Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

Thread: Current Events and F-22 production

  1. #46
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,006
    Quote Originally Posted by surfgun View Post
    The Air Force should have reached out to get Super (or King) Stallions to ferry them out of the area.
    Up until Tuesday afternoon it was Michael was forcast to be a cat2 or possibly a weak cat 3. And the forcast track was to the east. By the time we found out she was going to be a strong 4. It was to late to move anything
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  2. #47
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,787
    GG, good to hear from you. Hope all is well.

  3. #48
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,006
    Quote Originally Posted by surfgun View Post
    GG, good to hear from you. Hope all is well.
    Thanks. Still no power. Min damage to house. But I have coffee

    Cell service is spotty. Will bring everyone up to date when I get power back. Suppose to be around thanksgiving
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 22 Oct 18, at 00:07.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  4. #49
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,918
    Hang in there Gunny!

    I read an interesting article over tje weekend...sorry, can't link.

    It's actually that the OR Rate for the F-22 is around 55%...i.e., for every 10 aircraft, 5.5 are operational. The article I read was that through a herculean effort by the maintenance squadron almost 69% of aircraft flew out.

    The base commander had to make the tough decision of what was the best he could do and then get people and resources the Hell out of Dodge ahead of the storm.

    It was a triage moment.

    And as Gunny said, this storm caught all flatfooted.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  5. #50
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,787

  6. #51
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,006
    Looks like the F-22s won't be coming back to Tyndall. But we may get F-35s in 2023. If the USAF gets all the supplimental funding they need between now and then. And they don't change their minds.

    Looks like until then they will bring people in for exercises. Keep running the Air Battle managers course, and let Eglin use the F-22 simulators.

    Personally, I see what happened to Homestead happen to Tyndall. Homestead went from a large active base to a small reserve base. From a local news report, close to 50% of the buildings still standing cannot be repaired

    https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Disp...-needed-to-bu/

    WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Following the damage to Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, caused by Hurricane Michael, the Air Force is recommending that Congress use supplemental funding for rebuilding the base to prepare to receive the F-35 Lighenting II fighter at the north Florida installation.

    The Air Force has done a preliminary evaluation to confirm Tyndall AFB can accommodate up to three F-35 squadrons. The operational F-22 Raptors formerly at Tyndall AFB can also be accommodated at other operational bases increasing squadron size from 21 to 24 assigned aircraft.

    If this decision is approved and supplemental funds to rebuild the base are appropriated, F-35s could be based at Tyndall AFB beginning in 2023. Basing already announced in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Texas, Utah,
    Vermont, and Wisconsin will not be affected by this decision.

    "We have recommended that the best path forward to increase readiness and use money wisely is to consolidate the operational F-22s formerly at Tyndall in Alaska, Hawaii and Virginia, and make the decision now to put the next three squadrons of F-35s beyond those for which we have already made decisions at Tyndall," said Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson.

    "We are talking with Congressional leaders about this plan and will need their help with the supplemental funding needed to restore the base," she added.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  7. #52
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,772
    How about the damage here to the Marine Base and beach?

    https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...cane-florence/

  8. #53
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,006
    Looks like Camp Lejeune had 31 buildings with structural/roof damage. And thats going to cost 3.6 Billion.

    Tyndall lost almost all of its buildings. No roof survived. Base Housing was totally destroyed. The hangers have to be rebuilt. they have repaired some of the roofs that had minor damage and seeing what buildings can be salvaged

    The 2 thousand people that they sent back t Tyndall are living in tents

    But they got the Commissary and AFFES back up.

    Trump wants to cut the Defense budget. These storms did a lo of damage. Lets see if they get fully funded.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  9. #54
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,043
    Mother Nature, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction...

  10. #55
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Trump wants to cut the Defense budget. These storms did a lo of damage. Lets see if they get fully funded.
    Congressional Budget Office has suggested some cost cutting.
    https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?fil...getoptions.pdf

    Congressional Budget Office floated a number of cost-cutting ideas for the US federal government including...

    Dec 17, 2018
    Flight International
    FLIGHTGLOBAL.COM

    The Congressional Budget Office floated a number of cost-cutting ideas for the US federal government including reducing the number of additional Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II purchases, retiring the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor or Rockwell B-1B Lancer bomber fleets, and deferring development of the Northrop Grumman B-21 stealth bomber.

    As part of a report titled “Options for reducing the deficit: 2019 to 2028”, the CBO outlined dozens of cuts in discretionary spending, within and outside of the Department of Defense, that could close the US government’s gap between revenue and expenditures. The agency’s analysis was in light of a federal deficit that is projected to rise to an average of 5.1% of GDP between 2022 and 2025 – losses which would drive the federal government’s debt to levels higher than what was incurred during World War II.

