Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[obrescia]

Oh those pesky newspapers!

you know me better than that...here you go.

“We are not going to sit by and let this timetable of theirs occur without some assurance of where we are going,” Domenici said.

If the Air Force does not give the New Mexico delegation assurances of what the next task will be for Holloman, “we are going to slow [the F-117 retirement] down,” he warned. “I am not going to sit by and let this roll by without pushing very hard and pursuing with vigor what that task is going to be.”

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/new-mexico-air-force-base-at-crossroads-2006-02-22.html

 

[Grand Danois]

you know me better than that...here you go.

“We are not going to sit by and let this timetable of theirs occur without some assurance of where we are going,” Domenici said.

If the Air Force does not give the New Mexico delegation assurances of what the next task will be for Holloman, “we are going to slow [the F-117 retirement] down,” he warned. “I am not going to sit by and let this roll by without pushing very hard and pursuing with vigor what that task is going to be.”

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/new-mexico-air-force-base-at-crossroads-2006-02-22.html

...and this proves what?

You're trolling.

 

[DarthAmerica]

you know me better than that...here you go.

“We are not going to sit by and let this timetable of theirs occur without some assurance of where we are going,” Domenici said.

If the Air Force does not give the New Mexico delegation assurances of what the next task will be for Holloman, “we are going to slow [the F-117 retirement] down,” he warned. “I am not going to sit by and let this roll by without pushing very hard and pursuing with vigor what that task is going to be.”

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/new-mexico-air-force-base-at-crossroads-2006-02-22.html

Let me get this straight. The USAF suddenly decides to retire the F-117. Thousands of jobs are in threatened. Congressmen immediately start lobbying to get a new weapons system based there so as to preserve jobs(which is what a congressman is supposed to do BTW). The USAF is studying the Facility to determine F-22 suitability. Yet somehow in your mind you draw the conclusion that the F-117 doesn't work in combat and this evil congressman is the puppetmaster behind sending these highly unsurvivable planes into combat. Despite the fact that the F-117 has the highest survivability rate of all the USAF tactical strike aircraft that have seen combat. Seek help...

...How many of the following platforms have been lost in combat:

F-117
F-15E
F-111
F-16
A-10

Answer that before posting further please.


-DA

 

[gf0012-aust]

The only reason F-117 lasted as long as it did is because congress attempted to slow it retirement because the airplane supported certain congressional districts, so just more 'good old politics', not technical realities.

and now you are contradicting your own prev comments ...

you're starting to skate on very thin ground, I suggest you tighten up your responses and style before patience runs out.

 

[obrescia]

congress would never!

and now you are contradicting your own prev comments ...

you're starting to skate on very thin ground, I suggest you tighten up your responses and style before patience runs out.

Right! the US congress would never try to keep a weapon system going regardless if it works or not anymore, so keep jobs in their district....that will/would never happen!!!! nfloorl: contradicting who’s prev comments? you mean the "the F-117 is being replaced because they have F-22A" ...that comment? It wasn’t mine.

Cheers mate.

 

[obrescia]

Again, it just is what it is. Actually (politics) are more frightening than any weapons system.

 

[Preceptor]

Again, it just is what it is. Actually (politics) are more frightening than any weapons system.

And this comment advances the discussion how?

Obrescia, spend more time in thinking ideas through before making your posts. At present your posts come across as trolling, since many of the assumptions are unrealistic and/or factually incorrect. Also, do not use Wikipedia as a reference or source, without additional available citations. Wikipedia is something that anyone can edit, thus information gathered there is suspect until proven otherwise.

Lastly, pay attention to the forum rules, duplicate and/or one-liner posts to drive up post count are against forum rules, since they detract from the overall quality of discussion. Consider this a Warning.
-Preceptor

 

[obrescia]

Sited pages of printed material(s)

And this comment advances the discussion how?

Obrescia, spend more time in thinking ideas through before making your posts. At present your posts come across as trolling, since many of the assumptions are unrealistic and/or factually incorrect. Also, do not use Wikipedia as a reference or source, without additional available citations. Wikipedia is something that anyone can edit, thus information gathered there is suspect until proven otherwise.

