USAF of the 21st century

[gf0012-aust]

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.

so if its precision decapitation why isn't the JSF going to be able to do the job - after all its primary role in the USAF is strike - whereas in other airforces it will be air supremacy and strike. Considering that the software sets on the JSF are a later generation, that it is designed for strike - why would it be less capable?

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.

SEAD and DEAD has been done by PGM's and standoff - why would you commit an air supremacy fighter to that role when for the same frame price you could launch 150+ tomahawks? In every recent event the bulk of the SEAD and hence DEAD has been done by PGM's with F-117's carrying out roles that the PGM's were unable to delivered to. Considering that the F-117 is already considered to be AMARC ready - and that the JSF and F-22 both have superior stealth characteristics - then I can't see how JSF is "less capable"

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.

and JSF can carry air to air as well - are there 8-9 other airforces buying JSF without an air defence capability - I don't think so. so whats your point? (apart from selective disection to promote the F-22 over the JSF for everything from killing SAM sites to pouring milk). So, do you use the air supremacy fighter in preference over the strike platform to conduct strike missions? (and lets assume that they're both available for the mission set)

You know as well as i do that the F-22 will be certified to carry bombs by the time the JSF arrives.

Nimrods are certified for AAM - that doesn't make them fighters.

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.

Of course load out is relevant - its a fundamental requirement of mission planning and logistics. Logistics dominates how you win wars - not the toys.

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.

So now you're suggesting that supercruise is better for lobbing inert ordinance at a target? How the heck can lobbing within 50 miles of a SAM target or EW shack be more effective than launching a PGM at a greater standoff range and where the plane and pilot are no longer loss factors. (and for 1/90th the cost at far greater range)

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.

no - they were always primarily air dominance - hence the ref to Hi-Lo structures. Do you seriously think that if the F-22 was the sole weapon of choice to do all the magical things that you suggest that there would even be a JSF. and please don't trot out commercial conspiracy theories.

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.

JDAMs were successfully trialled on a moving vehicle at convoy speeds from 50 miles and successfully destroyed the vehicle - that was 18 months ago. If it can carry JDAM's - and if its talking to the right GTMI assets - then it can probably kill it. The issue is platform relevance - as the capability has already been tested.

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.

You're disproving it yourself. and don't give me the rubbish about what can and can't be said on the internet as I'm well aware of the rules. I'm still cleared to a "Protected" level - so I know what can and can't be said.
When you make claims about the F-22 and JSF that one of my very senior sources on the F-22 project doesn't - then I have a doubt as to where your info is coming from. 90% of what he tells me doesn't hit here - and he's far from being as bold in making capability claims - he certainly recognises that F-22 is not the primary choice for some missions over the JSF.

Keywords to remember: Mission requirements - Platform relevance.

 

[rjmaz1]

GF you keep insisting that the JSF can "do the job" i never once said that it couldn't do its job, the JSF will be hard to contest in most missions.

However this also applies to the F-22.

I use a logical break down of numbers to compare the aircraft, bare with me.

In my opinion once both aircraft are operational and both have ground attack cababilities we can then analyse the F-22 and JSF in regards to sortie rate, aircraft price and capability. The F-22 can fly a much higher sortie rate (~50%) due to its speed which makes up for the lesser number of aircraft due to its ticket price (~50%). For arguments sake we will call it a 50:50 match up to this point. Sure there are heaps of other things like maintenance etc but dont nit pick :

So now we can compare the aircraft on capability alone, assuming that both aircraft have ground attack capabilities as they should have in 5 years. The F-22 and JSF will be able to strike pretty much all the same targets as eachother from a weapons and avionics points of view (in stealthy config).

The radar and speed advantage gives the F-22 the egde over the majority of missions from air to strike. The JSF being slower has longer endurance so the only mission this is an advantage is close air support, or escorting slower aircraft.

The JSF has a few extra networking and weapons guidance functions however its highly likely that these features are added to the F-22.

he certainly recognises that F-22 is not the primary choice for some missions over the JSF.

I bet he also recognises that the JSF is not the primary choice for some missions over the F-22 as well. If enough F-22 aircraft were available i bet it would be the primary choice for more missions than the JSF.

You make such a well constructed argument, if you were in the room when Carlo Kopp was trying to praise the F-22 you would have shot him down and had everyone on your side

 

[gf0012-aust]

if you were in the room when Carlo Kopp was trying to praise the F-22 you would have shot him down and had everyone on your side

My primary message is not that the JSF or F-22 can supplant each other. They are complimentary assets within (for the USAF) a very coherent and complimentary response and force structure.

Both aircraft have specific roles that the other was not touted or designed to do. They are primary platforms for different requirements.