    The plan to cancel additional F-35 purchases between 2019 and 2028 is estimated to save the Pentagon $13 billion, according the CBO. Instead of buying the F-35, the US Air Force would purchase 510 F-16 Fighting Falcons, and the Navy and Marine Corps would purchase 394 F/A-18 Super Hornets, through 2028. Those purchases would occur on the same schedule as that currently in place for the F-35s. The services would continue to operate the 429 F-35s that have already been purchased.

    “An advantage of this option is that it would reduce the cost of replacing DoD’s older fighter aircraft while still providing new F-16s and F/A-18s with improved capabilitiesincluding modern radar, precision weapons, and digital communicationsthat would be able to defeat most of the threats that the United States is likely to face in the coming years,” the CBO says. “The F-35s that have already been purchased would augment the stealthy B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters that are currently in the force, improving the services’ ability to operate against adversaries equipped with advanced air defense systems.”

    There would be drawbacks as well, the CBO notes.

    “A disadvantage of this option is that a force composed of a mix of stealthy and non-stealthy aircraft would be less flexible against advanced enemy air defense systems. If the United States was unable to neutralise such defenses early in a conflict, then the use of F-16s and F/A-18s might be limited, effectively reducing the number of fighters that the United States would have at its disposal,” according to the agency. “Although the Marine Corps would end up with fewer STOVL fighters capable of operating from amphibious assault ships under this option, enough F-35Bs have already been purchased to fully replace the STOVL AV-8B Harriers that perform that function today.”

    However, reducing acquisitions of the F-35 would be less impactful than retiring the F-22 or B-1B, which are expensive to fly, maintain and upgrade.

    “Retiring the F-22 fleet would reduce costs by about $30 billion through 2028,” says the CBO. “That amount comprises three categories of savings: operation and maintenance (about $16 billion); upgrades and modifications (about $9 billion); and military personnel (about $5 billion).”

    Additionally, retiring the B-1B would reduce costs by about $18 billion through 2028, according to the CBO. Most of the savings would result from eliminating the costs for operation and maintenance of the B-1B fleet and the costs for the military personnel in the squadrons that would be inactivated.

    Yet, the most impactful change in USAF procurement plans might be deferring further development of the B-21 stealth bomber, which could save about $32 billion from 2020 through 2028, according to the CBO. The B-21 is expected to enter service in the mid- to late-2020s.

    One benefit of this approach would be that the B-21 programme could take advantage of forthcoming aerospace technologies not yet available, the CBO argues.

    “Taking advantage of future technological developments could be particularly valuable for weapon systems that are expected to be in use for several decades,” says the agency. “Even with a 10-year delay, a new bomber would still be available before today’s bombers reached the end of their service life.”

    However, the CBO notes that the USAF would be rolling the dice if it chose to delay the B-21, as by 2035, the USAF’s B-52s will be about 75 years old, its B-1Bs will be about 50 years old, and its B-2As about 40 years old. What’s more, larger numbers of stealthy bombers might be useful in operations against adversaries that employed advanced air defenses, such as China or Russia.

    “Fewer bombers would be available for operations in places like the western Pacific Ocean, where long distances and limited basing options would make long-range aircraft such as the B-21 particularly useful during a conflict,” says the CBO.
    It looks like the incoming Democrat chairman of the House Armed Services Committee wants to cut the budget for updating the nuclear triad.

    Incoming HASC Chair wants to scale back plans for new nukes

    Rep. Adam Smith laid out new terms for a debate over the Pentagon’s plans to expand the military’s nuclear arsenal.

    The incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is taking aim at the Trump administration’s plans to expand America’s nuclear arsenal.

    While Democrats will only control one chamber of Congress for the next two years, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., called for lawmakers to “totally redo the Nuclear Posture Review,” the administration’s blueprint for replacing Cold War-era nuclear weapons with newer ones envisioned to be around for a half century. Experts say these efforts could together cost more than $1 trillion.

    “We cannot afford what they are talking about,” Smith said Wednesday at a Ploughshares Fund conference in Washington. “When you look at the needs we have in national security, the needs we have in the country and the $22 trillion debt, what they’re talking about in terms of totally rebuilding a nuclear weapons capacity in all pieces of the triad is way beyond what we can afford.”

    The Pentagon — beginning during the Obama administration — began doling out billions of dollars in contracts for new stealth bombers, submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear cruise missiles, the three pieces of the so-called nuclear triad.

    “I don’t think we have a clear policy right on nuclear weapons that puts us on the right path,” Smith said.

    Among the most controversial parts of Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review: Modifying submarine-launched ballistic missiles so they would have a lower yield. Pentagon officials say this would help counter Russia’s similar low-yield nuclear weapons.

