Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

End of an era

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Its a lot more manageable in the other branches, but yes, i do see it.

    The USN is in crisis mode NOW though. The USMC would be, but it's stretching all it's procurements out for decades. It's trading immediate crisis for long term widescale obsolesence.

    The USAF would've been super screwed had F22 not made it to production, but it did, so their future capability at their key missions is fairly secure. Their real issue is the tanker problem.

    The US Army really doesnt need most of the systems it wants, so i kinda do hope they all get spit canned anyway, lol.

    Comment


    • #62
      Well I look at things abit differently than you.

      These are just observations and not meant to denigrate the USAF.

      The USAF basically has traded 800 F-15/F117 aircraft for 183 F-22's.

      To get more they are willing to sacrifice the F-35 program at what 2,3,4 aircraft for one?

      The Reserve /ANG F-16's are rapidly approaching 20 years of age and the Active duty aircraft 15 years.

      They are(and have been) chomping at the bit to get rid of their bomber force. But were stymied by congress with regards to both the B-1 and B-52 depending on the year.

      And both those programs have eaten up tons of money just to remain in service but minimumly useful.

      They were forced to not only keep the A-10's in service but to now modernize aircraft that average mind you approx. 25 years of age.

      The Reserve /ANG F-16's are rapidly approaching 20 years of age and the Active duty aircraft 15 years.

      Weve already mentioned the tanker issue.

      You may not see a crisis now but I do and so does the USAF Senior leadership.



      Because im not taken in by their PR. Which they are masters at. Much to their credit. As that does appear to make their crisis "manageable".

      But you can find material that doesnt gloss over the crisis:

      http://www.afa.org/magazine/May2005/0505watch.asp


      You pick on the Marines but the tsunami of "...trading immediate crisis for long term widescale obsolesence." for the USAF dwarfs the USMC challenges by many "orders of magnitude" and may yet destroy the USAF..

      Actually if you read the article above its worse than that. At any moment literally 100's of aircraft could be grounded with no fix or replacement in sight.

      LOL If thats not an immediate crisis I dont know what is.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by rickusn
        The USAF basically has traded 800 F-15/F117 aircraft for 183 F-22's.
        Congress sure helped...

        Originally posted by rickusn
        To get more they are willing to sacrifice the F-35 program at what 2,3,4 aircraft for one?
        Apparently it's THAT GOOD. Also, A10stress has been warning us for years that all is not well in the F35 program. As far back as warships1 if you'll recall.
        Each of the branches has scaled back their buy, so i must assume there is something to it.

        The Reserve /ANG F-16's are rapidly approaching 20 years of age and the Active duty aircraft 15 years.

        The USAF has rebuilt a lot of the F16 fleet and is actually still buying new block 52s. Some of them are wearing out though, you are correct. Of course by the same token the USAF has a truly MASSIVE fleet of F16s(1700ish).

        Originally posted by rickusn
        They are(and have been) chomping at the bit to get rid of their bomber force. But were stymied by congress with regards to both the B-1 and B-52 depending on the year.

        And both those programs have eaten up tons of money just to remain in service but minimumly useful.
        Agreed. The B52 is HUGELY expensive to run. If it's to stay in service it HAS to be reengined. The B1 has been a hangar queen since day one, and it's OAS/DAS have never worked right, but the basic airframe is still wonderfully capable.

        Originally posted by rickusn
        They were forced to not only keep the A-10's in service but to now modernize aircraft that average mind you approx. 25 years of age.
        As far as im concerned that's a good thing. The SLEP1/HOG UP/PE A10Cs are for all intents and purposes all new airplanes except for the engines.

        And IMO, are FAR SUPERIOR to any pointy nose jet could ever be.

        Personally, i tend to chalk that up to the USAF being smart enough to realize that keeping the Hog was the way to go.

        Originally posted by rickusn
        Actually if you read the article above its worse than that. At any moment literally 100's of aircraft could be grounded with no fix or replacement in sight.

        LOL If thats not an immediate crisis I dont know what is.
        The blue Eagles are whooped, there's no doubt about it. A big part of that is on Clinton. He really screwed up the Air Force.