Lastly, pay attention to the forum rules, duplicate and/or one-liner posts to drive up post count are against forum rules, since they detract from the overall quality of discussion. Consider this a Warning.
-Preceptor

Post count? Easy enough to find other public links. Wikipedia does show very often references/citations information; the reader can draw his own conclusion(s), but fair enough, (trying to the word count down). I have sited specific page numbers of readily available publicly printed material, nothing I’ve posted does not appear in corroborating publicly available printed material, my conclusions conservative and based on observations and lots of reading.

 

[JWCook]

Raptors carry up to 20649.5lbs of fuel internally and up to 36515 with 4x 600 gal drop tanks plus 33.5 lbs in the APU.


-DA

Have you got a link/source for these figures??, mine say 18,500lbs of internal fuel and you say 20649.5lbs

USAF claim 18,000 lbs here http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

Whats correct?


BTW thanks Scorpion for reminding me of the Norway Typhoon briefing supercruise figures, Impressive - I'd forgotten about those..;-).



cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Have you got a link/source for these figures??, mine say 18,500lbs of internal fuel and you say 20649.5lbs

USAF claim 18,000 lbs here http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

Whats correct?


BTW thanks Scorpion for reminding me of the Norway Typhoon briefing supercruise figures, Impressive - I'd forgotten about those..;-).



cheers

Those pages aren't always up to date. Deliberately or just because no one has bothered to fix it.

-DA

 

[JWCook]

Those pages aren't always up to date. Deliberately or just because no one has bothered to fix it.

-DA

hmm thats odd because I was under the impression the fuel figures history was 25,000lbs in the design stage( Circa Yf-22), 20,650 in the test phase and development phase and 18,500 in late production due to bulkheads being moved or some such reason!.

BTW The fire safety info is quiet old.., There were some major changes on aircraft 28 and subsequent f-22's, could this be the reason for the two fuel loads?, bear in mind those changes may have increased fuel load from 18,500lbs

Could there be 2 types of f-22 in regard to fuel loads?.

cheers

 

[JWCook]

If you download this http://www.tailhook.org/Videos/Tailhook07Part1.wmv

its ~98mb , but at 16:43 seconds straight from the horses mouth LCDR Mike Wosje F-22 test director. 18,000lbs+

Cheers

 

[Fritz]

Then i was more then 10% off the mark, thats significant.

 

[Scorpion82]

Scorp i think theres a difference between a platform being less survivable in a threat environment and a platform not being survivable. Even in a 2020 worst case SU-35/S-400 IADS Typhoon is not going to be inviable, however it will be significantly less survivable than say F-35, and with a casualty adverse public and political leadership it may not be survivable enough. I don't think Darth (I don't want to put words in his mouth) was actually saying typhoon was inviable, rather that the level of survivability may not be acceptable to a casualty adverse public. Therefore Europe will probably still want a 5th gen fighter in large numbers.

So and how many nations will be able to pose such a threat anytime soon and how much of these nations are going to be fought by Europe? Don't forget about the fact that many European AFs intend to procure the F-35 which can be used for the "kick down the door" purposes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Have you got a link/source for these figures??, mine say 18,500lbs of internal fuel and you say 20649.5lbs

USAF claim 18,000 lbs here http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

Whats correct?

I have the Official TO for the F-22 fuel capacity and it is different to the af.mil factsheets.

In fact I raised the discrancy with a contact in Dryden and she wouldn't add comment.

make of that what you will....

 

[DarthAmerica]

So and how many nations will be able to pose such a threat anytime soon and how much of these nations are going to be fought by Europe? Don't forget about the fact that many European AFs intend to procure the F-35 which can be used for the "kick down the door" purposes.

The kind of threats I'm talking about are can be found today in Serbia, Algeria and Iran. On the higher end of the threat spectrum but a bit less likely would be Pakistan and Russia. These are just the obvious threats. Leaving out the latter two which have a much more effective system and advanced weapons the challenges are these.

