Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
With or without the Phoenix, an F-14D Super Tomcat could kill any Hornet with its superior speed and AN/ALQ-126 jamming. Against an F-15 and without the Phoenix, I'd say it all boils down to pilot skill and experience. But with the AIM-54C, its just superior to the F-15 as well, hands down.
In other words, if you get on the wrong side of a Tomcat pilot with an AIM-54C, you're doomed!
You dumbass phoenix is not as maneuverable a missile as the amraam, if you can dodge them and come into range with Amraams the tomacat is doomed. Range doesn't mean everything (you never learn).
141 aircraft for training, attrition, depot level maintenance and T&E.
For a factor of approx. .6. 240 x .6=144
At one time the factor was .92.
The USN has only brought the factor down to aboy .85 for the F/A 18E/F.
.6 was slated for both the F-22A and the F-35.
The USN/USMC has already raised that factor to .8.
THE USAF with 126 x .6 requires 76 for a total of 202 but only 183 are being built and it was only 179 before the USAF decided to use upgrade funds to buy four more!!!
If we stopped the program now at 107 it would be difficult to maintain three 24 plane(four 18plane) squadrons because that requires about 115 aircraft using a .6 factor.
The USAF is also stating that each squadron will contain 2 attrition aircraft.
So Langley is slated for 78 aircraft plus the 30(including one static trainer) training aircraft at Tyndall brings us to 108.
Once again that means all the T&E aircraft plus the static trainer would have to somehow be brought up to combat standards.
Im not even sure if all of these pre-production aircraft can be. Or at what cost or how long it would take.
"Moseley told reporters after the press conference that the F-22’s cost will go up, but he thinks the flyaway price of the aircraft can be held under $150 million a copy. It is now about $130 million a copy.
With 183 aircraft, Moseley said he can “field seven squadrons.” With them, “we can get at the theater tasking and we can respond to that tasking.” He added that the seven squadrons are “full-up, combat-coded” aircraft and don’t include training units.
However, it would take changes in the size of squadrons to get seven combat-coded units out of the 183 aircraft. At 24 airplanes each, seven squadrons would add up to 168 aircraft, leaving just 15 in training, test, and servicing. The Air Force has been touting 60 as the minimum number of aircraft needed to conduct training with the Raptor. Moseley did not speak to the discrepancy."
I know I read of the plan to reduce the squadrons to 18 aircraft but Ill be damned where I put a copy of it.
Seven Squadrons
In a separate Orlando press conference, Wynne and Moseley were asked whether the Air Force’s long-held insistence that 381 F-22s are needed is still in force, albeit as an unfunded mandate, or whether 183—the new, budget-decided number—is a strategy-derived fleet size.
Moseley said that the 183 figure is “adequate” to meet USAF’s needs, when viewed in the context of other systems such as legacy fighters, the new F-35, existing bombers, and the future long-range strike platform. The Air Force would like to get the 184th F-22 and beyond, he said, but allowed that “we are not planning on it.”
The Air Force will be able to squeeze seven deployable squadrons out of the 183 F-22s it now plans to buy, Moseley said, but at a level of 18 aircraft per squadron, rather than the 24 normally associated with an Air Force fighter squadron. In its old plan, the Air Force said it needed at least 10 squadrons—one for each of its 10 Air and Space Expeditionary Forces—containing 24 combat-coded F-22s. Moreover, it needed another complement of F-22s for test, training, maintenance pipeline, and attrition reserve. That brought the total to 381, which was for years held out as the miniumum number needed.
I found this but it makes little sense. The only thing that makes sense to me is 280-90 aircraft which would allow ten 18 plane combat squadrons with enough appropriate airframes to support a ten combat squadron force structure.
And is a good compromise between 180 and 380.
Analyst: Independent U.S. study calls for more F-22s
BY: Andrea Shalal-Esa, Reuters News Service
04/25/2006
WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) - A study that was to help cut the size of the U.S. fighter jet fleet instead concluded that the U.S. military needs at least 40 more Lockheed Martin Corp. F-22 fighter jets, defense analyst Loren Thompson said on Monday.
Defense Secretary Gordon England last August commissioned the Virginia-based consulting group Whitney, Bradley & Brown to identify ways to trim the number of tactical aircraft operated by the various military services.
As Navy Secretary, England commissioned a similar study by the same firm, which led to a merger of the aviation commands of the Navy and Marine Corps, and cut more than 400 aircraft from the Navy's purchase of Lockheed Joint Strike Fighters.