I'm not even trying to argue against what Dr Kopp (or anyone else believes) - I'm just not convinced at a personal level at some of the arguments presented that dismiss one platform in toto over the other.

I find it really hard to enthusiastically accept some of the F-22/JSF arguments when I know that there are very few in Australia cleared for real information - and certainly no one who presented arguments in front of the recent Committee had current and relevant clearances. That might get some excited when they think that they can make more qualified conclusions with less access to the right data - but so be it.

The USAF has a force mix of F-22 and eventually JSF for a reason. Other airforces (except for the Japanese and RAF) don't have the financial and logistical mass to support disparate capability in volume to the same scale. Someone has to pay for capability - and someone has to get the balance right so that it doesn't neutralise the rest of the national ability to wage and prosecute the military will of the govt across all 3 force levels.

If we could get F-22's without financially jeopardising the rest of the national military capability across all 3 services - then I'd be as happy as larry. I just don't see it happening. A platform capability that is predominately about air supremacy when Aust has responsibility for 1/9th of the Worlds major oceans, where 98% of our trade comes by sea - where our immediate threats have to reach out and touch us and are thus at a greater logistical disadvantage seems a somewhat over-leveraged dependance on a platform skillset that has other capability priorities.

To be blunt, I'd rather see more ASW/Orions, AWACs and AAR in the mix.

 

[alexsa]

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?

Out of curiosity, what about the B1-B Lancer? The USAF is upgrading the radars on the operational birds and don't appear to be in a hurry to get rid of them.

Secondly F-22 ground attack? not in its current form. Similalry the term 'light fighter' appears inappropriate for the F-35 given its size and intended ISR role.

 

[rjmaz1]

To be blunt, I'd rather see more ASW/Orions, AWACs and AAR in the mix.

Definitely agree there however..

You should ask your contact in the F-22 program to truthfully tell you just how high and fast the F-22 can really fly. We're talking Mig-31 territory here.

There are alot of capabilities that have not revealed to the public, but have been leaked. Reconnaissance is the big one.

Once your above 60,000ft the radar horizon of the APG-77 is huge! The search and tracking capabilities that it could provide Australia is well beyond most peoples expectations. It would reduce the need for more AWACs considerably.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You should ask your contact in the F-22 program to truthfully tell you just how high and fast the F-22 can really fly. We're talking Mig-31 territory here.

He only tells me what its appropriate to say. I do have a high degree of confidence in what he tells me already. Again, the stuff in the public domain has little in common with actual data - even the so called "leaks".

There are alot of capabilities that have not revealed to the public, but have been leaked.

and a lot of the leaks are also rubbish as well as enthusiastic speculation. I haven't seen any leak which has been qualified from within the program.

Reconnaissance is the big one.

I'm aware of its capabilities

Once your above 60,000ft the radar horizon of the APG-77 is huge! The search and tracking capabilities that it could provide Australia is well beyond most peoples expectations. It would reduce the need for more AWACs considerably.

Its a bonus - but F-22's don't have organic range and hence persistence depth like that of an AWACs - and the APG-77 certainly does not have the same depth of capability as an AWACs. The inference is that the sensor capability of the F-22 is something discrete and that it can't be migrated to something like the JSF. Considering the pace and scale of sensor system development in the last 3 years - then one doesn't need to speculate at how different sensor systems will be in 2012 on a platform where broader integration is possible.

 

[Magoo]

You should ask your contact in the F-22 program to truthfully tell you just how high and fast the F-22 can really fly. We're talking Mig-31 territory here.

Very true - when I flew the simulator in December (which I was assured was, although cleansed for my unclassified rating, representative), I saw FL550 and climbing @ Mach 1.8 without reheat, and lobbed JDAMs and AMRAAMs distances far in excess of their nominal ranges.

There are alot of capabilities that have not revealed to the public, but have been leaked. Reconnaissance is the big one.

Once your above 60,000ft the radar horizon of the APG-77 is huge! The search and tracking capabilities that it could provide Australia is well beyond most peoples expectations. It would reduce the need for more AWACs considerably.

While this is also true, where the F-22 falls down against AEW&C, and indeed against JSF and even Super Hornet to an extent, is that it does not yet employ a two-way datalink. It can receive data from an off-platform sensor (i.e. AEW&C, B-2, SPECOPS, AEGIS, JSTARS etc), but cannot yet send it in a voiceless format. There is a development of the APG-77 to allow this, although it's currently unfunded and is sitting on a shelf for now.

Magoo

 

[Occum]

Hi, Larry

If we could get F-22's without financially jeopardising the rest of the national military capability across all 3 services - then I'd be as happy as larry.

