Plane Topic

[Zaku]

Lately I've been reading some defense news articles on the prospect of the F-22 Raptor program being restarted. The result of the study was quite negative according to some of the declassified sections of the report. In order for the USAF to acquire 194 new Raptors, they would have to spend about $50 billion, with $9 billion being used just to get the necessary machining and tooling, and about $40 billion for the procurement of new aircraft. This all translates to about a $200 million price tag per aircraft. According to study, the high cost come from the fact that the Raptor's hardware and software (which were both developed in the 1990's and not deployed until the 2000's) are severely out of date and in need of upgrading. So unless Congress and the DoD decide to allocate funding away from the F-35 program in order to get more Raptor, looks like the Raptor is as dead as disco.

yea i didnt know about this. i love the raptor and all but if we can get the costs down on the F-35 without neutering it any more than we already have we have no reason to raptor it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Now granted, that 15:1 ratio includes ALL types of targets involved which include mobile SAM sites, troop installations, Air-to-Air victories, etc.

yep. still good. when you start looking at how much it cost to do the job not so good but for what it is good.

[Zeta]

So last weekend, I got to take a little trip up north to the Tahoe region of California (had never been there before, it was super gorgeous up there) to see an airshow in a town called Truckee. Lovely airshow, they had a P-51D Mustang, a Czech L-39, a Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet, an AT-6 Texan, a home-built biplane, and Kirby Chambliss and his Edge 540 perform insane aerobatics alongside the Red Bull Wing Suit Team. I actually got an opportunity to take a picture with him. I also met American World War II triple ace Col. Clarence "Bud" Anderson (he was also a test pilot alongside Chuck Yeager; the two were good friends).

[Flyboy3394]

So Red Flag 17-1 has been going on at Nellis AFB, and the main draw of it has been that the USAF is testing the F-35A Lightning II under FOC (Full Operational Capability) conditions in various war fighting scenarios. This means that this is the closest that the F-35A will get to actual combat before deployment, and it also means live-fire exercises are being performed. Apparently it is doing very well as it has scored a 15:1 kill ratio against Aggressor combatants, including against Aggressor F-16's. I have been skeptical of the whole F-35 program before, but this has decreased my skepticism for the program. I guess this bird is better than we thought.

From what I have heard (from a Lockheed employee in my family) is that its the reliability aspect of the F-35 that is making it such a controversial program. The costs are skyrocketing because its a finicky bird with tons of experimental technology and Lockheed is making the Pentagon (and by association, us, the taxpayer) foot the bill, instead of fixing the major issues that their bleeding edge tech and faulty manufacturing/software bugs are causing.

Once it all gets ironed out, and a few thousand of them are in the air, costs should come down (slightly) and we will the airborne equivalent of a sniper, invisible (for now) and deadly. The plane was literally meant to go deep inside enemy lines, hit air defenses and radar emplacements, and pave the way for conventional strike craft like the FA-18 to come in and eff $h!t up. In its role, it should excel. Now don't get me started on why the air force thinks it will/should replace the A-10 for CAS.

[Zeta]

From what I have heard (from a Lockheed employee in my family) is that its the reliability aspect of the F-35 that is making it such a controversial program. The costs are skyrocketing because its a finicky bird with tons of experimental technology and Lockheed is making the Pentagon (and by association, us, the taxpayer) foot the bill, instead of fixing the major issues that their bleeding edge tech and faulty manufacturing/software bugs are causing.

Now see, I figured that would be the case with the first issue but I did not know about the second issue. I like the planes that Lockheed produces, but I could without their policies and their executives sticking their noses where they shouldn't be (look at you F-104 Starfighter.)

Once it all gets ironed out, and a few thousand of them are in the air, costs should come down (slightly) and we will the airborne equivalent of a sniper, invisible (for now) and deadly. The plane was literally meant to go deep inside enemy lines, hit air defenses and radar emplacements, and pave the way for conventional strike craft like the FA-18 to come in and eff $h!t up. In its role, it should excel. Now don't get me started on why the air force thinks it will/should replace the A-10 for CAS.

See this I understand. In it's role as a stealthy strike fighter, it will be superb; however it any other role it's a turkey. There has never been, in the history of combat aviation an all-singing, all-dancing plane. Thankfully, the USAF is looking to startup a new A-X program that produce a such more suitable replacement for the venerable A-10 in the ground-attack role. So far, Textron Aviation (the umbrella company that owns Beechcraft, Cessna, and Hawker) is leading the way with their straight-wing concept called the Scorpion.