• Without the ISR/ELINT capabilities of the USA, Europe's targeting processes and EOOB would have more fog of war.
• Without the same level of offensive EW capability and LO/VLO European aircraft will find themselves more vulnerable to radar guided threats and fighters(even the F-35 to some extent).
• Without the tanking assets of the U.S. Military European airforces will not have the same ability to strike repeatedly deep at enemy centers of gravity which can benefit from strategic depth. Also the decreased frequency of deep strike and flexibility of more range means IADS can focus and coordinate on more predictable air avenues of approach(principle of mass).
• The reduced capability to penetrate deep into the interior and persist means that the enemy war making infrastructure will function longer.
• Forward basing means more European aircraft could be in range of offensive red systems. Limited ramp space will also reduce flexibility.
• Parallel chains of command could violate the principle of Unity of Command in European coalitions.
• Lack of stand off and escort jamming will make penetrating aircraft more vulnerable either by exposing them to radar guided threats or forcing them to fly low altitude flight profiles reducing range and placing them in range of autonomous SHORAD/MANPADS/AAA which have historically been more dangerous and cannot be "kicked down". This has caused U.S. and Allied airforces to operate at medium to high altitude for force protection which in this case due to all of the above could put European fighters back into view of radar guided threats.
• Limited precision strike capability compared to the U.S. Military will mean more sorties per target and repeat strikes which expose more aircraft to hostile fire. In the same category would be limited hard target capability.
• Possible OPSEC issues due to differing communications capabilities within a coalition.
• Limited logistics could also limit the number of platforms that can be deployed.

Russia and Pakistan are less likely and much higher on the threat scale so we can address them separately. But Algeria, Serbia and Iran would certainly bring these issues. Granted I believe Europe would likely succeed in an airwar with these countries. But being able to address the issues above are what has made Iraqi and Serbian IADS so ineffective for us in the past. In the case of a European only military action considering the issues above it's logical that threat IADS would operate more effectively. Even a marginal increase in IADS effectiveness will see more European aircraft shot down over time.

In ODS and OAF we had campaigns lasting 30-90 days roughly and at the peak of IADS effectiveness we experienced a .0017% chance of an allied aircraft being hit on a combat sortie. Because of the above mentioned issues it's likely that the hit rate of the IADS would at least increase marginally. Due to technological and logistical limitations we would be likely to see at least slightly longer campaign durations. So the two factors that contributed to past aircraft losses are both magnified. European and allied airforces averaged very roughly 7500 sorties in OAF or ~90 a day average. So if everything stays the same in terms of effectiveness we should expect ~13 aircraft to be hit in a similar campaign. But we know things aren't the same(see above) and modern air defense are more proliferated now. European aircraft would be far more exposed to threats and for longer. 13 is a lucky low number in this case if everything goes better than perfect.

The solution is better balance of capability, better logistics, better Unity of Command for coalition operations and increased survivability through LO platforms such as the F-35 which can offset some of the capability gaps through force compression.

-DA

 

[Scorpion82]

The kind of threats I'm talking about are can be found today in Serbia, Algeria and Iran. On the higher end of the threat spectrum but a bit less likely would be Pakistan and Russia. These are just the obvious threats. Leaving out the latter two which have a much more effective system and advanced weapons the challenges are these.

Well my point is that Europe won't fight against most of these countries alone. Iran for example seems to be much more in the interest of the US and Israel than it actually does in Europe. The same is with Pakistan. Russia is unlikely and I doubt it's in the US interest at all. Serbia is still very much weakend from OAF and I currently see no reasons for a campaign in Algeria. Of course no one can predict what the future will hold, but we should stay realistic.