        Comment


        • #64
          Oh yeah, that article is a PR masterpiece.

          LOL, it's great to watch the masters at work.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by rickusn
            The smaller air wings theoretically can hit more targets with the same amount of weapons due to increased precison.

            All aircraft are self-escorting.

            All aircraft are strike capable.

            Logistics status is greatly enhanced.

            Maintenance status is better.

            Flight operations as GG pointed out are more efficient.

            All these parameters increase even more positively as new aircraft enter service.
            Thanks for saving me some typing:)

            The only thing I would add would be higher sorte rate.
            The USAF is rapidly having to come to grips with older aircraft costs and less than the desired # of aircraft.

            Look at the F-22A 750 projected now down to 183.

            And the USAF always win the budget battle by $10b a year or more year in and year out.

            They also get short-shrifted on the supplementals.

            Not to mention the black-program funding. Where the USAF hides alot more development costs than the USN.

            If the USN got a similar budget and supplemetals they would have no crisis.

            Not to be confused with that they wouldnt still have shortcomings and problems.

            Im not complaining. And for sure not saying the USAF doesnt require that funding.

            Just that the USN sucks at making their case.

            The USAF is just much better at the politics and PR game always has been since WWII and apparently always will be.

            Before WWII the Navy historically faired much better than the Army.

            Got and from time to time get a bit complacent and/or arrogant IMHO.

            The USAF is now fighting to keep from falling into the same trap.

            Interesting that you mentioned that. Pick up the latest issue of AF times. They plan to retire 20% of their planes in the next 6 years.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by M21Sniper
              You can take six of those right off the top cause they'll spend their whole life lugging buddy tanks around.

              That leaves a combat element of a maximum of 38 aircraft(Vs 68 strikers for a 50TACAIR wing).

              Ok pull them, but remember to subtract the escorts that the KA-6/S-3s required that the Hornet doesn't.

              Alot of your 90 plane wing did nothing but provide escort. The A-6Es ,A-7s, EA-6s and S-3s all needed escorts. Not so with the Hornets.

              In the old days you launched a squadron of A-6Es against a single target with fighter escort.
              Now that same target (Bridge, bunker, whatever) will get a pair of Hornets that don't need escorts.

              Same with the KA-6. If she pushed forward(outside of the CAP) she drug at least 1 fighter with her. Hornet in buddy tanking role, not only carries more fuel than the KA-6 but still has room for AAMs.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Gun Grape
                Ok pull them, but remember to subtract the escorts that the KA-6/S-3s required that the Hornet doesn't.
                I'd only need to take them away if the enemy still had an Air force. Once i had a permissive operating environment i would not need to escort any of them, and i would have a massive striking wing at my disposal.

                Originally posted by Gun Grape
                Alot of your 90 plane wing did nothing but provide escort. The A-6Es ,A-7s, EA-6s and S-3s all needed escorts. Not so with the Hornets.
                Again, depends on the mission and enemy capabilities. A-7s had AIM9s and were typically not escorted in any case. Likewise for low altitude deep TFR penetration the A-6E did not normally have an escort(though it likely would for med alt bombing).

                In the old days you launched a squadron of A-6Es against a single target with fighter escort.
                Now that same target (Bridge, bunker, whatever) will get a pair of Hornets that don't need escorts.


                The A6E/TRAM had a laser designator and a very impressive bombload. 2 of them will get the job done too, and if they're in low alt TFR mode they generally wont need an escort either. A-6E/TRAM also fired the SLAM-ER missile too.

                And they can hit a target at a range that an F18E/F only wing simply cannot hit due to lack of range.