[Flyboy3394]

Now see, I figured that would be the case with the first issue but I did not know about the second issue. I like the planes that Lockheed produces, but I could without their policies and their executives sticking their noses where they shouldn't be (look at you F-104 Starfighter.)



See this I understand. In it's role as a stealthy strike fighter, it will be superb; however it any other role it's a turkey. There has never been, in the history of combat aviation an all-singing, all-dancing plane. Thankfully, the USAF is looking to startup a new A-X program that produce a such more suitable replacement for the venerable A-10 in the ground-attack role. So far, Textron Aviation (the umbrella company that owns Beechcraft, Cessna, and Hawker) is leading the way with their straight-wing concept called the Scorpion.

The Scorpion is a promising airframe for sure. Not sure about the exact specs in terms of loiter time, weapons loadout, agility, survivability. But I do think the A-10's lifespan can and should be extended, and something like an A-10 mk2 would be an extremely enticing piece of hardware. The thing is, since WW2, the Air Force (as we know it now), has has doctrinal emphasis on two major things. 1. Strategic bombing, ie B52, B1, B2, etc. 2. Air Superiority. The A-10 was kind of an accident in how its role came to prominence. But this is why the A-10 is and has been on the chopping block from the AF brass for years. They don't like it. It doesn't fit the doctrine and they don't get royalties from Lockheed every time the US buys a shiny new F35.

[Zeta]

The Scorpion is a promising airframe for sure. Not sure about the exact specs in terms of loiter time, weapons loadout, agility, survivability. But I do think the A-10's lifespan can and should be extended, and something like an A-10 mk2 would be an extremely enticing piece of hardware. The thing is, since WW2, the Air Force (as we know it now), has has doctrinal emphasis on two major things. 1. Strategic bombing, ie B52, B1, B2, etc. 2. Air Superiority. The A-10 was kind of an accident in how its role came to prominence. But this is why the A-10 is and has been on the chopping block from the AF brass for years. They don't like it. It doesn't fit the doctrine and they don't get royalties from Lockheed every time the US buys a shiny new F35.

I think that a lot of USAF brass seem to forget that the Air War over Europe in WW2 was won not just by Strategic Bombing and Air Superiority, but by Tactical Attack planes (such as the Douglas A-20 and A-26 Invader) and by Fighter-Bombers (such as the P-38 Lightning and the P-47 Thunderbolt (from which the A-10 derives it's true name as the Thunderbolt II)) in support of operations conducted on the ground. If you really want to control the sky, you've also got to maintain control of the ground.

[Flyboy3394]

I think that a lot of USAF brass seem to forget that the Air War over Europe in WW2 was won not just by Strategic Bombing and Air Superiority, but by Tactical Attack planes (such as the Douglas A-20 and A-26 Invader) and by Fighter-Bombers (such as the P-38 Lightning and the P-47 Thunderbolt (from which the A-10 derives it's true name as the Thunderbolt II)) in support of operations conducted on the ground. If you really want to control the sky, you've also got to maintain control of the ground.

Agreed. I really think that the Air Force would much rather the Army take over CAS entirely, as it already operates all attack helicopters (aside from the Marines Vipers and Venoms), so that would make sense, but again, since the creation of the Us AIr Force, the Army has not operated Fixed wing aircraft (at least in combat roles).

Personally, I think the CAS role can and should be taken over by drones. That would make the planes less expensive long run, no bulky life support, air systems, physical control panels, etc. Kinda like the A-10 drones in COD Ghosts, in the Santa Monica defense scenes. Would also allow the birds to fly with a lot more maneuverability and push more Gees than a human pilot could withstand. Roll out a hundred planes in each production block, like the Navy does with Destroyers/attack subs, and you have a large force of long lasting, up to date CAS planes, that will ensure ground attack and CAS superiority for decades to come.

[Zeta]

Agreed. I really think that the Air Force would much rather the Army take over CAS entirely, as it already operates all attack helicopters (aside from the Marines Vipers and Venoms), so that would make sense, but again, since the creation of the Us AIr Force, the Army has not operated Fixed wing aircraft (at least in combat roles).

Personally, I think the CAS role can and should be taken over by drones. That would make the planes less expensive long run, no bulky life support, air systems, physical control panels, etc. Kinda like the A-10 drones in COD Ghosts, in the Santa Monica defense scenes. Would also allow the birds to fly with a lot more maneuverability and push more Gees than a human pilot could withstand. Roll out a hundred planes in each production block, like the Navy does with Destroyers/attack subs, and you have a large force of long lasting, up to date CAS planes, that will ensure ground attack and CAS superiority for decades to come.