• Without the ISR/ELINT capabilities of the USA, Europe's targeting processes and EOOB would have more fog of war.
• Without the same level of offensive EW capability and LO/VLO European aircraft will find themselves more vulnerable to radar guided threats and fighters(even the F-35 to some extent).
• Without the tanking assets of the U.S. Military European airforces will not have the same ability to strike repeatedly deep at enemy centers of gravity which can benefit from strategic depth. Also the decreased frequency of deep strike and flexibility of more range means IADS can focus and coordinate on more predictable air avenues of approach(principle of mass).
• The reduced capability to penetrate deep into the interior and persist means that the enemy war making infrastructure will function longer.
• Forward basing means more European aircraft could be in range of offensive red systems. Limited ramp space will also reduce flexibility.
• Parallel chains of command could violate the principle of Unity of Command in European coalitions.
• Lack of stand off and escort jamming will make penetrating aircraft more vulnerable either by exposing them to radar guided threats or forcing them to fly low altitude flight profiles reducing range and placing them in range of autonomous SHORAD/MANPADS/AAA which have historically been more dangerous and cannot be "kicked down". This has caused U.S. and Allied airforces to operate at medium to high altitude for force protection which in this case due to all of the above could put European fighters back into view of radar guided threats.
• Limited precision strike capability compared to the U.S. Military will mean more sorties per target and repeat strikes which expose more aircraft to hostile fire. In the same category would be limited hard target capability.
• Possible OPSEC issues due to differing communications capabilities within a coalition.
• Limited logistics could also limit the number of platforms that can be deployed.

Well I widely agree with you. But the reality is that there is no real European defence policy. Different nations, different interests you simply can not expect that Europe will become a community of states similar to the US. The US is one country, the EU just a community of various countries. No single european country is going to become a sole major power on its own again. The different european countries are closing up to each other, but you can simply not achieve this goals in a short time. There're more important issues than preparing for war, let alone that wars aren't very popular here in Europe at all. The media in Europe is much more open than in the US and it is way more difficult to "convince" the people to go to war or even just to support it.

If there is really a war we are forced to fight alone it has to have a very good reason behind and then looses are more likely to be accepted. Many people just don't see the reasons behind OIF for example and such kind of conflicts are that where no looses are accepted at all, not even participation.

Russia and Pakistan are less likely and much higher on the threat scale so we can address them separately. But Algeria, Serbia and Iran would certainly bring these issues. Granted I believe Europe would likely succeed in an airwar with these countries. But being able to address the issues above are what has made Iraqi and Serbian IADS so ineffective for us in the past. In the case of a European only military action considering the issues above it's logical that threat IADS would operate more effectively. Even a marginal increase in IADS effectiveness will see more European aircraft shot down over time.

Well it is unrealistic to fight any wars against a halfway equipped enemy without any looses. Stealth aircraft alone won't change that fact, not even with the best intelligence and support you can get there will ever be looses. Just look at the casulties in Iraq we cna see nowadays. The main problem is what is going to happen after the military conflict officially ended?

The solution is better balance of capability, better logistics, better Unity of Command for coalition operations and increased survivability through LO platforms such as the F-35 which can offset some of the capability gaps through force compression.

-DA

Well Europe is working on that, but I don't see it going be completed anytime soon. Europe is unlikely to ever become a real counterpart to the US. I could imagine that it is more difficult to understand for an US citizen but that's the way it is. What would be nice to have and what is realistic to have are to different pairs of shoes.

 

[Sintra]

I have the Official TO for the F-22 fuel capacity and it is different to the af.mil factsheets.

In fact I raised the discrancy with a contact in Dryden and she wouldn't add comment.

make of that what you will....

I have been keeping a close watch on the F-22 af.mil factsheet for the last few years, the numbers have been changed intentionally (several times). A year ago that page presented the "Clean weight" of the Raptor as being in the "18 Tons class", six months ago the same number was changed to less than 10 Tons (!!) and now the "clean weight" disappeared and was substituted by this: "Weight: 43,340 pounds (19,700 kilograms)".
The same happened for several other items like the internal fuel... This page should be called "The CIA interpretation of the F-22 Raptor statistics for the next six months".

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Well my point is that Europe won't fight against most of these countries alone. Iran for example seems to be much more in the interest of the US and Israel than it actually does in Europe. The same is with Pakistan. Russia is unlikely and I doubt it's in the US interest at all. Serbia is still very much weakend from OAF and I currently see no reasons for a campaign in Algeria. Of course no one can predict what the future will hold, but we should stay realistic.



