air, and I suspect that not all of the 180 will be repaired. Before the groundings the USAF was planning on upgrading 178 F-15C’s to ‘Golden Eagle’ status, probably with the addition of the APG-63v(3) AESA radar and the JHMCS among other things. Now who knows what will happen to the fleet. I believe the last of the F-15A/B models were schedule to be retired this year and next, perhaps that will change to retire the most severely fatigued airframes. There are currently 441 Eagles in the USAF.

F-22 Raptor

The F-22A continues to impress, both with its performance and its price tag. More than half of the current production has been delivered to the USAF now, with production scheduled to end in 2011. The money reserved for the closing down of the Raptor production line was recently used elsewhere, keeping the possibility of more purchases open. Currently 183 airframes are scheduled for delivery.

F-35 Lightning II

The F-35A continues is testing program. 1763 F-35A’s are to be delivered to the USAF under current plans. This somewhat confuses me, within the USAF the F-35 is slated to replace the F-16 and possibly the A-10 in the 2028 timeframe if a more suitable replacement is not developed. Why is the USAF getting more F-35’s than it currently has F-16s and A-10s combined? Are they planning on having the program slashed so simply aimed high, or do they want to increase the number aircraft in the inventory, or is it to account for the loss of air superiority aircraft numbers with the F-22A replacing the Eagle? I realize these are extremely long range plans, with F-35 production expected to last until approximately 2035, but what is the rationale behind the production number?

My thoughts:

The USAF is at a critical juncture, they have the oldest fleet in their history, with an extremely high ops tempo. The recent troubles with the F-15 fleet has force their hand, and they are now forced to make a critical decision regarding the fleet. These are just some thoughts about what I think are the best solutions for the USAF.

The USAF’s strike assets are pretty solid, with the F-15E and F-16C. I would perhaps consider retaining a single squadron of F-117s to take care of the first-day-of-way surgical strike missions. Otherwise, the Strike Eagles are here to stay, and the Falcons will be replaced on a one-for-one basis with the F-35A when it comes online, providing a further increase in capability.

The larger concern here is the air superiority force. I would assume that at least some of the F-15 fleet is not going to be able to return to active duty. In any case, without significant upgrades, whatever F-15s are left are not going to be on the top end of the air superiority game for very long. As such, I believe the USAF has two options to seriously consider in order for it to retain the air supremacy it has enjoyed for so long.

In both of the options, I would retire the F-15A/B force as well as any of the C and D models which require significant upgrades to get them airworthy from the fatigue issues. I would estimate this would leave about 300 Eagles in the force. 200 F-15C/D Eagles should be transferred to the Reserve and Guard units as new airframes come into the inventory, and the remaining 100 or so retired as well. These remaining Eagles should perhaps receive upgrades similar to the proposed ‘Golden Eagle’ but it all depends on cost. Both of these plans will require extensive money, I don’t see a way around that, and I also don’t know where the USAF is going to get it.

Option one would be the best answer for the USAF, and of course it will cost the most as well. In this option, the USAF should receive an additional 198 F-22A airframes, which will bring the fleet total up to the 381 that the USAF has long stated is required. This would allow the F-22A to completely replace the F-15 air superiority force as was originally intended, and would give the USAF unquestionable air supremacy for the long term. This option would cost over 36 billion dollars however, which may be a very hard pill for the US government to swallow. I don’t know how likely this option is, but it would no doubt be the best option for the AF and provide them with the most capable aircraft. It would also keep the F-22A production online for quite a long time, perhaps as many as nine additional years. Keeping the line open is a very important consideration, as if any major conflict develops, the F-22A will undoubtedly be needed, and more production could easily be order given such a conflict.

Option two is essentially the option which I feel must be exercised if there is simply no way for the USAF to pursue option one. If Raptors cannot be ordered in the numbers that will make them effective (in my opinion in the high 100’s) then F-15+s should be ordered. 220 F-15+ (as quoted by Boeing a short time ago at a price of $60M) would costs the equivalent of 72 F-22As, or over 13 billion dollars. This represents a large costs savings, although admittedly a less capable fighter force. I have explained the logic for this move before; I shall do so one more time.