A simplified, somewhat crude but conservative look at the cost/budgetary data and the costing models that I have been privy to provides the following:

1. NACC/Air 6000 Project Budget (refer Defence Capability Plans published in 2001, 2004, 2006 and Defence Annual Reports 2001 to 2005) = A$11,500 million to A$15,500 million (2004 dollars),

minus

2. Cost of 55 x F-22A systems @ US$116 million average unit procurement cost (Then Year - 2008 dollars) = US$6,380 million. At a risk hedged exchange rate of 0.7000, this equates to A$9,115 million

plus

3. Saving from not doing remaining F/A-18 HUG Phases, R3+ Deeper Level Maintenance, Repaint, Kapton Wiring Replacement, Fuel Tanks, etc = A$2,700 million (2004 dollars) - Note: This figure does not include the increases made or flagged in DCP 2006-2016 nor further cost increases in HUG Phases 2.3, 2.4 and 3.2

plus

4. Saving in total operating and maintenance expenditure (not including 3. above) from not operating F/A-18s out to 2015+ = A$4,500 million (2004 Dollars)

minus

5. Total operating expenditure of F-111s out to 2020 (based on highest of the RAAF's figures provided in the Air Combat Capability Paper dated 03 June 2004 tabled to the Australian Parliament by AM Angus Houston) = A$3,500 million (2004 dollars)

Net Result = better than A$6 Bn to A$10 Bn savings in 2004 dollars.


Are you now happy?

 

[rjmaz1]

Occum well done at working out the price. Doesn't seem so out of reach after all. Based on those figures we could even purchase more than 55 F-22's. However personally i think 55 is more than enough as its quality not quantity. That way more money could be put towards inflight refueling as we will need new tankers anyway as the F-22 uses different inflight refueling.

and lobbed JDAMs and AMRAAMs distances far in excess of their nominal ranges.

I've heard that the longest distance a SDB has been thrown on the simulator is over 60miles. Thats absolutely sensational in my books, as the aircraft could drop half a dozen of them at once and hit 6 different targets and by the time the bombs hit the F-22 has already disappeared.

I didn't think about the AMRAAM range extension however this would put

The only thing severing limiting the F-22's speed is the intakes not being variable as the stealth would be compromised. So with reheat the speed top speed doesn't increase by that much, so reheat is mainly used for acceleration only and boy does it accelerate!!

I find it cool just the fact that within 30 seconds of leaving the ground the F-22 breaks the sound barrier and the entire mission is performed supersonic.

While this is also true, where the F-22 falls down against AEW&C, and indeed against JSF and even Super Hornet to an extent, is that it does not yet employ a two-way datalink.

Very true however its nearly certain that a two-way datalink will be added down the track, when though is anyones guess. If Australia orders F-22's at the end of the production run this feature might already be in the process of being added.

Even without the datalink the F-22 once it detects a target at long range, unlike a conventional AWAC that then has to send fighter to intercept, the F-22 would intercept the enemy itself. So really all u'd need is two of three F-22 in the air at any given moment for complete protection of the northern border.

 

[Whiskyjack]

A simplified, somewhat crude but conservative look at the cost/budgetary data and the costing models that I have been privy to provides the following:

1. NACC/Air 6000 Project Budget (refer Defence Capability Plans published in 2001, 2004, 2006 and Defence Annual Reports 2001 to 2005) = A$11,500 million to A$15,500 million (2004 dollars),

minus

2. Cost of 55 x F-22A systems @ US$116 million average unit procurement cost (Then Year - 2008 dollars) = US$6,380 million. At a risk hedged exchange rate of 0.7000, this equates to A$9,115 million

plus

3. Saving from not doing remaining F/A-18 HUG Phases, R3+ Deeper Level Maintenance, Repaint, Kapton Wiring Replacement, Fuel Tanks, etc = A$2,700 million (2004 dollars) - Note: This figure does not include the increases made or flagged in DCP 2006-2016 nor further cost increases in HUG Phases 2.3, 2.4 and 3.2

plus

4. Saving in total operating and maintenance expenditure (not including 3. above) from not operating F/A-18s out to 2015+ = A$4,500 million (2004 Dollars)

minus

5. Total operating expenditure of F-111s out to 2020 (based on highest of the RAAF's figures provided in the Air Combat Capability Paper dated 03 June 2004 tabled to the Australian Parliament by AM Angus Houston) = A$3,500 million (2004 dollars)

Net Result = better than A$6 Bn to A$10 Bn savings in 2004 dollars.


Are you now happy?

