Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I'll try to remove this post if it pisses too many people off. I just had a question about order of battle in the USAF. Remember back in 2007 when the F-15 A-D fleet was grounded because of aging airframes being prone to breaking in half? The USAF blamed the failure on a manufacturing fault despite the fact that they had obviously pushed the plane past its intended service life which was supposed to have ended in the late 90s. Although it was embarrassing to rely on Canada for air defense, I didn't fret too much at the time because the F-22 could still replace the old warhorse in a few years.

Now that the F-22 has been canceled and the F-35 delayed, the USAF is fumbling around with upgrades for its older planes. While I'm not saying this shouldn't be done, it does seem ridiculous for America to be stuck with worn out equipment while brand new versions of the F-16 and F-15 are being sent to the Arabian Peninsula.

Assuming that 300 or so F-15 C/D/E models receive an assortment of proposed upgrades, how exactly does the F-22 fit into the picture? Having built only 187, it seems rather silly to maintain a support structure for such a small number of aircraft. Is the F-22 going to support the F-15, or is it going to be the other way around? Which will be used to protect the F-35? There's a thought. Dozens of F-35s taking off on the opening night of a future conflict, escorted by state-of-the-art... no wait... 30-40 year old F-15s flying top cover.

After all that time he spent stuck in Minuteman bunkers, I'm sure that Robert Gates is very proud of himself for taking down the fighter mafia and their favorite program. But without a credible 5th generation threat (face it, no one is intimidated by the F-35), the U.S. is bound to lose some face in areas like the Pacific Rim and South Asia. The only way for the F-22 to actually have a purpose in life is for it to completely replace at least the F-15C/D component of the USAF. One can only hope against hope that recent developments will eventually lead to an F-22 force of around 400 copies. Short of that, it's only useful as a recruitment gimmick.

P.S. Where can I find a decent F-15 forum?

F-16.net Sponsor

I don't think 187 Raptors is anywhere near the needed numbers of fighters to defend country as big as the USA effectively in anything other than a best-case-scenario.
Even if you throw a few upgraded F-15/16/35's in the picture, its just not gonna be as effective as a fully equipped F-22 fleet, especially if the invading force is also using 5th gen AC.

I am a little confused as to what the F-22's role is supposed to be.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that a few upgraded F-15, F-16's and the F-22's are going to be the ones to defend the US airspace in the future, right?
How about force projection? Will Raptors be the first ones going in to clear the airspace before the SE's and A-10's?
If so, then how is the USA supposed to defend its airspace effectively using when most of the Raptors are already doing air superiority operations overseas?

IT--

I would say no to 187 being a useful number. Over time, attrition will take it's toll. Every aircraft that is lost will be felt, BIG TIME! I say buy enough to give the USAF, USAFRes, and ANG 500 to 700 aircraft total. I would prefer 700 (though it's not going to happen) because the F-22 will be able to do more than just continental air defense and air dominance over distant battlefields. I hear the ALR-94 is capable of geo-location of threat emitters. Furthermore, I have heard that an electronic attack capability is being added to the APG-77. These capabilities would make the F-22 a great SEAD/DEAD platform. Additionally the aircraft is capable of delivering JDAMs, so the F-22 would do well in the attack mission. So, in short, the F-22 does have some significant air-to-ground capabilities, I believe, alone, would warrant the purchase of many more units. At least the DoD was smart enough to preserve the tooling. To bad they weren't smart enough to preserve some foresight and common sense and purchase more than 187 F-22s. A few of which have (tragically) already been lost.

Put it this way: was 67 F-117s a useful number? Yes. But given that their task was highly specialized. Are 20 B-2's a useful quantity? Yes, if they are treated analgously to SSBMs.

With attrition, and the lead time to fielding a new ATF, 187 front light fighters is a slap in the face to America. At minimum, ~300 sirframes would make me sleep better at night. It will be at least 2025 before something is ready to replace the F-22. How may F-22s will be around in 2025? Maybe 120 or there'abouts. Of those 120 how many will be combat coded at any one time?

