The Ship Model Forum

It's my belief that the UCAVs will gain dominance during the current* generation's lifetime. If they fail, it will only hasten the introduction and reliance of the UCAVS due to costs. I would expect to switch to a C&C mothership / UCAV infrastructure where the mother ship controlled the UCAVs as long as possible, but if contact was severed, they could continue on with pre-programmed missions.

F-22 & F-35

[quote="Tracy White"]Whatever generation goes in now is going to be the last manned tactical combat aircraft in the US inventory. If the USAF is forced to take the super bug it'll be the last they fly. No way would congress let them trade them out once they have them.[/quote]

That's only if the current generation of aircraft serves for 40 years. If the combat mainstay that is going into service now proves inadequate in 10 years, then what will replace them will still likely to manned.

[quote="Werner"]

A commentator said recently that the F-22 was stealthier than it needs to be, faster than it needs to be, and bigger than it needs to be. That has been it's problem.[/quote]


No one will believe him in 10 years.

Whatever generation goes in now is going to be the last manned tactical combat aircraft in the US inventory. If the USAF is forced to take the super bug it'll be the last they fly. No way would congress let them trade them out once they have them.

The F-22 is a Cold War holdover. The USN has done well with the Super-Hornet. The plane has done well so far. The maintance cost are low and she is not a hanger hog like the F-14 was. With the new AN/APG-79 AESA radar and the AIM-120D missile the capability lost when the F-14 and the Phoenix has been closed. The AIM-120D is smaller and faster than the Phoenix and has about two thirds its range. But the new system can hit smaller, faster, and more agile targets. Since Russia has scrapped its Tu-16 fleet and its smaller Tu-22M fleet has been refit as tactical bombers from the maritme roll and passed to the Air Force from the Navy not likely to go back, the missile threat from bombers to the USN greatly reduced. Threats from the next generation Exocet type missiles has greatly increased.

[quote="Seasick"]...The F-22A cost $137 million a piece. The USAF can expect to buy 180 tops. ....[/quote]
Oh, were that true! $137 million is the price of Lot 7 aircraft. The program acquisition unit cost was $345 million in 2005, and climbing. This cost includes all the R&D costs back to the beginning of the project amortized over the buy, and not for an incremental airframe in the middle of the production run.

You can buy an [i]Arleigh Burke[/i] for the cost of two of these suckers.

A commentator said recently that the F-22 was stealthier than it needs to be, faster than it needs to be, and bigger than it needs to be. That has been it's problem.

The USAF could probably buy new F-15 fighters but they will be obsolete long before they reach retirement age. The USAF is stuck. The F-22A cost $137 million a piece. The USAF can expect to buy 180 tops. The F-35A will replace all the F-16 , F-117 and A-10 but it can only replace the F-15E in the strike roll. The USAF might consider a F-22 model that is stripped down a bit. Other than that, the USAF will have to buy another plane in production:

1. F-16E (F-16 Block 60): This plane can be brought back into production, the USAF is reluctant because of the large number of F-16 fighters already in service and the substantial number in storage out in the desert. Its a lot of money to spend with the F-35A entering service.

2. F-15K: The recent version of the F-15 is going to be obsolete in less than ten years in US service.

3. F/A-18E/F: In production for the Navy currently. Has a fully digital archetecture. They are now being delivered with the AN/APG-79 AESA radar. The aircraft is already combat tested in Iraq in the close support and strike rolls. Once the USAF has enough new airframes to replace the F-15 jets the F/A-18E/F can be sold to the Navy.

[quote="richter111"]I know this is simplistic, but why not just build more F-15's? The tooling has to be present as they are still in production. The F-15 is a proven entity, as is the F-16.

Just make more?

Ric[/quote]
YES the F-15k is current production.

The Israeli Kfir were somewhat sucessful. It was a Mirage III with a J79. Even with all the modifications that were made the planes still had problems caused by the J79 being a hotter running engine than the original French engine. The Kfir had a heat shield added for the engine as well as added cooling vents. The planes air frames wore out faster than originally planned, requiring more maintance.

[quote="Tim Jacobs"]If you want an "out of the box" solution, how about license building the newest variant Flanker airframes, put on US engines, avionics and weapons... and fly away the most advanced fighter short of an F-22. You start with zero hours, have an advanced airframe and keep the "made in America" label" (well, [i]assembled[/i] in America).[/quote]

Su-27 is not that advanced. The thing first flew in 1977. There is no guaranty any American engine will fit in Su-27's engine bays. Routing of all flight management electrical and electronic cabling would have to change to accommodate American avionics. So its airframe is unlikely to be usable in the way you envision without major modification. The material specification, service procedures and maintenance requirements of the Su-27 would all be designed with no consideration for American practice, and would thus be wholly alien to USAF logistic structure. You have to go through the entire slew of weapons integration tests, weapon release tests, etc. The acclimation process would be equal to that of F-22 and would take years. It is also not clear how much tests the Russians actually did on the newest Flanker variant.

In any case, pride would never allow Americans to be seen as nothing more than a giant version of Venezuela when it comes to fighter acquisition.

The Su-27 thing won't work. mating different technologies that have to work at military standards is difficult. It can be done but don't expect to save money. The USAF would do better building a stripped down version of the F-22 with a less expensive avionics suite. The avionics is where the cost is. The Su-27 thing wouldn't be ready in less than three years anyway.