That will never happen. Why you may ask? The answer is petty inter-service rivalry. The USAF today would never let the Army have any fixed wing craft in their arsenal. I think that the USAF should just relearn ground-attack operations and integrate that into their doctrine. Same goes for the Navy and their lack of a dedicated attack plane (I miss the A-4 Skyhawk and A-6 Intruder). The F/A-18 is nice, but it doesn't have the payload or loiter time that a dedicated attack plane would have; nor is it as capable as the F-14 as an air superiority fighter/fleet-defense interceptor.

Th truth of the matter is that none of the four Armed Forces that are taking part in this new aerial arms race are really sure what the definitive weapon of the future will be. It's all been speculation and conjecture, both of which are useless when the next conflict will start up. After all, in the 1920's and 1930's, people and military staff alike still believed that the battleship would be the primary weapon of a nation's might.

[Flyboy3394]

That will never happen. Why you may ask? The answer is petty inter-service rivalry. The USAF today would never let the Army have any fixed wing craft in their arsenal. I think that the USAF should just relearn ground-attack operations and integrate that into their doctrine. Same goes for the Navy and their lack of a dedicated attack plane (I miss the A-4 Skyhawk and A-6 Intruder). The F/A-18 is nice, but it doesn't have the payload or loiter time that a dedicated attack plane would have; nor is it as capable as the F-14 as an air superiority fighter/fleet-defense interceptor.

Th truth of the matter is that none of the four Armed Forces that are taking part in this new aerial arms race are really sure what the definitive weapon of the future will be. It's all been speculation and conjecture, both of which are useless when the next conflict will start up. After all, in the 1920's and 1930's, people and military staff alike still believed that the battleship would be the primary weapon of a nation's might.

Very true. As always, the rivalries and politics involved in getting funding for the different branches pits them against one another in a sense. Only in war do the branches come together, somewhat, to combat an enemy.

Only the Japanese had the good sense to put emphasis on carrier battle groups, and agile fighters and solid naval bombers. Next step could be satellite based weapons, dropping kinetic projectiles from low orbit, and decimating entire enemy battle groups/ground divisions. As Helmuth von Moltke famously noted, "No plan survives contact with the enemy". This rings especially true, as we only won WW2 because our industrial capabilities were waiting to be activated and we were able to outnumber (and outmatch to a degree) our enemies. If we didn't have that industrial capacity, the Japanese would have overrun everything in the pacific and we would be stuck with our pants down.

Point is, we don't know what the future holds, and honestly, I think that hiring companies like think tanks to predict what future warfare will look like is almost a complete waste, and can be completely misleading. We just need to be cognizant of what other militaries are doing, and have contingencies for those threats. Perfect example is China's carrier killer missiles. They are proving to be an extremely effective (in theory) threat against our forward strike capabilities, and could render our $13 billion carriers useless if we can't intercept them.

[Zeta]

Seriously. The US Armed Forces need to get their collective $#!+ together.

[Zeta]

And now, here's something we hope you'll really like:



I would love to see the return of supersonic transport aircraft. The Concorde was a great plane (in service for 27 years), but it was expensive and came up short in some areas. I hope that these guys and their new Boom aircraft will be a success.

[Zeon's RedComet]

It'd be cool to see Supersonic transportation take off again, especially if they can manage to make it more affordable than the Concorde, especially overtime.

[Psyco Diver]

Sonic boom and fuel consumption are the major issues if I recall, obvious it's going to need to be able to super cruise also

[Zeta]

Sonic boom and fuel consumption are the major issues if I recall, obvious it's going to need to be able to super cruise also

The sonic boom is only a problem over land; for transoceanic flights its not a problem. Fuel consumption and engine performance have VASTLY improved since the Concorde was introduced and retired. The Concorde was also able to suprecruise as well; it only needed its afterburners on take-off so it could break the sound barrier and once it reached Mach 2.02 it was on supercruise for the rest of the journey.

[Zeta]

So I was squawking to few of my aviation colleagues yesterday and they told me something special happened on Friday. Apparently four US military fighters consisting of an F-15 Eagle, an F-16 Fighting Falcon, an F/A-18 Hornet, and an F-22 Raptor took off from Edwards Air Force Base and flew in formation over Southern California to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Chuck Yeager breaking the Sound Barrier.