Forum: F-22A Raptor

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 431

VPRGUY,

I understand very well what you say concerning the F-16E not being survivable enough.

But there are many factors that must be taken into account it seems to me.

How fast will UCAVs evolve? UCAVs are expected to be put into service even before the F-35! Their capabilities will get better every year and will be retrofitted by software and hardware frequently very cost-effectively.
UCAVs initial role will be SEAD and they should be very effective in that role. That's exactly what non stealthy aircraft need to be able to continue to survive.

What's the point of embarking on the F-35 when we have no idea how long they will be needed? Maybe by 2020 half of their missions will have been taken over by UCAVs. This means that the production of F-35s is likely to be stopped quite soon, otherwise, you would end up with a large force which is largely useless and not cost-effective.

Also, the idea that the AF will be able to buy 1760 F-35s is close to ridiculous. The AF will NEVER have enough money to buy that. And like I said, continuing to buy new F-35 will quickly become useless because of UCAVs. You buy a fighter for 30 years. Buying an F-35 in 2020 will be useless!

The thing is how do you do the transition to unmanned aircraft correctly, since there are uncertainties about when they will be available.

That's where the F-22, FB-22 and F-16E come into play. They are ALL manned aircraft. And since a fighter is expected to stay in service 30 years, that puts you in the 3035 to 2050 time frame. Which is well enough for a smooth transition.

The idea of the F-16E is to have sufficient numbers of fighters until UCAVs are able to replace them. After that you continue to keep your F-22s and FB-22s as manned aircraft, used in conjonction with UCAVs.

The F-16E would be perfect for that. It is still very capable and can hold its own against anything flying today. Especially if it was armed with a long range missile.

Another things to consider is the limitations in terms of deployment and the synergy between the different aircraft that you deploy. Since most often only a limited number of aircraft can be deployed, doesn't it make sense to have a nucleus of very lethal aircraft (F-22 and FB-22 say 300 of each ) rather than 180 F-22s and 1000+ F-35? An FB-22 can carry 4 times as much as an F-35.. It has a much better range too. How likely is it that the AF be able to deploy more than 600 aircraft? Not very likely! During GW1 they deployed 700 aircraft.. and there were many bases available..

If it turns out that it is possible to deploy more aircraft, you can deploy F-16s. They would still be very effective because they would be used in synergy with the other. Bombers and UCAVs and FB-22s would try to destroy ennemy aircraft on the ground, F-22s would intercept them when they take off, UCAVs and F-22s would be used for SEAD.

Quickly the enemy air force would be destroyed, as well as its air defense system. The F-16s could operate without too much trouble. The F-16s would also use most of the time stand off weapons.

All those systems are synergic. It's not just a matter of F-16s..

Imho.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 431

swanee,

I guess that sooner or later there will be technologies that will allow the replacement of the A-10. I don't know how far we are in the area of target identification, but it's will be done sooner or later. Systems like the longbow and JSTARS can already classify target.. so who knows maybe it may happen soon.

Quote:

In December 2004, Program Budget Decision 753 reduced F/A-22 funding by $10.5 billion (71.8 billion - 10.5 billion = 61.3 billion USDs), further reducing in all likelihood procurement quantities from 275 to 178 aircraft.

Ok so buying about 100 aircraft ( 275-178 ) would cost 10.5 billion. How much is that per aircraft?

It´s either 71.8 Billion for 275 planes (260 million per plane) or 61.3 Billion for 178 planes (345 million per plane)

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 431

What???

viperalltheway

its funny you mention UCAVs... the rumor at the 174th is that they want to test the predator with hellfires in a cas role... we'll see how that goes.

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 431

Why not test the GAU-8 on it? lol Laughing

Okay, so we've been talking about how the Air Force needs to replace the older 70's-80's design fighters, such as the F-16, F-15, and A-10, for new 5th generation fighters. But what about the Navy's F/A-18? Why are they just upgrading their Hornets instead of replacing them? The F-18, like the F-16, is also an aircraft that has already gone farther than it's design was originally meant to. The Hornet after all was based on the YF-17, which was a LWF design. So why is the Navy buying more of them?