The F-22A is undoubtedly the more capable fighter aircraft, the F-15+ is not even in the same league. However, aside from the lethality of the aircraft, you also have to consider the number of aircraft which you can field in your fleet. As an F-22A may be able to do the job of several F-15+ in an engagement, one F-22A cannot be in the same place as several F-15+ at one time. Therefore, if the USAF is unable to field additional Raptors in meaningful numbers, you must bite the bullet and pull the trigger on F-15+s. Having a force of 250 F-22As is simply not enough, and their back-up of F-15Cs is not good enough, and won’t be able to support the Raptor for very long before they are unable to fly or completely outdated. You need enough airframes in the fleet to support the tempo of USAF operations; training, exercises, and deployments.

I see these two options as the only ones viable for the USAF to keep its air supremacy intact. However, both are costly and have pros and cons. If neither of these plans is enacted, or something similar, then I would worry about the air power of the USAF in about 15 years when the F-15Cs are really showing their age, and there are just too few F-22As to complete missions. As I said, crunch time for the USAF, I am intrigued by what they will eventually decide to do.

One last point, would a reduction in the F-35A purchase be feasible? I think reducing the planed buy from 1763 to 1280 simply to replace the F-16 force would make sense, as perhaps the F-35A is not the right airplane to replace other types in the inventory (A-10). This would free up over 38 billion dollars in my estimation. However, the airframe deleted would be coming off the end of the F-35A production schedule, into about the 2028 period, so realistically there would be no cost savings today. Delaying the F-35A program is not really an option either, as the F-16s are now working harder than ever, and will need replacement on schedule. Perhaps with a reduction of the planned F-35A fleet, the USAF could afford to purchase additional F-22As, and then have some of the F-35As replace Eagle squadrons to retain the same number of air superiority aircraft. For that to work however, the F-35A would have to gain some new moves, as it is currently is unsuitable for the air superiority role. I believe it can only carry 4 air-to-air missiles internally, and cannot carry the AIM-9X internally at all.

If anyone took the time to read some or all of this post, what do you think about all this? Platform specific or USAF tactical fighter force in general. I’m interested to hear other opinions on the subject.

Feanor

I'm interested in what you say about the F-117. The fighter has shown to be very useful, but there have been several issues with it's stealth capability. It was possible to spot it if it was flying during the rain, and with ground-based RLS operating on unusually long wavelengths. Also I found this interesting bit on the F-22A. I'm not sure what to make of it, since I'm not very well versed in the area.

WHAT OUR NATION GETS FOR MORE THAN $70 BILLION
What will the $70B Raptor program and an additional $1B per year for maintaining a very small fleet of F–22 Raptors contribute to our national defense? First of all — the raison d’etre for the aircraft disappeared: The cold war has long been over! Secondly, the aircraft’s requirements fell far short of achieving that dream. The promises, the four pillars, need review. Real Stealth is measured against its five signatures — infrared, sound, visual, electronic emissions, and radar signature reduction to enemy fighter radars and enemy ground-based radars.17 The F–22 is the biggest fighter in the sky and is the first to be seen visually. This is anti-stealth. If cruising supersonically, two signatures give it away and identify it—the inescapable infrared signature and its loud supersonic booms. Infrared sensors have come a long way. The US Navy routinely equips its fighters with them and the Russians have good ones for sale. Netted computers can track its sound. Its big powerful radar designed to see the enemy at long distances and despite minimizing detection of its own emissions can be detected by existing high-tech Russian radar detectors. Also, it is physically impossible to design shapes and radar absorptive material to simultaneously defeat low power, high-frequency enemy fighter radars, and high power, low-frequency ground based radars. Unnoticed by all the air superiority advocates is that air superiority is primarily a daytime operation, and stealthy airplanes are stealthy only at night—hence the dark grey stealthy F–117’s name — Nighthawk. The F–22 Raptor is not very stealthy. But, then, stealth is meaningless operating against the small undeveloped nations that we fight — as are air superiority aircraft.