                Originally posted by Gun Grape
                Same with the KA-6. If she pushed forward(outside of the CAP) she drug at least 1 fighter with her. Hornet in buddy tanking role, not only carries more fuel than the KA-6 but still has room for AAMs.
                The gross amount of fuel carried is not as relevant as the loiter time and burn rate of the parent aircraft. Neither of those two things are the F18E/Fs strength by a long shot, certainly not compared to a KA-6D. Personally i am skeptical that the F18E/F can carry a bigger fuel load in the real world anyway. The A-6 always had a very respectible real world bomb load while maintaining a useful range. It may have been ugly, but the A6 was wonderfully optimized for efficient low subsonic cruise.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by M21Sniper
                  I'd only need to take them away if the enemy still had an Air force. Once i had a permissive operating environment i would not need to escort any of them, and i would have a massive striking wing at my disposal.
                  If we are in a total permissive environment then I will use the land based(but attached to the ESG) KC-130 or AF tanking support. In a all F-18 wing I'll also
                  Drop those AMMRAMs and add more ord.


                  Again, depends on the mission and enemy capabilities. A-7s had AIM9s and were typically not escorted in any case. Likewise for low altitude deep TFR penetration the A-6E did not normally have an escort(though it likely would for med alt bombing).
                  Historically your wrong there. Look at Beiruit, Lybia and Northern and Southern Watch.

                  [quote]
                  In the old days you launched a squadron of A-6Es against a single target with fighter escort.
                  Now that same target (Bridge, bunker, whatever) will get a pair of Hornets that don't need escorts.


                  The A6E/TRAM had a laser designator and a very impressive bombload. 2 of them will get the job done too, and if they're in low alt TFR mode they generally wont need an escort either. A-6E/TRAM also fired the SLAM-ER missile too.[/quote

                  Once again, not by actual use. Those laser designated rounds only hit around 60% in Desert Storm. And you can't use them when its dusty, smokey and rain messes them up also.


                  The gross amount of fuel carried is not as relevant as the loiter time and burn rate of the parent aircraft. Neither of those two things are the F18E/Fs strength by a long shot, certainly not compared to a KA-6D. Personally i am skeptical that the F18E/F can carry a bigger fuel load in the real world anyway. The A-6 always had a very respectible real world bomb load while maintaining a useful range. It may have been ugly, but the A6 was wonderfully optimized for efficient low subsonic cruise.
                  They make up the shorter loiter time with tactics. Tankers X escorts planes to LOD and gives them a drink to go downtown with plenty of gas then RTB. Sometime in the mission timeline Tankers Y launch and meet them at the refuel site.

                  In theory once tankers X RTB tanks can be dropped and they can stand ready in the fighter role for CAP or alert rotation. Meaning that less planes have to remain behind for the fleet defence role. Something the KA-6/S-3 could never do.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    "Once again, not by actual use. Those laser designated rounds only hit around 60% in Desert Storm. And you can't use them when its dusty, smokey and rain messes them up also."

                    I'll take my chances. The low altitude capable Paveway III is a tremendously accurate weapons system and is a proven combat performer.

                    I like my big wings much better, and if im reading him right, so does rick.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by M21Sniper
                      "Once again, not by actual use. Those laser designated rounds only hit around 60% in Desert Storm. And you can't use them when its dusty, smokey and rain messes them up also."

                      I'll take my chances. The low altitude capable Paveway III is a tremendously accurate weapons system and is a proven combat performer.

                      I like my big wings much better, and if im reading him right, so does rick.
                      What's the accuracy rate of the JDAMs out of curiousity?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        5 meters. LGBs when they work right are capable of impacting the EXACT spot lazed. Typically though, LGB accuracy is a about 2-3 meters.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
                          What's the accuracy rate of the JDAMs out of curiousity?

                          JDAM PIP has a CEP of 3 meters. So 50% of all rounds will drop within 1.5 meters of the aim point.

                          Prior to that JDAM had 13 meter CEP with GPS/INS and 30 Meters Ins only.

                          The kit can be put on anything from 500lb to 2000 lb bombs.

                          Paveway 2 has a 10 - 20 meter CEP. Depending on profile used. It is normally not be used in low altitude drops because it falls way short.

                          Can be used on 500-2000 lb bombs. And cannot be used in heavy rain or dust, smoke.

                          Paveway III solved that by incorporating a GPS guidance system. P3 has a 3 meter CEP. It is only available in a 2 thou lb bomb kit. The GPS system allows it to be used all weather.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X