Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

So just trying to nail down your Tacair vision... you would early-retire all F-15C/D and replace with F-16 block 60+ in the interim??

I wouldn't have a problem with that. The problem is that there is no current plan that I can see, 'staying the course', to both fund full F-15C/D upgrades as well as required number of F-35A. Nonetheless, I would support a plan to replace a potentially retired F-15C/D force with something else as a stopgap - by definition; breaking the current 'stay the course' plan.

F-16.net Sponsor

I'm for replacing the F-15C with the F-22. Rather than halting production at 187, I'd go for 250 F-22's as a suitable number for fully replacing the aged F-15C fleet. That would still leave some ~200 Strike Eagles in service. If worse came to worse, these could supplement for the air superiority role if needed... giving you anywhere between 250 and 450 air superiority fighters, depending on the circumstances of a future conflict.

If the goal is to reduce budget spending altogether, I'd be in favor of retiring the F-15C and simply not replacing them with anything... diverting the savings towards other programs. But the worst kind of situation to be in is one where you're stuck halfway between two generations of air superiority fighters. If they're going to stop at 187 raptors, then they might as well have not brought them into service at all. They might as well treat them with the same respect they treated the F-117 when it spearheaded the Iraq conflict in the 90's.

Building only 187 F-22s makes them look like an expensive showpieces that are too valuable to use. They are the best air to air platforms ever built, but maintaining and upgrading such a small fleet seems wasteful. If Congress isn't going to authorize enough to fully replace the F-15C, would it be better scrap the whole lot? This is just an honest question; please don't freak out. I'm only thinking about economies of scale.

Here's where I'm coming from, battleship... I would concur with you that back in 2009, the acquisition plan should have continued with a goal of acquiring 270 +/- F-22s (which could give USAF more than 140 advanced, combat coded F-22 airframes in the mid-20s (retiring the early mistake/uncommon lots)). But as we know, the F-22 line was killed.

So apparently, restarting it even now, would arguably be cost ineffective. (i.e., put the start-up costs alone into new-build 4.5 legacy airframes as a stopgap). Basically, the cluster-F and damage is done. I.e., it's simply not worth the short-run line start-up imho, unless USAF could procure them longer-term in lieu of an expensive mid-20s NGAD program start-up.

Therein is the question which I wish to pose to you: i.e., given that the F-22 line is not restarted... you would still retire the F-15C fleet with NO replacement?? That would be a tremendous additional loss to tacair capability and deterrence, both psychological and real, more than even i would currently project.

Did I read you wrong?

I guess I was only probing your views to see if you were willing to: give up both the F-15C/D fleet, accept a non-continuation of the F-22 line, all while 'staying the course' on the unsustainable, soon to be severely reduced F-35A procurement? Or would you immediately alter the minimal F-35A procurement plan and instead go with a stopgap plan to offset said USAF legacy retirements and F-22 line shutddown? I'm interested in your thoughts on this, thanks.

If the Air Force is so desperate for funds that it couldn't manage to provide a decent refueling tanker while decades-old aircraft were forced to extend well beyond their service life... I hardly see any reason why they'd continue flying F-15C Eagles at all. If there are not to be any more raptors to replace them, I'd still recommend that the dedicated air superiority variants be retired. Despite the psychological toll it would bring, losing the F-15C/D fleet would have little impact on the US's tacair capabilities.

The idea behind air superiority means having something better than your enemies, which only the F-22 really satisfies. The problem with the F-15 is that it's old technology that's still just about as expensive to maintain as the F-22. Taking those out of the budget frees up more resources that could be put to better use. Otherwise do you have a better idea?

I'm not in favor of more obsolete fighters like the silent eagle because they're ultimately going to be just as expensive to procure as would a raptor and you wouldn't get as much from them. If the USAF wants more Raptors, they're going to have to make it happen. Free up more funds for raptor procurements, or generate more demand by reducing the number of F-15's in service.

Quote:

"Taking those out of the budget frees up more resources that could be put to better use."

Haha, this is where I'm trying to nail you down Thumb

... What are you proposing therefore, or favoring as an alternative, to better allocate these F-15 upgrade/operational tacair funds?? I guess that's where I'm trying to read into your true stance on this position.

That is, I have no problem with a position that F-15C/D should be early retired as a means to to better allocate these stopgap funds (upgrading a SLEP F-15C/D is essentially a plan B stopgap plan)... but what then is your better allocation of these said plan B stopgap Tacair funds?