The advocates of stealth have never understood that it isn’t design to stealth that makes aircraft unsensed by the enemy. It is the cost of design to stealth that reduces the operational force to the point that it will seldom be in operation. Proof — we possess only 21 stealthy B–2 bombers instead of the 135 that the fully funded program was to buy!18 Can one win a war against a powerful country with 21 bombers that fly at half the frequency of the B-52 Stratobomber? Of course not. We can only fight small, very weak nations like Somalia, Serbia, Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, and teeny Grenada — so we do. They fight us asymmetrically — making our expensive preparations for war fruitless. We win these campaigns about half the time. And even after winning, we sometimes lose the war.
Due to its very large 26 percent gain in weight, the Raptor has a very ordinary thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading, comparable to the F–15C. Hence, its maneuverability, acceleration, and rate of climb are comparable to the performance of the F–15C — for reasons of basic physics.19 Its supersonic cruise potential allowing sufficient fuel reserves for supersonic combat and other requirements, is very low because this radius is heavily dominated by its deficient fuel fraction. Fuel fraction is the fraction of the total aircraft weight that is fuel, measured at take-off.20 To make it look good, advocates compare the Raptor with the worst supercruiser fighter in our military, the F–15C. The F–22 probably doubles the small operational supersonic radius of the F–15C at 1.6 Mach. But so does the 50 year old, diminutive F–104A with the J79–19 engine. The USAF constantly claims that the F–22 has a large supersonic cruise radius, but they lack insight into the subject of efficient supersonic cruise. And never, not even hardly ever, does the USAF quote its real measure—its supersonic radius on a practical supersonic combat mission with standard landing fuel reserves and fuel required for highspeed combat. Supercruise fighters are a legacy that Col. John R. Boyd and I left the USAF.21 22 In summary, The Raptor is not the promised advance in fighter performance and supersonic cruise range. It is somewhat stealthy, but in performance it is similar to an F–15C with advanced avionics; and is merely comparable to the latest Russian aircraft.

The capability of the F–22’s electronic suite unquestionably exceeds that of the F–15C. Both aircraft carry the same weapons and are comparably lethal. However Lockheed made two grievous errors in designing the electronics suite for the F–22. First Error— the F–20 has an “integrated” avionics suite (as opposed to the “federated system” in the F–23), which means all its components are designed to work together in harmony, but generally, only with those components. Hence, modern, better components cannot be merely plugged in to replace most of the old components without a great deal of reprogramming. “Plug-and-Play” replacement is possible with a federated or modular system. Second error — inexplicably, old state-of–the–art computer chips were used in its composition. In short, a major (and until now, unheralded) modification is required to bring its avionics suite into modernity. This hidden major expense and arduous multi-year task will be delayed until the aircraft is committed to full production. Of course, public awareness of this expense couldn’t possibly be allowed to threaten the program.

http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

bfng3569

"First Error— the F–20 has an “integrated” avionics suite (as opposed to the “federated system” in the F–23), which means all its components are designed to work together in harmony, but generally, only with those components. Hence, modern, better components cannot be merely plugged in to replace most of the old components without a great deal of reprogramming. “Plug-and-Play” replacement is possible with a federated or modular system. Second error — inexplicably, old state-of–the–art computer chips were used in its composition. In short, a major (and until now, unheralded) modification is required to bring its avionics suite into modernity"

i am very curious as to how the avionics suite of the F-22 and F-23 compare? (intergrtaed as opposed to fedrated?)

and does anyone else wonder what they could if they (US aviation industry) could do or build if the airforce ever cam up with a true replacement for the F-16, I.E. one that fits the role of inexpensive and highly manuverable? (with out stealth as a requirement?)

i know the big push to go to an all stealth airforce, but at the cost, it just doesnt seem to fit (or be practical?)

Wraith601

Anything from POGO is absolute garbage. They're only purpose is to criticize any new weapons programs in favor of the old crap they replace. They were among the foremost backers of M113 over the Stryker.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

glyn

Feanor

I found it in a most interesting fashion. I looked at the wiki entry for the F117, and found it in one of the cited sources.

Jimmy

Nighthawk, not Knighthawk. The F-22 uses JDAMs with exactly the same accuracy as the F-117, because the aircraft has nothing to do with it, aside form having the keypad where the pilot punches in the coordinates. The bomb itself does all the aiming. The F-117s extremely limited mission scope along with its high expenses make it almost mandatory that the AF retire it. You're also forgetting one thing...these things are as old as F-15s. They're at the end of their service life, and there's no justification to reopening the line to build more.

gamercube

So the Raptor God has been brought down to earth?