As I understand it, the F/A-18E/F was built as a 'temporary measure' to hold the fort between the retirement of the F-14 and the introduction of something better. It can be debated on both sides, however, just how much of an 'upgrade' the E/F is over the A/B/C/D series. Sure, its got the same basic shape. But, internally, it is an all new airplane, and it is something like 15% bigger than the legacy Hornet. It has new engines, new avionics, new aerodynamics (to a degree anyway), things like that, that made it a viable option-even though some accounts say it is still outperformed by the older models. The F-16, however, is mainly getting new avionics, engines, and support equipment, with internal work as needed to support them. It is still pretty much the same basic airframe as was put out in 1978, just with newer guts and muscles.

You made good points by the way, forgot to add that to my post Smile

Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 431

The navy was not in the same situation as the AF. The navy could have upgraded the F-18C but it proved impossible. They wanted a better range and there's no way you could have put CFTs on the F-18.

The other requirement was better bring back capability. And that was impossible.

The 2 together were even more impossible.

They also needed an aircraft with very good a2a capability because it was meant to replace the tomcat in the air defense role.

The AF doesn't have any of those requirements.

It proved feasable to increase the range of the F-16 with CFTs with not much impact on the performance of the aircraft. That's what people who have flown with them say. And the AF doesn't need such high a2a capability because they have the F-22.

Even at that, the 2 aircraft are comparable. Comparable RCS (0.5 sqm vs 1 sqm, which means 10% of difference of detection range ), comparable acceleration, comparable manoeuvrability, comparable avionics, ECM, range, load, radar ( 1100 E/R for the APG-79, 1000 for the APG-80).

Both aircraft are good, but they are still not comparable to an F-22. That's why the Navy needs something better in the long term. The AF doesn't need a new aircraft, because it already has the F-22. If it was to build FB-22s, the F-22 would remain in production for a very long time.

So the AF has a long term alternative if needed, and not the Navy.

And btw the navy intends to buy 550 F-18Es, until 2012 or something, so they don't seem to think that it's a waste of money. And the F-16E is in the same category.

I don't get something, why is it that in any forum, the F/A-18 Hornet or Super hornet always get dissed or put down. Is the plane really that bad? Cuz in other forums, the F-14,15,16 and other planes tend to give a better reputation then the hornet. I know this is Off Topic

but i had to say something, cuz i really liek the hornet and it just pisses me off that people say these things Evil or Very Mad

Bwadwey wrote:

I don't get something, why is it that in any forum, the F/A-18 Hornet or Super hornet always get dissed or put down. Is the plane really that bad? Cuz in other forums, the F-14,15,16 and other planes tend to give a better reputation then the hornet. I know this is Off Topic

but i had to say something, cuz i really liek the hornet and it just pisses me off that people say these things Evil or Very Mad

Tailhook Envy Wink

Bwadwey wrote:

I don't get something, why is it that in any forum, the F/A-18 Hornet or Super hornet always get dissed or put down. Is the plane really that bad? Cuz in other forums, the F-14,15,16 and other planes tend to give a better reputation then the hornet. I know this is Off Topic

but i had to say something, cuz i really liek the hornet and it just pisses me off that people say these things Evil or Very Mad

I like the Hornet to, but its just that I'm jealous that it will get to stay around in the future, while other aircraft of it's generation like the F-16 and F-15 will have to retire. Sad

I'm sorry if you were offended by my earlier post.

Bwadwey wrote:

I don't get something, why is it that in any forum, the F/A-18 Hornet or Super hornet always get dissed or put down. Is the plane really that bad? Cuz in other forums, the F-14,15,16 and other planes tend to give a better reputation then the hornet. I know this is Off Topic

but i had to say something, cuz i really liek the hornet and it just pisses me off that people say these things Evil or Very Mad

Cauze the plane that lead to the -18 lost to the -16. Smile

Just poking fun, sorry, I couldn't help it. I think the Hornet is a pretty cool jet, personally

LOL it's alright. Are there any Hornet pilots in this forum or Tomcat pilots?

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Will the FB-22 Bomber go into production?