    “We will have that capability in direct response to Russia,” Vice Adm. Johnny Wolfe, director for the Navy’s strategic systems programs, said of the low-yield nuclear weapon on Nov. 8 at the Naval Submarine League Symposium in Arlington, Virginia.

    “We along with [the National Nuclear Security Administration] have been funded to go do that program,” he said. “We will, very soon, deploy a small number of low-yield … weapons that will be a direct counter to what Russia believes they’ve got today that we do not have.”

    Smith has long opposed the low-yield nuclear weapon.

    “Fundamentally, what I’m hoping we can do going forward is sort of reset our policy on nuclear weapons and how we avoid nuclear war,” Smith said Wednesday.

    “You don’t need to have thousands of [weapons], as we do,” he said. “I think we need to fundamentally rebuild our nuclear strategy and to use it as a deterrent, not as this overwhelming force.”

    Smith’s view is in stark contrast to the broad-ranging nuclear upgrade initiatives started under Obama and increased under Trump. At last week’s Naval Submarine League conference, admirals talked about the needs to build new submarine-launched nuclear missiles that would be in the military’s arsenal until the year 2084.

    “As we continue to deploy those [new Columbia-class submarines] we’re going to physically run out of Trident D5 missiles,” Wolfe said.

    The Navy will begin “trade studies” in 2020 “to determine what does that next D5 look like,” the admiral said.

    “We have to go build more missiles to be able to continue to support the Columbia after her initial load out,” he said.

    Rear Adm. John Tammen, director of the undersea warfare division of office of the Chief of Naval Operations, at the same Submarine League conference called for restricting public access to information in budget documents.

    “We have to stop telegraphing our budgets,” Tammen said. “I took a couple of slides out of my brief because I do think they provide a little too much telegraphing. We do need to maintain that edge and one way of doing that is not to tell the adversaries what we’re doing.”

    The Trump administration officials said last month that the U.S. intends to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, which the U.S. says Moscow is violating.

    “We need more multilateralism,” Smith said. “We should work with China and Russia to redo an INF treaty. We should certainly make sure that we maintain New Start.”

    While Smith will have influence in his new seat as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he acknowledged this major changes to nuclear policy are unlikely with Republicans controlling the Senate, and more importantly, the White House.

    “We could pass whatever legislation we want to pass, executive power is enormous,” Smith said. “That’s why it matters so much who has that job.”
    .
    .
    .

  11. #56
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,043
    I really don't see the US cuting it's only stealth air-superiority fighter out, even if it has such a small number. The B-1B. otoh... specially with the increased rumours a major B-52 upgrade.

  12. #57
    Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    I really don't see the US cuting it's only stealth air-superiority fighter out, even if it has such a small number. The B-1B. otoh... specially with the increased rumours a major B-52 upgrade.
    I've only read this stuff. The F-22 while possessing great performance numbers. It lacks the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System or any helmet sight. F-15,16,18 all have it, even the A-10 has a Scorpion Helmet Mounted Display. A real handicap is it lack of two-way Link 16 NATO standard data-link. Where F-15/16/18 are sharing data the F-22 is deaf. They are few in number and have a low availibility rate. It's production was stopped for some these reasons.

    The B-1 can deliver just about any weapon that a US bomber can carry. The B-1 was planned to be retired after the B-2. I know it's a standoff weapon, but they were shooting down B-52's in Vietnam.

  13. #58
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazed View Post
    The B-1 was planned to be retired after the B-2. I know it's a standoff weapon, but they were shooting down B-52's in Vietnam.
    From what I understand the USAF's plan is for the B-21 to go into production in the mid 2020s, the B-2 fleet will retired by 2032, then the B-1 would be retired shortly afterwards by 2036. The retirements of two bomber types are supposed to allow for at least 100 B-21s to be acquired, and pay for major upgrades to the B-52 fleet such as new engines, AESA, jamming suite, etc. Overall the heavy bomber fleet under the plan would grow from 157 to 175 aircraft and stabilize around a high-low mix of two types instead of four.

    I wouldn't be shocked to see the F-22s retired early since they are a small silver bullet fleet much like the B-2, but I wouldn't expect that to happen until PCA starts to take the field.

  14. #59
    Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    446
    Isn't Tyndall is the only place USAF can shoot a target QF? That is they have the range and equipment for it. Every ANG/USAF pilot I know that has downed a QF-16 did so at Tyndall.

  15. #60
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazed View Post
    Isn't Tyndall is the only place USAF can shoot a target QF? That is they have the range and equipment for it. Every ANG/USAF pilot I know that has downed a QF-16 did so at Tyndall.
    QF-4s and QF-106s operated out of Holloman AFB

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. alternate events in Afganistan
    By wellman in forum What-if discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 14 Jun 13,, 12:29
  2. World Events
    By rickusn in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 30 Sep 07,, 05:51

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •