USAF of the 21st century

[sunjerem]

Okay. The USAF of the 21st century will comprise the following:

F-22A Raptor heavy fighter for the fighter role and the ground attack (including CAS) role

F-35A "name to be chosen soon" as a light fighter and attack plane to complement the F-22A

B-2 Spirit bomber for the bomber role

E-8 JSTARS for the AWAC role

C-17 GlobeMaster for the transport role

KC-135 StratoTanker for the aerial tanker role


What about a dedicated SEAD plane? The EA-18G Growler is for the Navy. So, what the the air force have for its new SEAD plane to replace EF-111 Raven?

And, what will replace A-10 Thunderbolt for the dedicated ground attack role, or will the Army's AH-64D Longbow Apache take on this role completely?

 

[Occum]

And, what will replace A-10 Thunderbolt for the dedicated ground attack role, or will the Army's AH-64D Longbow Apache take on this role completely?

The Warthog is currently scheduled to fly through to 2030+ with a spiral development program underway to upgrade to A-10C configuration with MIL 1760 for J series weapons, new digital cockpit with HOTAS, EOTS pod capabilities, new low level TA computing and twice the power generation capability. New wings are in the mill for the variants with the earlier wing design.

Question: Given the endurance and weapons load of the HAWG, how many JSFs will be are required to replace the A-10C for the CAS/BAI mission?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Question: Given the endurance and weapons load of the HAWG, how many JSFs will be are required to replace the A-10C for the CAS/BAI mission?

what percentile of missions are likely to stretch those A-10's beyond the 2030 parking date?

the USAF already knows that F-16's and F-18's don't do parallel or equivalent CAS/BAI roles "properly" - hence the A-10 SLEP.

Isn't it a question of what platform will be deployed circa 2025-2030 for CAS/BAI? I'd suggest that UCAV's and TUAV's are already tagged for that role in that timeframe.

 

[Occum]

Dear GF,

The phrase 'percentile of missions' sounds impressive but is not a term with which I am familiar.
If my post caused you to infer that 2030 was, as you say, 'the 2030 parking date', then I apologise. My understanding of the HAWG airframe and related fatigue life is that with the re-wing program, the life could be well beyond 2030, even with quite high utilisation. Since battle damage tolerance and battlefield survivability were key requirements in the design, this not so little muther is built like the proverbial brick out house and, therefore, was designed to last. Having spent some time on the aircraft, I can vouch for its robustness.

Clearly, one of the role expansions that the A-10C configuration brings to the HAWG is the persistent bombardment or 'kill-box interdiction' mission operationally trialled so successfully in Gulf War 1 and used to effect in Afghanistan and Iraq - a tactic first developed here by Peter Criss and his team up at Amberley in the late 1980's and taken back to the US by a USAF Exchange Officer.

Though I would not call it a SLEP, the spiral development program on the A-10 has been some time coming and is in recognition, firstly, of the demonstrated capabilities and performance of the HAWG and, secondly, the cost effectiveness of such spiral development and technology insertion programs on platforms that have proven themselves. The A-10C update is being done for around US$300 million on some 265+ aircraft.

Since the experts can't agree on when the AI and related computer technologies will likely be available, I think your suggestion is somewhat premature. Besides, not sure how the ground folks would feel about having unmanned vehicles with a couple of tonne of HE flying autonomously over their heads.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Dear GF,

The phrase 'percentile of missions' sounds impressive but is not a term with which I am familiar.
If my post caused you to infer that 2030 was, as you say, 'the 2030 parking date', then I apologise. My understanding of the HAWG airframe and related fatigue life is that with the re-wing program, the life could be well beyond 2030, even with quite high utilisation. Since battle damage tolerance and battlefield survivability were key requirements in the design, this not so little muther is built like the proverbial brick out house and, therefore, was designed to last. Having spent some time on the aircraft, I can vouch for its robustness.

Clearly, one of the role expansions that the A-10C configuration brings to the HAWG is the persistent bombardment or 'kill-box interdiction' mission operationally trialled so successfully in Gulf War 1 and used to effect in Afghanistan and Iraq - a tactic first developed here by Peter Criss and his team up at Amberley in the late 1980's and taken back to the US by a USAF Exchange Officer.

Though I would not call it a SLEP, the spiral development program on the A-10 has been some time coming and is in recognition, firstly, of the demonstrated capabilities and performance of the HAWG and, secondly, the cost effectiveness of such spiral development and technology insertion programs on platforms that have proven themselves. The A-10C update is being done for around US$300 million on some 265+ aircraft.

Since the experts can't agree on when the AI and related computer technologies will likely be available, I think your suggestion is somewhat premature. Besides, not sure how the ground folks would feel about having unmanned vehicles with a couple of tonne of HE flying autonomously over their heads.

Which gets back to my prev - the JSf isn't intended to replace the A-10 - and no other platform within their availability structure is suitable either. So its been extended out to 2030.

Are you suggesting that there are suitable alternatives leading up to 2030?

As for autonomous platforms and capability - I still think we're going to have some pretty significant changes in direction by 2030. At the moment we've already seen that happen with USV's. Range has gone up by almost 800% in the last 18months - and mission options which were deemed almost "buck rogers" stuff are now being trialled. That compares dramnatically with the position that we were in circa 2003. That technology was regarded as leading edge and is now almost considered obsolete.

I'm not suggesting that aviation advances are emulating UDT advances - but there is a relationship between some aerodynamic technologies and fluid mechanical solutions. If air is bouncing along at the same rate as the UDT successes, then controlled platforms delivering precision weapons are closer rather than further. (I'm ignoring totally autonomous combat platforms dependant on AI for manouvre and battlefield behaviour)

 

[rjmaz1]

What about a dedicated SEAD plane? The EA-18G Growler is for the Navy. So, what the the air force have for its new SEAD plane to replace EF-111 Raven?

​

Now with agile stealth aircraft they will be doing the SEAD and DEAD missions.

The F-22 has demonstrated that it is more than capable of taking out Surface to air missiles better any previous aircraft.

The JSF will have all the ground attack capabilities of the F-22 as well so it will be able to take out SAM's just as easy.

Its funny how the A-10 is not being replaced by the JSF anymore. The JSF is now way too expensive for the close air support mission and first hit the plane would crash, unlike the A-10's that some have half a wing missing and still manages to land!

It seems the JSF is the jack of all trades and the master at none

The F-22 on the other hand is the master of many trades.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Now with agile stealth aircraft they will be doing the SEAD and DEAD missions.

when did air superiority fighters pick up the SEAD and DEAD role on day1->day7 events?

The F-22 has demonstrated that it is more than capable of taking out Surface to air missiles better any previous aircraft.

How, when and where?

The JSF will have all the ground attack capabilities of the F-22 as well so it will be able to take out SAM's just as easy.

actually - what ground attack capabilities does the F-22 have at the moment?

Its funny how the A-10 is not being replaced by the JSF anymore. The JSF is now way too expensive for the close air support mission and first hit the plane would crash, unlike the A-10's that some have half a wing missing and still manages to land!

Ever looked at how the A-10 does CAS and then wondered why pointy jets (eg F-22 and JSF) can't do it as well? have you read the reports from US troops where they bemoaned the fact that Hornets and Eagles could not do the jog of the A-10's. What part of the F-22/JSF flight profile makes them suitable for CAS at the level that US soldiers were bitching about? I guess what it does point out - is that the USAF listened to their embedded controllers in the ground teams.

It seems the JSF is the jack of all trades and the master at none

Again - how when and where?

The F-22 on the other hand is the master of many trades.

Again - how when and where has this been demonstrated? I know you love the F-22 and you are against the JSF - but I'd like to see where the F-22 has apparently become the anointed one and does all that you say.

Gee - I guess thats why the USAF has a Hi-Lo mix.

 

[Occum]

Which gets back to my prev - the JSf isn't intended to replace the A-10 - and no other platform within their availability structure is suitable either. So its been extended out to 2030

.

This is not what the marketing spin and the JSF afficianados up in Russell Offices (aka LM Marketing Office - Detachment 'A') keep telling people - particularly Government members. Thus my original question which still remains (though the answer is pretty easy to work out - the hints being endurance and weapons load!).

Are you suggesting that there are suitable alternatives leading up to 2030?

From where did you get this idea? Certainly nothing I have posted to this thread since I agree the USAF are doing the right thing with the HAWG.

 

[gf0012-aust]

.

From where did you get this idea? Certainly nothing I have posted to this thread since I agree the USAF are doing the right thing with the HAWG.

it was a question.

 

[abramsteve]

Might as well ask a few questions seeing as this thread seems to be the one to do it in

The KC-135, how long have they got left? Im particulary fond of them but thought they were fast approaching replacement, not sure what with though...

I heard somewhere that the B-52 was to stay in service till somewhere round the 2040 mark? Im hopeful but they would be practiacaly ancient by then... but hey, the C-47s still around!

The B-1, my favourite modern bomber, how long have they got?

Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

when did air superiority fighters pick up the SEAD and DEAD role on day1->day7 events?

Straight from the horses mouth?? - Lockheed states that it performs SEAD 3 times better than conventioanl aircarft Look at the title of this thread, it says the future doesn't it? Just because the F-22 cant do the SEAD mission in its first 12months of operation does not mean that it will not be doing it in 5 years time. Because it will be and you know that as well as i do.

actually - what ground attack capabilities does the F-22 have at the moment?

How about - Supersonic Raptor Drops First Guided Bomb???

I thought you of all people would know that the F-22 can and will be dropping bombs in its first day of combat

Ever looked at how the A-10 does CAS and then wondered why pointy jets (eg F-22 and JSF) can't do it as well? have you read the reports from US troops where they bemoaned the fact that Hornets and Eagles could not do the jog of the A-10's. What part of the F-22/JSF flight profile makes them suitable for CAS at the level that US soldiers were bitching about? I guess what it does point out - is that the USAF listened to their embedded controllers in the ground teams.

I said the JSF CANT replace the A-10. The US originally planned that the JSF would replace the A-10, which i said was funny as the aircraft is no longer replacing it as the JSF cannot physically stand up to the job. Its like getting a lawyer in a suit and tie to lay bricks for a day, not gonna happen even if the US thinks so.

Again - how when and where has this been demonstrated? I know you love the F-22 and you are against the JSF - but I'd like to see where the F-22 has apparently become the anointed one and does all that you say.

The F-22 is the MASTER of the air to air.
The F-22 is the jack of all trades in that it can do reasonably well:
SEAD/DEAD taking out sam sites.
Intercept bombers.
Drop bombs on ground targets.
Sink ships at sea.
Provide limited air support, destory tanks on the ground etc. The only reason you wont see an F-22 doing Close Air support is because of the risk of destroying a 200 million dollar aircraft. It can do it easily, just because they dont use it in that role doesn't mean it cant do it.

Now look at the JSF.
Is it the master of the air? Nope the F-22 is better.
Is it the master of long range bombing? Nope the B-2 is better
Is it the master of SEAD or DEAD? Nope the F-22 is faster and stealthier
Is it the master of Close air support? Nope the A-10 is better.

Sure the JSF can do all of these things very well, but so can the F-22 and not one of these things is it the best in the world at.

Gee - I guess thats why the USAF has a Hi-Lo mix.

Incorrect in a few years the JSF is High and the F-22 is Very High. So its a Very Hi-Hi mix, which aint good at all.

However in 20 years time the JSF will become cheaper and eventually reach the "low" level, thats providing that the expensive future upgrades are left to the F-22 so it stays in the High role.

 

[swerve]

F-35A "name to be chosen soon" as a light fighter and attack plane to complement the F-22A

Sorry, but I can't let this pass. Lots of people call the F-35 "light". It isn't. It weighs about the same as an F-4, more than an F-18A, slightly less than an F-18E, a lot more than an F-16, even the latest fat ones. However you redefine light, medium, & heavy, the F-35 isn't light.

Gripen, JF-17 & Tejas are light fighters. If the F-50 version of the Korean T-50 is built, it'll be a light fighter. Something twice as heavy as them is NOT light.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Straight from the horses mouth?? - Lockheed states that it performs SEAD 3 times better than conventioanl aircarft Look at the title of this thread, it says the future doesn't it? Just because the F-22 cant do the SEAD mission in its first 12months of operation does not mean that it will not be doing it in 5 years time. Because it will be and you know that as well as i do.

You're seriously going to quote a Lockmart press release as evidence of capability and evidence of mission role when the USAF itself has just decided to extend the life of all her heavy bombers because fighter aircraft (not matter how sexy they are on paper) can't deliver volume and mass on target? Thats as good as the rubbish that Boeing promote with the notion that the SuperHornet is a 5th Generation aircraft!

How about - Supersonic Raptor Drops First Guided Bomb???

I thought you of all people would know that the F-22 can and will be dropping bombs in its first day of combat

What? are you seriously telling me that an F-22 will enter battlespace in the opening stages and undertake the bombing missions of the Bone, B2 and B-52's? It may well be able to go in on day 1 - but in contested battlespace are you blithely sitting there telling us that the F-22 will run primary for the decapitation roles? I don't think so somehow.

I said the JSF CANT replace the A-10. The US originally planned that the JSF would replace the A-10, which i said was funny as the aircraft is no longer replacing it as the JSF cannot physically stand up to the job. Its like getting a lawyer in a suit and tie to lay bricks for a day, not gonna happen even if the US thinks so.