Well I widely agree with you. But the reality is that there is no real European defence policy. Different nations, different interests you simply can not expect that Europe will become a community of states similar to the US. The US is one country, the EU just a community of various countries. No single european country is going to become a sole major power on its own again. The different european countries are closing up to each other, but you can simply not achieve this goals in a short time. There're more important issues than preparing for war, let alone that wars aren't very popular here in Europe at all. The media in Europe is much more open than in the US and it is way more difficult to "convince" the people to go to war or even just to support it.

If there is really a war we are forced to fight alone it has to have a very good reason behind and then looses are more likely to be accepted. Many people just don't see the reasons behind OIF for example and such kind of conflicts are that where no looses are accepted at all, not even participation.



Well it is unrealistic to fight any wars against a halfway equipped enemy without any looses. Stealth aircraft alone won't change that fact, not even with the best intelligence and support you can get there will ever be looses. Just look at the casulties in Iraq we cna see nowadays. The main problem is what is going to happen after the military conflict officially ended?



Well Europe is working on that, but I don't see it going be completed anytime soon. Europe is unlikely to ever become a real counterpart to the US. I could imagine that it is more difficult to understand for an US citizen but that's the way it is. What would be nice to have and what is realistic to have are to different pairs of shoes.

Basically you see my point with the difference that you think the possibility of wars involving only European countries as not likely. I can respect that even if I disagree. Hey, I felt like you do prior to 9/11...go figure. I've since learned the hard way that in the 21st Century you never know what will happen.

What we do know is that unlike last century, individuals and NGO's have the ability to start wars. There are a lot of people and NGOs with grievances against various European nations. I had a little chuckle when you mentioned Iran. If you draw on a map the threat radius of Irans latest missiles. They threaten Europe more than the USA. So are the things I brought up so far fetched? I dont think so so we agree to disagree.

What I think we would agree on is that aircraft are the most significant form of European power projection since European nations really don't have the ability to send abroad more than a brigade or two worth of soldiers. Considering some of the places that airpower could get sent I'd like to see a bit more balanced force personally.


-DA

 

[Scorpion82]

Basically you see my point with the difference that you think the possibility of wars involving only European countries as not likely. I can respect that even if I disagree. Hey, I felt like you do prior to 9/11...go figure. I've since learned the hard way that in the 21st Century you never know what will happen.


What we do know is that unlike last century, individuals and NGO's have the ability to start wars. There are a lot of people and NGOs with grievances against various European nations. I had a little chuckle when you mentioned Iran. If you draw on a map the threat radius of Irans latest missiles. They threaten Europe more than the USA. So are the things I brought up so far fetched? I dont think so so we agree to disagree.

I think you get me wrong there. It is not that I think there couldn't be wars Europe is going to war without US support, but countries like Pakistan or Iran are more likely to be coalition efforts very much like ODS, OAF etc. There is also some natural interest from the US also in relation to Israel and if you actually look at what american or israeli politicians are saying and what european officials are saying you quickly figure out that while Europe tries to go the diplomatic way, the US and Israel more openly threaten to attack as a preventive measure. Such behaviour is what makes me relative sure that even if the Europeans will be involved it would be a coalition effort a not Europe going in to do it alone. I actually agree that Europe would be more threatened by Iranian cruise missiles than the US, not to say I highly doubt the Iranian missiles could reach US territory at all.
I don't think any country will go for a war with Europe in the foreseeable future, though I think you share the same opinion as me that such a possiblity shouldn't be completely excluded and that it would be better to be prepared.

What I think we would agree on is that aircraft are the most significant form of European power projection since European nations really don't have the ability to send abroad more than a brigade or two worth of soldiers. Considering some of the places that airpower could get sent I'd like to see a bit more balanced force personally.


-DA

Basically yes. But this very fact is also one of the reasons why Europe would try to avoid any conflict of that kind. If there is absolutely no other way out I'm sure Europe will be able to do more.