USAF Plans to sell F22's to "trusted allies" very soon

[gf0012-aust]

GF -

How is it that our people don't seem to know about what is (and has been happening) with the A-10C program? This all started as a number of smaller programs some 4-5 years ago.

I'd suggest that they do. This blokes Op Area does work with RAAF - and liaison with RAAF is quite close in a number of areas. A lot of the A-10 upgrade and WIP announcements have only really been announced in the last few months or so.

Maybe you can help me out with the question on how many JSFs will be required to replace one A-10C in the CAS/BAI mission?

But, that in itself is a moving feast. Esp when you consider that the USAF is looking at "blurred and merged" competencies across the delivery spectrum. Whereas in the past an anti-tanking mission might be a combination of A-10s and rotors, they now consider that the new munitions capabilities allow them to use everything else suitably certified and railed for that weapons solution. ie, what was the sole province of fixed wing slow moving air has now been expanded across the platform group. eg B-52's have successfully trialled against moving vehicles from 50 miles. If you can kill a moving truck at 50 miles and 40,000ft a lot safer than sending in an A-10 WVR of the target - then you'd probably do it. There are however instances where using A-10's for anti-tanking circle work are better. I'm sure that if they owned the battle airspace, then an AC-130 would be a higher preferred alternative.

In short, its an issue of flexible response. As each new generation solution matures in competency, then blurr and merge and then replacement take place. To me, the fact that the USAF sees a 20+ year blur and merge window indicates a considered approach.

Thus, I think the pertinent issue is that the A-10/JSF are seen as complimentary roles out until 2028 - and the thing that will heavily influence platform relevancy is the current development in standoff/PGM weapons.

From my readings of various USAF docs, they spend a lot of the time getting frustrated with dealing with and countering the concept that its a 1 for 1 replacement - when for their needs this will not be so for at least the 20-22 years.

 

[Occum]

New Thread

start a "RAAF F-22 or JSF" thread, this doesn't belong here.

Big-E,

I think this might be too narrow. What do people think about something like -

"Australia's New Air Combat Capability Force Structure?"

Since I am but a newbie, it might be more appropriate for one of the Gurus to kick this off.

 

[Big-E]

GF -

How is it that our people don't seem to know about what is (and has been happening) with the A-10C program? This all started as a number of smaller programs some 4-5 years ago.

Maybe you can help me out with the question on how many JSFs will be required to replace one A-10C in the CAS/BAI mission?

What is all this talk of CAS and the F-22? F-22 is not going to risk being shot down by AAA to run A-10 style CAS missions. She will operate at much higher altitudes. JSF would do well to stay out of the way also. That's why god made attack helicopters.

 

[Magoo]

GF - How is it that our people don't seem to know about what is (and has been happening) with the A-10C program? This all started as a number of smaller programs some 4-5 years ago.

I've taken a few cursory glances at the A-10C, but I haven't done any in-depth reading on the subject.

Maybe you can help me out with the question on how many JSFs will be required to replace one A-10C in the CAS/BAI mission?

let's turn it around for a moment. It's day one of a high intensity war against a well-armed opponent. If you're required to perform a SEAD strike against an S-300PMU site, would you rather be flying an A-10C or an F-35A? Or, if you were coming over the beach providing CAS to the first wave of an amphib landing force, would you rather be flying an A-10C or an F-35B? I know which I'd rather be in...

The A-10 has proved its worth in low-intensity enviornments against assymetric and unconventional (not nuke) threats such as those encountered in Iraq in 1991 and again more recently, as well as in Afghanistan, and the datalinks, EO/IR pods and precision weapons it is getting will serve to enhance that worth. However, I wouldn't be sending it against an IADS such as that in place in China and, to a lesser extent, Iran.

Magoo

 

[Magoo]

Big-E,

I think this might be too narrow. What do people think about something like -

"Australia's New Air Combat Capability Force Structure?"

Since I am but a newbie, it might be more appropriate for one of the Gurus to kick this off.

Happy for you to start it Occum. You're the one with the questions, so go for it.

Magoo

 

[norinco89]

You usually buy fighter aircrafts in batches. Who can afford to buy a batch of F-22s.

most coutries air force budget does include a couple of billion dollars for F-22s.

the question is not who the US will allow to sell the raptor to but also who could actually afford such a luxery.

Whats the maintence cost of one these birds anyway.

Its a stealth fighter so i am guesing a lot.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Whats the maintence cost of one these birds anyway.

Its a stealth fighter so i am guesing a lot.

According to the same USAF colleague I quoted before - and thus unsubstantiated for the purposes of this exercise, they are achieving parity with the F-15 in a lot of typical maint profiles.

 

[Occum]

Heartily Agree

......... JSF would do well to stay out of the way also. That's why god made attack helicopters.

Can only but strongly agree with you on this one which is why I be phlumaxed by what is appearing to be more a wet notion than a well considered position that the JSF should replace the A-10C+!

Also, no reason why the A-10C could not do persistent interdiction from a far, given its endurance and weapons load. Leave the 'in the weeds' to those most comfortable in and suited to that environment.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can only but strongly agree with you on this one which is why I be phlumaxed by what is appearing to be more a wet notion than a well considered position that the JSF should replace the A-10C+!

the comment I posted from a USAF S2 (related) colleague was not only re the F-22, it was also wrt the JSF. There is no discussion about replacing the A-10 with the JSF at a mission tasking level for the foreseeable immd future - the merge will happen in 20-22 years assuming that the A-10 airframe survives and that loitering munitions take over a substantial part of the WVR strike role.