The world is a different place than what it was in 1986, and 750 airframes is not needed... My magic number 300-320.

I'm a believer in giving people the tools to do the job you task them to do. Its only fair since they will be held responsible for any failures or shortcomings. The AF was asking for 381 Raptors which was a reasonable request since they would be replacing the F-15C/D fleet.

sewerrat wrote:

With attrition, and the lead time to fielding a new ATF, 187 front light fighters is a slap in the face to America. At minimum, ~300 sirframes would make me sleep better at night. It will be at least 2025 before something is ready to replace the F-22. How may F-22s will be around in 2025? Maybe 120 or there'abouts. Of those 120 how many will be combat coded at any one time?

Barring any crashes, there should be 185 Raptors in service, in 2025. All of the Block 30/35s will be combat coded. Not even the Block 20s will have anywhere near 8000 hrs, by that point.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I'll try to remove this post if it pisses too many people off. I just had a question about order of battle in the USAF. Remember back in 2007 when the F-15 A-D fleet was grounded because of aging airframes being prone to breaking in half? The USAF blamed the failure on a manufacturing fault despite the fact that they had obviously pushed the plane past its intended service life which was supposed to have ended in the late 90s. Although it was embarrassing to rely on Canada for air defense, I didn't fret too much at the time because the F-22 could still replace the old warhorse in a few years.

Now that the F-22 has been canceled and the F-35 delayed, the USAF is fumbling around with upgrades for its older planes. While I'm not saying this shouldn't be done, it does seem ridiculous for America to be stuck with worn out equipment while brand new versions of the F-16 and F-15 are being sent to the Arabian Peninsula.

Assuming that 300 or so F-15 C/D/E models receive an assortment of proposed upgrades, how exactly does the F-22 fit into the picture? Having built only 187, it seems rather silly to maintain a support structure for such a small number of aircraft. Is the F-22 going to support the F-15, or is it going to be the other way around? Which will be used to protect the F-35? There's a thought. Dozens of F-35s taking off on the opening night of a future conflict, escorted by state-of-the-art... no wait... 30-40 year old F-15s flying top cover.

After all that time he spent stuck in Minuteman bunkers, I'm sure that Robert Gates is very proud of himself for taking down the fighter mafia and their favorite program. But without a credible 5th generation threat (face it, no one is intimidated by the F-35), the U.S. is bound to lose some face in areas like the Pacific Rim and South Asia. The only way for the F-22 to actually have a purpose in life is for it to completely replace at least the F-15C/D component of the USAF. One can only hope against hope that recent developments will eventually lead to an F-22 force of around 400 copies. Short of that, it's only useful as a recruitment gimmick.

Just a few clarifications:

-the F-15 fleet wasn't grounded because it had too many hours. It was grounded because certain lots had longeron deficiencies. Once the fleet was inspected, and those airframes identified, F-15s resumed service.

-the F-22 wasn't cancelled. It's production was capped at 187. There's an important distinction there.

-even with delays to the F-35 program, there's no foe, that will at any point have more 5th gen aircraft in service, not to mention AESA equipped aircraft in general(~176 F-15C, 220 F-15E, ~500+ F-18E/F/G, and potentially F-16s as well).

-the upgraded F-15s will support F-22s, with targeting information, and stand off jamming, to maximize the F-22's effectiveness(allowing them to remain EMCON as much as possible, as well as hiding in the increased noise floor of the jamming). As for opening night of war scenarios, both F-22s and F-15s will be sweeping the skies, F-35s will self escort(or pick up slack in sweeps), along with F-15Es, late model F-16s, Super Hornets, and Growlers. Now add in all of the other support assets(AWACs, ISR, ESM/ELINT, ECM, etc..) supporting this force, using net centric warfare, giving very high situational awareness, while denying the enemy similar luxuries.