The JSF is not a direct replacement for the A-10 - so why the angst? Ever noticed the history of other aircraft who's primary mission role changed as they evolved. It also doesn't mean that the JSF cannot undertake some of the mission sets. What did the US army complain about? weight and rate of fire in controlled suppression rather than fast and passed with a turning radius that would cover Lichtenstein. Fast movers aren't designed for that role - geez, a helicopter gunship can undertake some of those missions better - eg the Hind. You run whats appropriate.

The F-22 is the MASTER of the air to air.
The F-22 is the jack of all trades in that it can do reasonably well:
SEAD/DEAD taking out sam sites.
Intercept bombers.
Drop bombs on ground targets.
Sink ships at sea.
Provide limited air support, destory tanks on the ground etc. The only reason you wont see an F-22 doing Close Air support is because of the risk of destroying a 200 million dollar aircraft. It can do it easily, just because they dont use it in that role doesn't mean it cant do it.

Can it? whats it been certified for to date? A Hercules can roll out a FAE and act as a bomber - hell they've been chucking cruise missiles out the back - it doesn't mean that its going to happen as part of the standard respoonse de rigeur

what anti-shipping missiles are going to be certified for the F-22? The only role its had in anti-shipping exercises is to act as a radar and sensor picket for the F-15's. If you whack a pair of anti-shipping missiles on the F-22 it will light up like a nun in a nudist colony.

Now look at the JSF.
Is it the master of the air? Nope the F-22 is better.

are you being deliberately obtuse? do you actually understand that JSF is not a day 1 air to air supremacy asset for the americans? It may well be a primary air to air asset for the other countries who don't however have the same level of force mix and compression as the USAF. Thats why their primary aircraft will be JSF. Stuff me, If I wanted the best low level bomber maybe I'd look at B1, if I wanted low vis entry then a B2 - if I wanted to drop PGM's at 40,000 feet in uncontested air-space ala Op Anaconda - then the B-52. But if you seriously believe that F-22's are good opening bombers and can deliver PGM's en-masse in pre-sanitised battlespace - then you've been suckered as much as the other others you vigorously disagree with.

Is it the master of long range bombing? Nope the B-2 is better

why would you even begin to compare load outs between a fighter sized aircraft and a bomber?

Is it the master of SEAD or DEAD? Nope the F-22 is faster and stealthier

considering that SEAD and DEAD are "in concert missions" - it means that JSF could do the job just as effectively - or are you making things up again?

Is it the master of Close air support? Nope the A-10 is better.

its not supposed to be the master of CAS! why do you think the A-10's been extended. The attached USAF controllers on missions like Op Anaconda reinforced that no pointy fighter was able to deliver approp mass on target peristently. Shornets were often able to deliver one pass before they ran out of time and fuel - it's the same for any fighter that has to operate at range and doesn't have the fuel efficiency of a Fiat Bambina.

Sure the JSF can do all of these things very well, but so can the F-22 and not one of these things is it the best in the world at.

its a strike asset for crying out loud - and outside of the USAF its probably more than competent in taking on likely threats - especially seeing that all the airforces lining up for it actually operate under a combined arms philosophy and do/will have assets such as AWACs in play.

Incorrect in a few years the JSF is High and the F-22 is Very High. So its a Very Hi-Hi mix, which aint good at all.

However in 20 years time the JSF will become cheaper and eventually reach the "low" level, thats providing that the expensive future upgrades are left to the F-22 so it stays in the High role.

and thank you for publicly demonstrating that you don't understand the principle of Hi-LO operations. Your analogy has got nothing to do with the way that they've structured their force.

btw, everyone knows my background - whats yours? you're extremely confident and talk about capability that even one of the F-22 Program Mgrs that I know of doesn't talk about - and he's on the email group of 3 of the people registered at this site.

he's far less dismissive of the JSF - but I guess you know more than him?

 

[oldsoak]

Why would anyone bother sending any mega dollar manned aircraft over enemy territory on the opening day of the war when you can drop off cruise missiles from a couple of hundred miles away ? Surely there is an arguement for knocking out what you can from a distance with loads of relatively cheap missiles before commiting very expensive assets to a thoroughly pacified airspace ? Is there a case for more money being spent on quantities of precision stand off weapons and less on mega dollar aircraft - given that you will only be operating in airspace that s either friendly or had its air defences flattened ?

cruise missiles and lancaster bombers - thats what we need ...:

 

[sunjerem]

Sorry, but I can't let this pass. Lots of people call the F-35 "light". It isn't. It weighs about the same as an F-4, more than an F-18A, slightly less than an F-18E, a lot more than an F-16, even the latest fat ones. However you redefine light, medium, & heavy, the F-35 isn't light.

Gripen, JF-17 & Tejas are light fighters. If the F-50 version of the Korean T-50 is built, it'll be a light fighter. Something twice as heavy as them is NOT light.

The words "heavy" and "light" are specific to a particular air force.

In the USAF, F-22A is classified as "heavy" and F-35A is classified as "light".

 

[Waylander]

A little bit of topic

@gf0012-aust

You use "angst". Is this the german word I think it is or does it mean something different and is only written in the same way?

 

[swerve]

The words "heavy" and "light" are specific to a particular air force.

In the USAF, F-22A is classified as "heavy" and F-35A is classified as "light".

You sure? I've not found such a classification used anywhere in any of the official stuff I've read on either F-22 or F-35.

 

[SABRE]

Sorry, but I can't let this pass. Lots of people call the F-35 "light". It isn't. It weighs about the same as an F-4, more than an F-18A, slightly less than an F-18E, a lot more than an F-16, even the latest fat ones. However you redefine light, medium, & heavy, the F-35 isn't light.

Gripen, JF-17 & Tejas are light fighters. If the F-50 version of the Korean T-50 is built, it'll be a light fighter. Something twice as heavy as them is NOT light.

The words "heavy" and "light" are specific to a particular air force.

In the USAF, F-22A is classified as "heavy" and F-35A is classified as "light".

I think by heavy & light fighter he means high-low combinition. - High Priority/Performance fighter & Low Priority/Performance fighter (as designated in some airforces). high-priority fighters include heavy air-superiotity fighters designated purely for Air to Air combat i.e F-15 & low-priority fighters include Multirole fighters i.e. F-16s.



In near futue it would be F-22 as High & JSF-35 as low.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A little bit of topic

@gf0012-aust

You use "angst". Is this the german word I think it is or does it mean something different and is only written in the same way?

angst in english is typically referring to "concern" or more or less "interesse" or "druck"

its spelt the same but has a different connotation

 

[rjmaz1]

the USAF itself has just decided to extend the life of all her heavy bombers because fighter aircraft (not matter how sexy they are on paper) can't deliver volume and mass on target?

I never suggested the F-22 or JSF will be doing heavy bombing. Not all bombing/strike missions require mass on target. The F-117 was an excellent bomber and it carried only two bombs, a JSF or F-22 can strike more ground targets than an F-117 can.

Also look at the F-15E its a fighter turned bomber/strike with a few systems upgrades.

What? are you seriously telling me that an F-22 will enter battlespace in the opening stages and undertake the bombing missions of the Bone, B2 and B-52's?

I never said that the F-22 would undertake the bombing missions of the Bone, B2 and B52 aircraft. I said that the F-22 would drop bombs in the SEAD and DEAD role, it can carry missiles and bombs at the same time.

Can it? whats it been certified for to date?

What weapons on the JSF have been certified to date?

The F-22 and JSF will both be certified to drop JDAM and SDB in the coming years. We both know that only air to air missiles are currently being carried by the F-22. You know as well as i do that the F-22 will be certified to carry bombs by the time the JSF arrives.

why would you even begin to compare load outs between a fighter sized aircraft and a bomber?

Notice how i said bombing? I never mentioned if 100 bombs or a single bomb had to be dropped. If a single bomb has to be dropped then a fighter sized aircraft CAN be compared between that of a bomber. The Fighter aircraft would most likely be the prefered option if the target is medium/short range as its more flexible. Load out is irrelevent.

considering that SEAD and DEAD are "in concert missions" - it means that JSF could do the job just as effectively - or are you making things up again?

Both aircraft would most likely be using small diameter bombs to take out ground targets. As these weapons use kinetic energy the speed of the aircraft is very important at extending the range of the bomb. The F-22's ability to cruise 50% faster than the JSF allows it to perform SEAD and DEAD better.

The main problem is that there is a severe limit on the number of F-22 and any will be used for Air dominance first. Remaining aircraft can then become multirole, if there are in aircraft left at all.

Also regarding the ship destroying functions. JDAMS and small diameter bombs will soon be able to be updated in flight with co-ordinate updates for moving targets. This feature will be added to the JSF but the F-22 may never see it as the aircraft would never be available to do that role anyway.

Instead of me having to always provide evidence to prove myself right, i think you should provide evidence that disprove me. However, most of our sources of information are not on the internet for public viewing.