Thompson, chief operating officer of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, said senior government officials and industry executives told him the new study recommended between 220 and 260 radar-evading F-22 "Raptors." That is above the 183 aircraft now planned in the Pentagon's budget.
Each F-22 costs about $130 million, not including billions of dollars spent on research and development since the program's inception in 1986.
Neither England's office nor Whitney, Bradley & Brown had any immediate comment on the study. The consulting firm's report has not been made public.
News of the report came as the Air Force confirmed that technicians had to use a chainsaw to cut a pilot out of his F-22 at Langley Air Force Base on April 10, after its canopy jammed shut and trapped him inside for five hours.
Maj. Jack Miller called the incident "an anomaly" and said nothing similar had occurred before or after the incident.
He said it would cost $182,000 to replace the canopy, and officials were investigating "how it happened, why it happened and how we can prevent it from happening again."
SURPRISING RECOMMENDATION
The number of F-22s recommended by the new study is still well below the
381 the Air Force says it needs to fight future wars, but above the 183 aircraft that it says it can pay for.
"The reason for going to outside consultants was to eliminate service bias, but in this case, it has produced the surprising result of calling for more F-22 fighters rather than the 183 number the Air Force agreed to" during the last round of budget cuts, Thompson said.
He noted that 260 was the maximum production run that would have been feasible under congressional cost caps.
Christopher Bolkcom, defense analyst with the Congressional Research Service, said he has not seen the new study but it raised questions about how to pay for the extra fighter jets.
"If true, this recommendation is a good news/bad news story for the Air Force. An independent group agrees with them that 183 airplanes are not enough, but at the same time, it disputes the Air Force's requirement for 381," Bolkcom said.
The F-22 joined the U.S. combat fleet last December. It was developed during the Cold War to replace the F-15 as the top U.S. air superiority fighter, but the Pentagon has added air-to-ground attack capability over the past few years.
The Air Force is planning to stretch F-22 production until 2010 to keep Lockheed's production line open pending arrival of its more affordable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter family of aircraft that will also go to the Navy, the Marines and co-developing nations that include Britain, Italy and Turkey.
I think the whole comparison of the F14 versus whatever multirole fighter is somewhat pointless. The F14 was a purposely designed interceptor/fleet defender. The F18/F35 are multirole figthers adapted to the role of the F14, therefore its unlikely they'll be able to perform as well except on a operational cost basis.
I think if the U.S is planning to go the multirole fighter route for its entire navy then they'll need to invest in longer range A2A weaponary. The U.S needs a 150km+ A2A weapon anyway.
Actually the Super Hornet with the upgrades (which includes more powerful engines in the future which might convert into Mach 2+ speeds) will be as good if not better than the F-14 if it is equipped with a long-range variant of the AMRAAM that the US military is supposedly testing (not sure). Its combination of JHMC/AIM-9X, AIM-79 AESA, more powerful engines, and a long-range variant of the AMRAAM should do a lot into making it true successor to the F-14 Tomcat (though it will likely never outperform the F-14 in pure performance).
Actually the Super Hornet with the upgrades (which includes more powerful engines in the future which might convert into Mach 2+ speeds) will be as good if not better than the F-14 if it is equipped with a long-range variant of the AMRAAM that the US military is supposedly testing (not sure). Its combination of JHMC/AIM-9X, AIM-79 AESA, more powerful engines, and a long-range variant of the AMRAAM should do a lot into making it true successor to the F-14 Tomcat (though it will likely never outperform the F-14 in pure performance).
Keep in mind if the F14 was still in service it would be getting upgrades as well.
I think the whole comparison of the F14 versus whatever multirole fighter is somewhat pointless. The F14 was a purposely designed interceptor/fleet defender. The F18/F35 are multirole figthers adapted to the role of the F14, therefore its unlikely they'll be able to perform as well except on a operational cost basis.
I think if the U.S is planning to go the multirole fighter route for its entire navy then they'll need to invest in longer range A2A weaponary. The U.S needs a 150km+ A2A weapon anyway.
The AIM 120D has a 150 km, its under testing right now. Hope it comes out soon.
The AIM 120D has a 150 km, its under testing right now. Hope it comes out soon.
Actually its over 165 km from what I heard, so that put it in the same class as the Phoenix (though it will still be shorter range obviously, falling short maybe 15-20 km).
Comment