-I won't argue that 381 Raptors wouldn't have been preferrable, but the USAF/USN/USMC force structure is hardly going to be disadvantaged at a systems level versus any foe.

Yes.

381 would be more useful, sure. But it would also be a lot more expensive (although more efficient).

Looking at the 5th generation threat, we have the T-50 and J-20, both of which have only 1 flying prototype, and both of which were built by industries with significantly less experience in stealth technology (and just about everything else important).

Russia is almost certainly not going to buy the proposed amount of aircraft, India may, but they'll probably balk at the cost of a full buy, too. And China? Perhaps, but it's just as likely they'll cut numbers after realizing making and operating a huge stealthy supersonic aircraft is never, ever cheap.

Meanwhile, we'll be cranking out F-35s. Probably not at the rate we want, but it will be guaranteed to outnumber every other 5th generation fighter by a significant amount, and it will almost always be backed by F-22's.

and just to add an additional factor and that is NATO. An attack on any one member is an attack on all, so in theory there would be resources in Europe that would be beneficial to some extent.

Quote:

the upgraded F-15s will support F-22s, with targeting information, and stand off jamming, to maximize the F-22's effectiveness(allowing them to remain EMCON as much as possible, as well as hiding in the increased noise floor of the jamming). As for opening night of war scenarios, both F-22s and F-15s will be sweeping the skies, F-35s will self escort(or pick up slack in sweeps), along with F-15Es, late model F-16s, Super Hornets, and Growlers.

Thinking of Wrightwing's comments a little further tactically, everyone's probably imagined scenarios like the following, which are what I think of when I see F-22 as force multipliers - by using a few 5th-gen airframes to increasing effectiveness of 4th gen assets in the inevitable A2A battle where we can't match enemy airframes 1 for 1 with 5th gen airframes:

Raptors extend their ability to choose where, when, and how to enter the fight to 4th gen platforms flying behind them. After SEAD missions appropriately degrade enemy IADS, F-22's lead fighter sweeps deep beyond the FLOT and conduct coordinated attacks with 4th gen fighters as follows:

1. Raptors force enemy air formations into defensive posturing through electronic attack or a few well-placed BVR shots (coming from nowhere, imagine the panic) , then let carefully positioned 4th gen fighters finish them off.

2. Raptors act as "Front line" AWACS and aware of enemy air, send 4th gen assets along optimized vectors to allow them to enter the fight in optimal position/energy state.

3. Raptors use 4th gen fighter assets to "decoy" enemy air into more vulnerable positions, following up with feint attacks from unexpected vectors by other 4-gen assets, or, barring that, F-22's themselves.

4. F-22's make surgical SEAD strikes that draw enemy air to investigate target area. 4th-gen assets, planning ahead of the SEAD strike, are pre-positioned to take advantage of ensuing, predictable enemy air movement.

Can only get better when adding JSFs to the mix and of course, as Wrightwing says, throwing in all the other support assets like E-3's, drones, tankers, etc.

I would have loved to see ~400 Raptors. But til ~2025 when their replacement is flying, I think we'll do fine like this.

Salute

Instead of throwing money at more F-35s, just upgrade the F-15/16 and build new airframes, mainly for ANG and home defense. Throwing all my F-35 hatred aside, I simply believe a 5th gen monster like the F-22 should be the priority to build. Sure we can export the F-35 to make $$$ but is that worth the crumbling of our aerial defense network? 187? Not enough.

Shabah,

We need to focus on DoD's and especially USAF's future Procurement budgets going forward, when we take into account these 'what to do next' debates.

Understand sir... that because the F-22 line was already effectively killed, it will reportedly now take more annual budgets to re-start it even if 1-2 yrs after being killed.

I would concur with you that an emergency USAF Tac-air policy shift should include an FY12 F-35 order-kill (at $192 million per unit) and shift to a substitute mix of F-16, F-15 and Super Hornet orders (e.g. combined order of 24 aircraft for a cheaper price than the 19 F-35As).