Also, no reason why the A-10C could not do persistent interdiction from a far, given its endurance and weapons load. Leave the 'in the weeds' to those most comfortable in and suited to that environment.

They can and they will - all of the strike munitions proposed for JSF will at some point be certified and railed for the A-10 as part of the A-10's own WIP.

I'm getting confused on the direction of argument here. There seems to be a belief that strike roles are in essence being limited whereas in real terms the strike role has been expanded. The issue is what platforms will and can be certified for a weapons systems more than an issue of what mission specific role a platform is primarily designed to do.

eg in the space of 9-18 months the USAF now has the potential to deploy a 400% increase in platform type to deliver similar munitions requirements. The capability to get strike munitions on target has thus expanded and more importantly won't diminish due to the loss of one particular platform type.

 

[Big-E]

I've taken a few cursory glances at the A-10C, but I haven't done any in-depth reading on the subject.



let's turn it around for a moment. It's day one of a high intensity war against a well-armed opponent. If you're required to perform a SEAD strike against an S-300PMU site, would you rather be flying an A-10C or an F-35A? Or, if you were coming over the beach providing CAS to the first wave of an amphib landing force, would you rather be flying an A-10C or an F-35B? I know which I'd rather be in...

The A-10 has proved its worth in low-intensity enviornments against assymetric and unconventional (not nuke) threats such as those encountered in Iraq in 1991 and again more recently, as well as in Afghanistan, and the datalinks, EO/IR pods and precision weapons it is getting will serve to enhance that worth. However, I wouldn't be sending it against an IADS such as that in place in China and, to a lesser extent, Iran.

Magoo

A-10s are not tasked for SEAD missions. Your taking a plane made for tank busting and putting it in a strike role. If you were conducting an amphib landing where would the A-10s be coming from? They aren't taking off from a carrier and if you have control of bases that close you should be using attack helicopters anyway.

 

[Aussie Digger]

A-10s are not tasked for SEAD missions. Your taking a plane made for tank busting and putting it in a strike role. If you were conducting an amphib landing where would the A-10s be coming from? They aren't taking off from a carrier and if you have control of bases that close you should be using attack helicopters anyway.

The A-10 has considerably greater capacity to put "steel on target" than ANY attack helo. Hellfire's and 2.75 inch FFAR can't compare to the lethality of 500-2000lbs JDAM's or LGB's or Maverick AGM's for that matter.

A-10's also have a significantly higher level of survivability than any attack helo and significantly greater loiter capacity.

AH-64's were used for a SEAD/DEAD mission in the very first airstrike of the initial Gulf War and employed Hellfire missiles in the role. Many Countries INCLUDING Australia, UK, France etc do not even operate dedicated SEAD aircraft, but make do with "common" aircraft in that particular role with appropriate weapons.

There is no practical reason why an A-10C could not conduct SEAD/DEAD missions.

 

[Big-E]

There is no practical reason why an A-10C could not conduct SEAD/DEAD missions.

A-10s should not be conducting SEAD/DEAD missions b/c 1) They can't carry stand-off HARMs, 2) they can't get out of portable SAM range and 3) they have to operate within AAA fire. Just b/c someone outfitted them with JDAM/LGB capability doesn't make it a good idea. Any supersonic strike aircraft would be a better choice for this mission. The speed and altitude of these aircraft make them sitting ducks against the lowest ADS.

 

[Aussie Digger]

A-10s should not be conducting SEAD/DEAD missions b/c 1) They can't carry stand-off HARMs, 2) they can't get out of portable SAM range and 3) they have to operate within AAA fire. Just b/c someone outfitted them with JDAM/LGB capability doesn't make it a good idea. Any supersonic strike aircraft would be a better choice for this mission. The speed and altitude of these aircraft make them sitting ducks against the lowest ADS.

That'd be why so many of them are shot down... :

 

[Big-E]

That'd be why so many of them are shot down... :

. . .which is why I care:

 

[contedicavour]

F22 should remain pure air-to-air figher...

I don't understand why the USAF would waste its few F-22s on anything but pure air-to-air with the most advanced SU-27/30, MIG29ST, or potential Typhoon, Rafale or JSF which could have been sold to a country turned hostile.
By the way, since this thread talks about exporting F22, other than Australia, who ever considered requesting such a jet to the US ?
If the answer is nobody then I'll sleep better

 

[Big-E]

I don't understand why the USAF would waste its few F-22s on anything but pure air-to-air with the most advanced SU-27/30, MIG29ST, or potential Typhoon, Rafale or JSF which could have been sold to a country turned hostile.By the way, since this thread talks about exporting F22, other than Australia, who ever considered requesting such a jet to the US ?
If the answer is nobody then I'll sleep better

 

[rjmaz1]

The US looks like it will be retiring alot of aircraft to get extra money to buy more F-22's..

Personally i think they should be reducing the JSF purchase not the F-22 purchase.

 

[Occum]

If they follow the recommendations from the independent report commissioned by Deputy Secretary Gordon England, the USAF will get between 40 to 80 more F-22s.

 

[Big-E]

BTW these low force numbers are only near term, as the other aircraft reach retirement age they will purchase more.

 

[norinco89]

tiss, tiss, tiss

What a waste of money. The united states is stuck in the world before 1989. What they should focus on is close range fire surport. A F-22 is unneeded. Who are they going to use F-22s on?

The Soviets? they are gone
Russians? They are too poor to maintain armed forces
China? Current genration air crafts do just fine