Which latest Russian aircraft does it compare with? The MiG-35?

__________________
Hasta la Victoria siempre!

JA Boomer

Seems like a load to me, some people just HATE the F-22. I'm not the biggest fan, but you have to admit it is an amazing aircraft. Most of what is said can be refuted by common sense and even more so by the comments of the F-22 pilots and the pilots of the aircraft who have been “killed” by the F-22 in exercises.

It's shorter than the F-15 and Su-27. Its mass may be larger, but seriously...it's comparable to these other airplanes.

Same as any other fighter flying currently or in the near future....were they expecting a magical airplane?

Half the frequency???

Comparable too maybe, but also a ways ahead...ordinary? If being the best in all of those categories is ordinary then sure.

Or perhaps because that is the aircraft which it was design to replace???

Seriously??? That's a non-comparison, different aircraft with a different mission in a different time.

That must be why it has mopped the floor in every mock engagement thus far. F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s have all had their chance against it.

So this article is obviously fairly outdated.

No offense to you Feanor...good find! But I think we've seen some similar articles on this board before, basically lambasting the Raptor in ever way they can.

JA Boomer

I will obviously defer to you on the subject as you are more informed, but this is why I made the point.

The F-22A will carry 2 GBU-31 2000lb DJAM weapons on its mission. These bombs are preprogrammed before flight to hit a certain target, although I believe the target coordinates may be change in-flight by the pilot. The weapon is released from the aircraft and guides itself to its target coordinates using GPS positioning. Achieve an accuracy of a few meters or perhaps a few feet on a good day.

The F-117A will carry 2 GBU-27 2000lb laser-guided bombs on its mission. These bombs will be self designated onto target by the F-117A and will achieve an accuracy of a few inches.

Is this correct?

All I am saying is that you are losing capability in that the F-117A has more flexibility because it is able to self-designate its weapons onto target (if you ignore weather issues) and its weapons are more accurate. These two factors are very important for the Nighthawks most important mission - first-day-of-way surgical strike.

Other than this important mission, the F-22A will probably be the superior tactical bomber on most other profiles. Stuff that needs the accuracy of laser-guidance can be dropped by an F-15E. However, there is still the issue of the F-22A force being primarily an air-to-air force, so how much training and practice will they be able to give to these missions, and therefore how effective will they be?

I was only saying it might be wise to keep a squadron of F-117A aircraft in active service, not suggesting re-opening the line or anything like that. But if the USAF is prepared to accept this degradation in capability, then perhaps the cost saving is worth it.

gunnut

And it's Warthog, not Worthog.


Sir, can the F-35 take over the missions performed by the F-117 once they come online? That way the few F-22s can concentrate on clearing the air space.


Here's a picture of the F-15s recently returned to flying status:

Attached Images

DANGERZONE.jpg (40.5 KB, 78 views)

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

My thoughts:

However Russia is selling fighters that's comparable to F-15C/E to just about anyone who can afford it. We need the F-22 to maintain air superiority

I'm not sure who the author is, but we don't know what the F-22 is capable of as far as stealth is concerned. Those in the know won't say anything. I know I wouldn't. But he's right that we don't need stealth to fight undeveloped nations. That's why the air force is getting more F-35s than it has F-16s.

He's wrong here. These planes don't fly alone. We don't send 21 B-2s in formation to bomb a powerful country. They'll go in as a strike package with fighters, SEAD, cruise missiles, UAVs, and AWACS. The days of flying 800 B-17s in formation and hope 1% of the bombs will fall within 1/2 mile of the intended target is long over.

Does thrust to weight ratio really matter that much? The Gripen can supercruise with external stores and it has a thrust to weight ration of less than one!

How long can the F-15C cruise at supersonic speeds? I thought it has to use afterburner to achieve supersonic speed. If so, why bother to compare it with the F-22? If it could supercruise without afterburner, then why was it a big deal when the F-22 demonstrated supercruise ability?

HKDan