Thread: Langley seeks third squadron of Raptors

Originally Posted by Maxor

A fleet of 120 teen series jets will also be half that size in 20 years and should be able to be built in the next 3 which isn't happening with the new stealth jets.

Who's going to build them? You can't open a new line for 120 frames. You could get Silent Eagles, but the F-15 line is slotted full through 2012. You could get Block III Super Hornets, but the Super Hornet is slotted full through 2015.

Say you went with Silent Eagles. You're going to get maybe 24 a year starting in mid-2013. They will run about $80 million a piece. Would you rather have 120 F-15's or 80 F-22's? For the same money, you could have those 80 additional Raptors by 2016.

I don't think we are gonna get more F-15s. We would most likely get more F-18s or stick with the F-35 program.

Isn't there a line for f-15's in japan that isn't doing a whole heck of a lot at the moment? I'm pretty sure that serial production of the Japanese f-15 ended recently. (I'm not stating a huge desire to spend money on the teen series jets just to have a number of airframes acquired. Also this 80 mill per plane figure seems a bit high considering c/d's were at roughly 30 mill, why not drop the internal carriage ram up the inlets and leading edges of an E variant and call it $50 million which would seem more than enough for design changes upgrades and price hikes over 100 airframes.

Another option would be giving the navy a large number of superhornets to tide them over while sending all early lightening production to the A models and the airforce. Pretty sure the navy wouldn't agree to that though, could keep production of the raptor going but theres huge politics against that. Its just an ugly situation.

Originally Posted by Maxor

Isn't there a line for f-15's in japan that isn't doing a whole heck of a lot at the moment? I'm pretty sure that serial production of the Japanese f-15 ended recently.

That line was shut down in 1997. The only fighters in production in Japan are F-2's.

See not really particularly busy at the moment. We also know that the tooling for the F-15 is still existent.hum first all the lines are busy then when one thats currently shut down is brought up thats also a problem. Its not like it can be claimed that all of the knowledge base is lost either.

Originally Posted by Maxor

Isn't there a line for f-15's in japan that isn't doing a whole heck of a lot at the moment? I'm pretty sure that serial production of the Japanese f-15 ended recently. (I'm not stating a huge desire to spend money on the teen series jets just to have a number of airframes acquired. Also this 80 mill per plane figure seems a bit high considering c/d's were at roughly 30 mill, why not drop the internal carriage ram up the inlets and leading edges of an E variant and call it $50 million which would seem more than enough for design changes upgrades and price hikes over 100 airframes.

Another option would be giving the navy a large number of superhornets to tide them over while sending all early lightening production to the A models and the airforce. Pretty sure the navy wouldn't agree to that though, could keep production of the raptor going but theres huge politics against that. Its just an ugly situation.

The C/D was 30M in the late 1970s/early 80s. 80M sounds about right, if not low. Nothing against Boeing for trying to keep the F-15 as up to date as possible, but a Silent Eagle will show show up like a flying barn on the systems we want 5th generation fighters to MEZ-pen. It's as simple as that. The F-15 is not survivable enough in an IADS environment the USAF expects to proliferate in the coming decades.

I could see your AF/Navy balance happening, though I agree the Navy would want to fight it...it's unlikely they'd get enough of a budget increase to actually pay to keep the extra airframes flying. Congress would probably pay for the purchases, but force the Navy to eat the costs incurred by the increase in airframes/mx/fuel/etc.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

I could see your AF/Navy balance happening, though I agree the Navy would want to fight it...it's unlikely they'd get enough of a budget increase to actually pay to keep the extra airframes flying. Congress would probably pay for the purchases, but force the Navy to eat the costs incurred by the increase in airframes/mx/fuel/etc.

Why wouldn't the opposite happen? The Navy is the one screaming for fighter plans right now, heck they're flip-floppin' F/A-18A+ and C airframes between fleet units, reserves squadrons, and the Marines just to try and get the flat-tops full of airworthy planes these days. The F/A-18A+/C airframes are actually hitting their flight hour and catapult/arested landing limits. I'm not sure if the center barrel replacement program is continuing to fight this or not.

The USAF on the other hand has seemingly retired several hundred F-15/F-16/A-10 aircraft in the last few years with no replacement. These aircraft were as far as I know not retired because the airframes reached their flight limits, but for costs saving reasons.

Therefore it would seem to me that the USN is actually in a far greater need for new 5th generation then the USAF. The USN getting more Super Hornets (4.5th gen.) seems like a half-step sideways instead of getting F-35C's on the flight deck.

The Navy is having enough trouble trying to keep their ships out of dock due to maintenance problems. The air fleet is not their priority, nor should it be. They're actually doing something I wish the AF would do: take a step back and analyze the impacts of two decades of massive cost/corner cutting on their capabilities. What they've found is neither pleasing nor shocking.

Much of the AF's cuts were BRAC-related. The AF continued that trend, though, consolidating units and sending the oldest/least airworthy frames to AMARC.