FY13 would have to start a whole new, more strategically planned, mid-term USAF stopgap policy. The longer-term policy would be whole other assessment - to be continued. imho.

geogen wrote:

We need to focus on DoD's and especially USAF's future Procurement budgets going forward, when we take into account these 'what to do next' debates.

Understand sir... that because the F-22 line was already effectively killed, it will reportedly now take more annual budgets to re-start it even if 1-2 yrs after being killed.

Sunk costs. If you're being plagued by budget shortfalls because you've got antiquated F-15's still flying because there aren't enough F-22's to replace them, then you're only prolonging the inevitable with an expensive band-aid that yields no long-term solution. Upgrading old Eagles now may offer a solution to today's budget problems, but what about ten years from now?

When most people wave around that $150 million price tag for every Raptor, never are the upkeep costs for the fighter its replacing brought to the light. The F-15 costs almost as much to keep as a Raptor, so the best solution is to completely replace the F-15C Eagle with the Raptor. Because each one would be worth at least five times the fighter it replaces, what you spend to procure the fighter will be more than compensated by reduced upkeep costs... say one raptor for every two eagle.

Canceling the F-22 production and maintaining the F-15C until they fall apart was just stupid. Unfortunately it's a mistake that MUST be rectified. Maintaining the F-15C Eagle is just a waste, so the most obvious savings would come from retiring our honored war veteran of 40 years and allowing the F-22 to take over. Either way, retiring the F-15C Eagle is a must to balance the Air Force budget. The question is whether you seek a replacement or not.

geogen wrote:

I would concur with you that an emergency USAF Tac-air policy shift should include an FY12 F-35 order-kill (at $192 million per unit) and shift to a substitute mix of F-16, F-15 and Super Hornet orders (e.g. combined order of 24 aircraft for a cheaper price than the 19 F-35As).

$192 million? That's how high the JSF price would have to climb before budget planners decide they've had enough? The primary purpose for the JSF was to build an affordable fighter to supplement the F-22... that is terrible budget planning when you dump $50 billion in R&D for a solution that proves more self-destructive than the original problem. No the JSF doesn't cost that much, but its overestimated costs and delays only compound the problem with budget shortfalls.

battleship,

I'm sorry but that was a difficult post to comprehend and decipher. However, I would agree with you if you are saying Congress/GAO should analyze costs required now to restart the F-22 line again.

If you were doubting that an FY12 F-35A will cost $192m though, that is in fact the current estimate (way above the estimates for FY12 jets made to Congress back in 2007 and 2008).

As far as today's F-15s costing almost as much as an F-22 to maintain... that is an easy one: buy new F-15E+/F-15SE stopgap units with GE-132 (and future GE-F110 advanced augmention variant) tuned down to 29.5k lbf for durability and reduced maintenance... and such new buy F-15s will be FAR more affordable to maintain then both current F-15s and F-22s. Respects -

I would not be in favor of pushing for new F-15's (although I like the strike eagle, it doesn't fill the air superiority role as well as the raptor) but in pushing for block 60 F-16's instead. As for the F-15C air superiority fighters... they should all be retired. I'd keep the current number of Strike Eagles in service because they are not limited solely to air superiority like the F-22 or F-15C, but the Raptor does offer a force-multiplying capability which is too valuable to lose.

The problem here is that the JSF is no air superiority fighter, so treating it like a cheap knockoff of the F-22 is just foolish. Rather than the 'all F-35' kind of force, I would push for more F-22's to replace aging F-15's and buying a new generation of F-16's as a stopgap measure until the F-35 fully matures... if it ever does. This wouldn't offer the super-survivable strike fighter that F-35 nutjobs want, but you'd do much better with ~250 top-tier F-22's acting as mini awacs for a trailing force of upgraded F-16's. Given as the raptor is more survivable than anything, it's the best choice to use for especially dangerous roles that you wouldn't assign to older generation fighters. If warload is the problem, there's always the B-2 to fall back on.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Is 187 a Useful Number?