I can't see any cost added for training and logistics etc. I would think (not an expert by any means) that 30%-50% would be added into the overall cost going by other programmes.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Occum]

Comparing Apples to Apples

I can't see any cost added for training and logistics etc. I would think (not an expert by any means) that 30%-50% would be added into the overall cost going by other programmes. Without the correct infrastructure, it would be difficult to achieve the specified target of a 30% reduction in the life cycle costs of the F-22 aircraft on that of the legacy platform (ie. F-15). This reduction was demonstrated in IOT&E to be well on track. A similar situation in relation to infrastructure will apply for the JSF though, for the US, the cost will be somewhat masked by the fact that the F-22 Program will have already resulted in some of the infrastructure for the JSF being in place with some economy of scale being achieved due to the 'learned out' costs for such infrastructure.

What are your thoughts on this?

Hi WhiskyJack,

In (2), the unit procurement cost (UPC) includes GSE/GTE, training, initial spares, tech data, govt charges, etc - that required to get the capability operational. What is not included in this figure is in country infrastructure and project office costs. Someone more knowledgable than I could put these in to the mix.

The other figures are drawn from the total operating expenditure column of the department's financials and reports provided to the Parliament that also refer to these figures as 'total operating expenditures'.

Hope this helps.

 

[Davyd]

It's kinda hard to compare weapon load outs and performance issues for a plane that has yet to even first fly in its' finalized guise. I mean, seriously. Where has a good illustration even been seen yet that shows what the weapon placement on the X-35?

That being said, weapon load outs would have to be comparable to an A-10 at least - remember, it wasn't solely built to replace the -10, but the -16 and -18 as well. Which in true US military parlance means, 'replace and augment'. And since it is slated to 'replace' the -10s and -16s, it will be the -35s that WILL have the SEAD/DEAD role, not -22s. I wonder how much the final version will be cleared to fly with....? I also wonder how cost effective it will be for the USN to buy EA-18s to replace EA-6s when the SEAD/DEAD versions the USAF will have should be able to also do the job effectively?

And its weight issue is related to what variant it is, anyway. The CTOL version is quite a bit lighter than the VTOL version.

I also think it highly dubious that the KC-135 will last much longer. I believe what scares the USAF more than anything about replacing just the tanker variants is the logistical nightmares it would have in more than likely replacing ALL the -135 variants since the tanker is the most abundant in the inventory. OCs, ECs, RCs... These might all get the replacement axe.

 

[brad_arsenxpt]

It's kinda hard to compare weapon load outs and performance issues for a plane that has yet to even first fly in its' finalized guise. I mean, seriously. Where has a good illustration even been seen yet that shows what the weapon placement on the X-35?

That being said, weapon load outs would have to be comparable to an A-10 at least - remember, it wasn't solely built to replace the -10, but the -16 and -18 as well. Which in true US military parlance means, 'replace and augment'. And since it is slated to 'replace' the -10s and -16s, it will be the -35s that WILL have the SEAD/DEAD role, not -22s. I wonder how much the final version will be cleared to fly with....? I also wonder how cost effective it will be for the USN to buy EA-18s to replace EA-6s when the SEAD/DEAD versions the USAF will have should be able to also do the job effectively?

And its weight issue is related to what variant it is, anyway. The CTOL version is quite a bit lighter than the VTOL version.

I also think it highly dubious that the KC-135 will last much longer. I believe what scares the USAF more than anything about replacing just the tanker variants is the logistical nightmares it would have in more than likely replacing ALL the -135 variants since the tanker is the most abundant in the inventory. OCs, ECs, RCs... These might all get the replacement axe.

They can even create some of the aircraft's which we see in hollywood movies

they can attack any country at any given time

 

[swerve]

I also wonder how cost effective it will be for the USN to buy EA-18s to replace EA-6s when the SEAD/DEAD versions the USAF will have should be able to also do the job effectively?

Yes, but the rationale of the USN SEAD/DEAD force is that it can operate off ships, so it can reach places the USAF can't. What happens if there's no USAF or other friendly base within range? SEAD/DEAD has to be done by B-2s - of which there are very few. The USN drops SEAD because the USAF can do it the day they retire their carriers.

 

[Bone-B]

Out of curiosity, what about the B1-B Lancer? The USAF is upgrading the radars on the operational birds and don't appear to be in a hurry to get rid of them.

The B-1 and the B-52 aren't going anywhere anytime soon. There are still upgrades coming in for the both of them. The B-1 has been testing the Sniper targeting pod for sometime now I believe.

 

[Occum]

The B-1 and the B-52 aren't going anywhere anytime soon. There are still upgrades coming in for the both of them. The B-1 has been testing the Sniper targeting pod for sometime now I believe.

Planning for this situation started back in 1999 and has been further consolidated by each of the QDRs since that time.

See what is euphemistically referred to as 'The Bomber Road Map' for where this all began -

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/bmap99.pdf


:coffee