Just as a point of reference:
If you were wondering what the big deal about the cost of the F-22A is; its the unit cost is so high.
Unit cost in 2007:

F-22A: $137.7 million, in 2007
F/A-18E: $57.0 million, in 2007
F/A-18F: $59.0 million, in 2007
F-15K: $100 million, in 2006.
F/A-18C: $35 million, in 2003. -- $38 million adjusted to 2006 dollars.
F-16E "Block 60" $18.8 million, in 1998. -- $23 million adjusted to 2006 dollars.
F-15E $43.0 million, in 1998. -- $52 million adjusted to 2006 dollars.
F-15C $29.9 million, in 1998. -- $36 million adjusted to 2006 dollars.
F-4E $2.4 million, in 1978. -- $7.7 million adjusted to 2006 dollars. <-- Its far more than inflation driving up cost.

The USAF could buy the F-16E/F Block60 being purchased by the UAE.

If you want an "out of the box" solution, how about license building the newest variant Flanker airframes, put on US engines, avionics and weapons... and fly away the most advanced fighter short of an F-22. You start with zero hours, have an advanced airframe and keep the "made in America" label" (well, [i]assembled[/i] in America).

Accident report findings have been posted online; documents and video clips:
http://www.acc.af.mil/aibreports/
Each video's about 25 megs.

[quote="Seasick"]3. Accelerating the F-35A will drive up its cost.[/quote]

Furthermore, the F-15s that were grounded were primarily air defense fighters, and the F-35 ain't anywhere near an air defense fighter.

Options:
1. Restart production of the F-15 for the USAF.
2. Buy more F-22 than planned.
3. Push forward the F-35A production date.
4. Supplement the Air Force with F/A-18F in the strike roll.
5. Start a remanufacturing program for the F-15.

1. Is not acceptable because the new aircraft will be obsolete before they ware out.
2. Is not acceptable because of the high cost of the F-22.
3. Accelerating the F-35A will drive up its cost.
4. The Super-Bug has its limitations, but is already in production and has the lowest cost of all options.
5. This is possible, and would most likely have to be done in house by the air force in the same manner the Navy is repairing airframes of F/A-18C that have been dammaged by hard(er than normal)landings.

We are in a unique situation... the Air Force and Navy require major capital investment to maintain the current level of capability, which is already somewhat short of it's obligations. Meanwhile, the land forces have been severely used and require a similar investment. Meanwhile, the government at home has become so fat, taxes so high and future domestic obligations so huge that it is unlikely that the rehabilitation of the armed forces will get anything like the funds it requires.

A possible ray of light would be the replacement of the income tax with a consumption tax; the US "gray" economy is estimated at up to 25% of the reported numbers. A consumption tax would draw these earnings into the tax pool.

The tooling does in fact still exist, as stated earlier the line is still open building new F-15K for Korea. That being said I don't think the AF will build any more -15 for itself. It's an old airframe/design and like it or not there are several aircraft that outclass it now. Additionally I don't see the AF or any other service in the American military willingly accepting a 5th generation or earlier aircraft. I just read in the Air Force Association's newsletter where the AF is in the process of manufacturing new longerons for the 9 jets found so far with the most serious damage. The main issues here are the age of the jets involved, time to manufacture the parts (up to 120 days each) and the expense of the repair $200,000 each. The repair will also require a special jig to be produced to hold the aircraft during the repair. Additionally since the jets in question are danger grounded the depot team will have to travel to each location to perform the repairs which will require 42 days for each aircraft due to the nature of the required repair. At this point we're approaching the same argument that occurred when the F-15 was first being brought on line regarding upgrading the F-4. The AF has delayed recapitalizing it's fleet long enough...some say too long but that is beside the point.

Incidentally, the Japanese are not impressed by the potential of UAVs to supercede the F-22. Indeed they are so concerned that the US would shut down the F-22 production line without selling them any F-22s that they've embarked upon a seldom mentioned, but rather significant, program to build their own F-22 class heavy, twin engined stealth fighter in corporation with the French. The stealthiness test airframe has just been shipped to France for radar stealthiness tests. It looks a little like the F-22, but is definitely not a copy of the F-22. Photos of the prototype, taken inside the French radar test chamber, can be found in the current Air Power Magazine. If the French are involved, then the odds are high that after the US shuts down the F-22 production line after a mere 180 planes or so, substantial numbers of new F-22 class stealthy fighters will continue to find their way into the hands of a variety of air forces around the world.

Just makes the UCAVs time draw near that much faster....

[quote="Werner"]I'm pretty sure the tooling was destroyed. I know that Grumman made a point of destroying the F-14 tooling when the Navy canceled the last F-14D order.[/quote]


It is not destroyed. The production line is still open to produce F-15K for Korea, which as far as airframe goes is identical to F-15E. F-15E is said to retain the complete air combat capability and performance of the F-15C. F-15E/K is also able to switch between standard F100 engine hitherto used on all American F-15s and the alternative F110 engines used in last production blocks of F-16CJ, thus allowing any new production F-15 to stream line logistic chain by sharing engine with latest blocks of F-16CJ in a way existing F-15C can not do.

There is also a parallel production line that still exists in Japan. It produced F-15J, which for all practical purposes is identical to F-15C, missing only the never used nuclear release equipment on American F-15C and substituting a few minor pieces of ECM equipment for their Japanese equivalent.

Its feasibility not withstanding, any further F-15 production is unlikely to find favor with the Air Force because it can only bring the Air Force more headache over the issue it really cares about, which it to convince the congress to give it more money to keep the F/A-22 production going after 2009. Never mind the F-15 production line, the F-22 production line is scheduled to be closed about 2011-2012. I think the decision to ground so many F-15 can not have been completely free from any influence by the Air Force's grand strategy to procure more F/A-22s.