I agree, the SH is kind of a sideways shift vs other options. But frankly it does the job the Navy needs it to. The Navy will not be on the front line of the next conventional air war. No matter where in the world it takes place, the AF will be able to base fighters close enough to kick in the door and let the big kids fly in (from CONUS if necessary). F-35B/C or not. The F-35 gives them some capabilities they don't have, but it's not as critical to their operations.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

I agree, the SH is kind of a sideways shift vs other options. But frankly it does the job the Navy needs it to. The Navy will not be on the front line of the next conventional air war. No matter where in the world it takes place, the AF will be able to base fighters close enough to kick in the door and let the big kids fly in (from CONUS if necessary). F-35B/C or not. The F-35 gives them some capabilities they don't have, but it's not as critical to their operations.

Correct me if I'm wrong Jimmy, but during the start of Enduring Freedom, isn't it the case that the USAF was unable to field tactical assets close enough to Afghanistan to participate in the first week of the air campaign. If I recall correctly it was USN F-14's and Hornets that did most of the work in the early days with USAF long-range bomber support, precisely because the USAF couldn't do what you say above.

That was a diplomatic ($) issue, not a logistical one. They CAN do their own airbridge, but it just doesn't compare. If we're talking about a large-scale air campaign, a CBG just won't have the reach and power.

Originally Posted by Maxor

See not really particularly busy at the moment. We also know that the tooling for the F-15 is still existent.hum first all the lines are busy then when one thats currently shut down is brought up thats also a problem. Its not like it can be claimed that all of the knowledge base is lost either.

When a line shuts down, it shuts down. The tooling is destroyed, the machinery is sold off or re-tasked to other jobs, the floorspace is reclaimed, the employees are sent elsewhere, the measuring tools and gauges are sent back or cut up.

You can't just restart it, you have to start over from scratch.

There is a set procedure for all this, every single item used is logged into a database and methodically accounted for. If it can't be used for something else, it's scrapped out. Those F-15J's were built under license- every piece of tooling, every forging, every gauge is accounted for.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

That was a diplomatic ($) issue, not a logistical one. They CAN do their own airbridge, but it just doesn't compare. If we're talking about a large-scale air campaign, a CBG just won't have the reach and power.

I wasn't suggesting the USN can commit and sustain an air campaign as well as the USAF can. I was just sticking up for the squid pilots after you said they don't need 5th generation fighter planes to accomplish their mission because the air force can always do it bigger and better. I simply provided an example where that wasn't the case, for whatever reason.

Now to get back on topic, is probably does make sense for the USAF to receive their F-35's faster in the early going than the USN. But at the same time, I look at what the USAF has done in the past few years, and they seem so fixated on getting an extra 4 F-22's that they'll retire hundreds on 4th generation airframes to accomplish that goal, which from my perspective seems detrimental to the USAF as a whole.

It would be great to have 270 F-22's and get all of the 1,763 F-35A's that they expect, but the reality is that they can't afford it. So they have to find a balance between quality and quantity. So when I see everyone screaming that the USN and USAF need more tactical jets, but the USAF just retired all those F-15/F-16's, it just doesn't add up. And yes I realize that a lot of it had to do with BRAC and was out of the USAF control, and they did retire the least capable and oldest planes, but still.

I'd just like to add that I'm not against the USN or USAF acquiring 5th generation fighters, but sometimes it just seems like it's at the expense of the current fighter fleeta and overall aircraft numbers. Like I said if either service winds up not being able to procure the planned amount of aircraft there is going to be a problem. Likewise if the F-35 production is delayed any further.

I struggle with the quality vs. quantity bit. I often wonder if things would be much better with 400 F-22A's and new blocks of teen series aircraft with no F-35 at all. But then the USN would be without a 5th generation aircraft, and the Marines stuck with the Harrier...

It makes sense to be thinking of the future and procuring these 5th generation fighters. And honestly right now (and in the coming years) the only mission seemingly seriously undermanned in the USAF is air superiority. With only 187 F-22A's (and however many of those actually combat ready) and 175 or so upgraded Eagles, it looks pretty tight. The F-16's, F/A-18's, and Av-8B's are all planned for pretty much a 1-to-1 replacement with the various F-35 models. The A-10C is a different story, but the USAF shouldn't have to deal with that for a few years yet.

I don't think the USAF IS thinking of the future. The problem is the world (well, at least the WESTERN world) is being run by bean counters now; who cares what the future MIGHT hold, what can we do to save money RIGHT NOW? For all intents and purposes, fighter airframes (doesn't matter which ones) are being replaced on a 2-to-1 basis; retire 2 airframes (whether they be F-15's, F-16's, A-10A's, F-18's, whatever), and replace them with ONE new airframe. Bottom line is, we're going to end up (in the very near future) with a lot fewer airframes than we had 10, even 5, years ago. They may be more capable, but they aren't THAT much more capable; a 50% increase in capability (per airframe) DOES NOT equal a 50% decrease in availability. Sometimes quantity does exceed quality . . . .

As for the F-22A, I'm GUESSING that we only have about 75-100 mission-capable airframes at any one time; the other 75-100 airframes are either down for maintenance, or farmed out to the T&E squadrons. The USAF might consider upgrading more low-time F-15C's to the "Enhanced Eagle" standard and/or acquiring some F-15SE's.