How then would you recapitalize the retired F-15C/D fleet in the interim... (i.e, a stopgap legacy buy) to fill the alreadly depreciating Tacair requirements staying the F-35 plan?

And no, an F-15SE would be far cheaper than an new build, restarted F-22 line @ say 20 jets per yr. For an interim jet (if you are in the camp supporting NGAD/FA-XX), an F-15SE would be the most rational, cost-effective strategic platform. imho.

Frankly every Tacair alternative, save restarting the raptor program, sucks. And although I understand that the Air Force generally prefers to stick with what they know works, the days of Cold War funding are over. They can no longer hope to have a full force of air dominance fighters with their limited resources, so their only option is to figure a way to make the best use of what they have. I believe they can find new ways to make up for the shortage of F-22's, but it would involve changing their primary mission from air dominance to acting as mini AWAC's.

I'd retire the F-15C altogether and invest the savings in improving the AF's communications network (a program that would be projected to cost about $8 billion, and is on their 'to do' list) investing in additional UAV development/implementation, and perhaps improving the current generation F-22 capabilities to make them more effective force multipliers with older generation fighters.

Supposedly I could foresee the few Raptors in service equipped with networking capabilities maintaining air dominance by working in conjunction with block 60 F-16 missile trucks. Two F-22's acting as mini AWAC's ahead of 20 F-16's (each armed with 4 AIM-120D's) could offer force multiplication capabilities for older fighters, making each F-16 worth almost as much as an F-35 in the air superiority role. I'm sure most on this forum have watched 'Future Dogfights' and already know about this. By having high/low fighters working in conjunction with networked F-22's serving as advanced AWAC's, you can share the benefits of a select few aircraft with a much greater formation of more economic airframes.

UAV's taking over for replacing manned fighters in some cases would also offer great benefits for CAS missions, or serving as bomb trucks to supplement for the limited number of F-22's. A cheaper UAV carrying AMRAAM's could just as easily be used in place of F-16's with a networked F-22. And because survivability isn't as much an issue, UAV's open so many options which are more cost-effective than manned fighters.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

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.

Block 60 F-16s cost as much as F-35As, and offer less capability and survivability. The F-15Cs are already in the inventory, and the maintenance costs are less than buying new airframes. Bottom line, the F-22/F-15 mix till F-35s are available in significant number, is the most capable and cost effective solution.

Quote:

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 budget isn't there currently to fund more F-22s- the Air Force isn't going to give up 5th Gen numbers to buy 4th Gen aircraft either.

Quote:

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.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34173#

Quote:

According to Beesley, one must first define what is meant by air supremacy. “If air supremacy means there not being anybody out there that does a specific role better than me -- hence air supremacy -- then we have a challenge and build an airplane around that role,” he says. “If we talk about my ability to go out in my airplane and engage and destroy the enemy, control the skies in many aspects, then the F-35 is very much an air-superiority airplane.”

Quote:

And both airplanes have a distinct advantage over other fighters in a close and beyond-visual-range fight.”

The F-35 would be superior to the F-15C or F-16 Block 60 in the A2A mission(and A2G mission), or pretty much anything else out there.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Building only 187 F-22s makes them look like an expensive showpieces that are too valuable to use. They are the best air to air platforms ever built, but maintaining and upgrading such a small fleet seems wasteful. If Congress isn't going to authorize enough to fully replace the F-15C, would it be better scrap the whole lot? This is just an honest question; please don't freak out. I'm only thinking about economies of scale.

In a word- no. A- they've already been paid for. B- what would you replace them with? It would be an asinine move to retire them, when many have just rolled off the production line. How many B-52s, B-1s, B-2s are in service? We don't even have 187 of all 3 of these, yet they are utilized, and upgraded.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

If the Air Force is so desperate for funds that it couldn't manage to provide a decent refueling tanker while decades-old aircraft were forced to extend well beyond their service life... I hardly see any reason why they'd continue flying F-15C Eagles at all. If there are not to be any more raptors to replace them, I'd still recommend that the dedicated air superiority variants be retired. Despite the psychological toll it would bring, losing the F-15C/D fleet would have little impact on the US's tacair capabilities.

The idea behind air superiority means having something better than your enemies, which only the F-22 really satisfies. The problem with the F-15 is that it's old technology that's still just about as expensive to maintain as the F-22. Taking those out of the budget frees up more resources that could be put to better use. Otherwise do you have a better idea?

I take it, you're not very knowledgable about the concept of force multipliers.
The F-22s make all of the legacy fighters more capable, in the quarterbacking role. These upgraded F-15Cs will have very capable avionics, communications systems, jammers, and weapons, which will in turn make the F-22s even more effective(i.e. by allowing them to remain EMCOM, and hide in the increased noise floor). You're also failing to consider that most enemy aircraft for decades to come will still be upgraded 4th gen aircraft. Getting rid of the upgraded F-15s would result in huge loss in capability, both in air superiority, but in strike(i.e. more F-35s would have to fly air superiority missions, taking away from available strike sorties).

From a force structure perspective the USAF operates 10 expeditionary air wings and requires an air superiority sqdn in each one. So with 187 F-22's in 5 sqdn's the other 5 will contain the remaining F-15C's that at present are deemed healthy enough to bother upgrading- about 178 Golden Eagles. So half the time we're going to deploy without F-22's or run them at a higher tempo adding more hours than planned.

The QDR indicates 6 air superiority wings within the USAF so of 18 sqdn's primarily assigned the air superiority mission only 5 are F-22's. So instead of a future F-22 replacement going to the active forces and the F-22 going over to the ANG and reserve we will now have the F-22 follow on replacing the F-15 post 2025 first and we'll have to recap the whole force structure at once- just like we're being forced to do now with the F-35 in the strike wings.

It's really very poor long term planning. Not buying more F-22's now simply means we do pay to upgrade existing aircraft and pay for expensive SLEP programs while kicking the can down the road and eventually requiring even larger buys of future aircraft the affordability of such is questionable at best. The only possible result of all this is a reduction in force structure.

The USAF buying no tactical aircraft, with the exception of 187 F-22's, and hoping to go from buys of zero a year to 80+ is rather problematic. The plan clearly was to sacrifice any fighter buys, whether F-22's, F-16's, or F-15's in order to both fund F-35 development and force Congress to pay for large numbers of them given the age of the fleet.

Compare this to the USN where delays in the F-35 can be dealt with by purchasing new F/A-18's and that the USN plan was for a max of 2 F-35C sdqn's per carrier air wing along with plans for both a sqdn of long range strike UCAS and follow on F/A-18 replacement in the NGF (F/A-XX). While the USN did give up the A-6 and retire the F-14 early they at least bought new airframes. It's also lost on most people but they also cut force structure by around 1/3. The USN has multiple ways to deal with it's tactical fighter fleet. The USAF in contrast has entirely be the farm on the F-35 which included cutting the F-22 buy. How that works out will be revealed over the next 20+ years.

I suspect you'll see mixed squadrons, seeing as how the Air Force has said they plan to fly F-15Cs in support of F-22s.

lb wrote:

Compare this to the USN where delays in the F-35 can be dealt with by purchasing new F/A-18's and that the USN plan was for a max of 2 F-35C sdqn's per carrier air wing along with plans for both a sqdn of long range strike UCAS and follow on F/A-18 replacement in the NGF (F/A-XX). While the USN did give up the A-6 and retire the F-14 early they at least bought new airframes. It's also lost on most people but they also cut force structure by around 1/3. The USN has multiple ways to deal with it's tactical fighter fleet. The USAF in contrast has entirely be the farm on the F-35 which included cutting the F-22 buy. How that works out will be revealed over the next 20+ years.

lb,

I totally agree. Since WWII, the Navy has been the proverbial ba$tard step-child-with-red-hair when it comes to defense spending. They've spent decades learning how to do with less and less, and it shows. By contrast, the rather spoiled USAF has stubbornly refused to buy any non-stealth fighter platforms since the early 1990s, leading to a gradual erosion of capability that will soon become a severe "gap" if they don't get their full complement of F-35s (which they probably won't). As you said, they totally "bet the farm" on an all-5th generation force, and they are probably going to lose.

I've no doubt that the F-35 will be outstanding in all its variants, but it's not cheap enough to replace the F-16 on anything close to a 1:1 basis, whereas the F-22 was just cheap enough to replace the F-15C. In any case, we'll just have to wait and see how this issue sorts itself out.

The F-22 was never cheap enough for a 1:1 replacement of F-15Cs.

wrightwing wrote:

The F-22 was never cheap enough for a 1:1 replacement of F-15Cs.

I didn't say it was as cheap as the F-15C, but the F-15C wasn't a high volume aircraft and it's stupid to say that we couldn't afford enough F-22 airframes to to finally retire the old warhorse. 300-400 wasn't too much to ask. On the other hand, effectively replacing the F-16 and the A-10 with a plane that costs almost as much as the F-22 is a very tall order indeed, and I don't think the USAF is going to follow through.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Is 187 a Useful Number?