What to do if the F22 is cancelled?

[Chris Werb]

I'm NOT the only one who thinks this???   

231966[/snapback]

 

I admit that my only experience of carrier warfare is playing Harpoon, but that taught me that swing role (or better still omni role) fighterbomber aircraft are far better than dedicated types. In the initial stages of a fight they can all be fighters defending your force, then establishing air superiority over the sea/terrain you want to contest, then they go over to self-escorting strikes, initially delivering standoff weapons, and progressively shorter ranged air to ground munitions.

 

With dedicated aircraft you end up with a lot of airframes that can't defend your fleet from an air threat. When you go over to hitting the enemy, you have to provide escorts and SEAD cover for your relatively defenceless strike aircraft. The Hornet, and to a much lesser extent the Bombcat really revolutionise the way you can do business. Furthermore PGMs mean you don't need the ability to carry two dozen Mk82s anymore. It used to be the case that many aircraft might kill one target - now one will kill several (in future many). Smaller munitions can now kill bigger/harder targets. They can also do so from good standoff ranges, so you don't have to carry airframes to make up for attrition.

 

IMHO a USN CVBG is now far more (conventionally) powerful (in terms of its potential to do worthwhile damage) than one of 20 years ago - even without taking Tomahawk into account.

[tankerwanabe]

The F22 can have two pylons under each wing.  Each can either

be a fuel tank, a pair of missles (though I believe the outer pylons

are not capable of firing missles, just carrying them for ferry

purposes), or up to a 1,000 pound jdam. 

 

The pylons can be dropped, and the plane returned to full "stealth"

mode once they are empty.  Nifty, huh?

 

There's a pic online showing an F22 dropping two tanks with

pylons attached to them. 

 

The proposed FB22 has a lot of potential, should it ever make it. 

the popular science artowork has lead people to believe it'll be a

tailess delta.  This is not the case.  LM reps have said it will be

"simply" a stretched version - two crew, much longer body, bigger

wing area (though probably thinner wings), and much increased

fuel capacity and much bigger weapons bays.  The design was

supposed to carry nearly 30 SDB's plus a pair of AMRAAMs,

and it would be as fast, though not as manuverable as the F22.

 

Would be cool to see.

231794[/snapback]

 

Those drop away pylons are pretty impressive.

 

Northrop just challenged Lockheed on its claim of bringing a reasonble price FB22. Northrop asserts that it can produce a better and cheaper FB23.

 

I wonder if Northrop is working on a FB23 prototype.

[gewing]

I admit that my only experience of carrier warfare is playing Harpoon, but that taught me that swing role (or better still omni role) fighterbomber aircraft are far better than dedicated types.  In the initial stages of a fight they can all be fighters defending your force, then establishing air superiority over the sea/terrain you want to contest, then they go over to self-escorting strikes, initially delivering standoff weapons, and progressively shorter ranged air to ground munitions.

 

With dedicated aircraft you end up with a lot of airframes that can't defend your fleet from an air threat.  When you go over to hitting the enemy, you have to provide escorts and SEAD cover for your relatively defenceless strike aircraft.  The Hornet, and to a much lesser extent the Bombcat really revolutionise the way you can do business.  Furthermore PGMs mean you don't need the ability to carry two dozen Mk82s anymore.  It used to be the case that many aircraft might kill one target - now one will kill several (in future many).  Smaller munitions can now kill bigger/harder targets.  They can also do so from good standoff ranges, so you don't have to carry airframes to make up for attrition.

 

IMHO a USN CVBG is now far more (conventionally) powerful (in terms of its potential to do worthwhile damage) than one of 20 years ago - even without taking Tomahawk into account.

231971[/snapback]

 

 

I'm not certain. The A-12 had stealth going for it, as well as what was supposed to be pretty good manueverability. It was iirc intended to carry AAM for self defense/self escort...

 

And the BIG advantage it had, iirc, is a significantly longer range than the F-18.

 

Bombcats and A-12s imo would have been a better mix. F/A 18 is an OK plane. NOt my preferred plane for any single role.

[EchoFiveMike]

I admit that my only experience of carrier warfare is playing Harpoon, but that taught me that swing role (or better still omni role) fighterbomber aircraft are far better than dedicated types.  In the initial stages of a fight they can all be fighters defending your force, then establishing air superiority over the sea/terrain you want to contest, then they go over to self-escorting strikes, initially delivering standoff weapons, and progressively shorter ranged air to ground munitions.

 

With dedicated aircraft you end up with a lot of airframes that can't defend your fleet from an air threat.  When you go over to hitting the enemy, you have to provide escorts and SEAD cover for your relatively defenceless strike aircraft.  The Hornet, and to a much lesser extent the Bombcat really revolutionise the way you can do business.  Furthermore PGMs mean you don't need the ability to carry two dozen Mk82s anymore.  It used to be the case that many aircraft might kill one target - now one will kill several (in future many).  Smaller munitions can now kill bigger/harder targets.  They can also do so from good standoff ranges, so you don't have to carry airframes to make up for attrition.

 

IMHO a USN CVBG is now far more (conventionally) powerful (in terms of its potential to do worthwhile damage) than one of 20 years ago - even without taking Tomahawk into account.

231971[/snapback]

 

Where this goes to shit is when the bottleneck becomes tankerage, Chris. The shortlegged 18's are PFU for anything other than here and back strike operations. Keeping them on station to support infantry operations, for example, puts a severe hurting on how you can do business. And since we are probably not going to see real conventional war anytime soon(since everyone sees how that turns out), supporting the grunts is the only game in town. A game where A6 would be lots more useful than F18. S/F.....Ken M

[Guest pfcem]

I admit that my only experience of carrier warfare is playing Harpoon, but that taught me that swing role (or better still omni role) fighterbomber aircraft are far better than dedicated types.  In the initial stages of a fight they can all be fighters defending your force, then establishing air superiority over the sea/terrain you want to contest, then they go over to self-escorting strikes, initially delivering standoff weapons, and progressively shorter ranged air to ground munitions.

 

With dedicated aircraft you end up with a lot of airframes that can't defend your fleet from an air threat.  When you go over to hitting the enemy, you have to provide escorts and SEAD cover for your relatively defenceless strike aircraft.  The Hornet, and to a much lesser extent the Bombcat really revolutionise the way you can do business.  Furthermore PGMs mean you don't need the ability to carry two dozen Mk82s anymore.  It used to be the case that many aircraft might kill one target - now one will kill several (in future many).  Smaller munitions can now kill bigger/harder targets.  They can also do so from good standoff ranges, so you don't have to carry airframes to make up for attrition.

 

IMHO a USN CVBG is now far more (conventionally) powerful (in terms of its potential to do worthwhile damage) than one of 20 years ago - even without taking Tomahawk into account.

231971[/snapback]

 

I have played Harpoon as well (& still do from time to time) & if I did not change the loadout of my F-18s to LR anti-radar (with the 70nm range HARM), they ended up just sitting on the carrier while my F-14s & A-6s conducted air operations far from the carrier. I would usually have 8-12 F-18s loaded as air-to-air just in case some enemy flight somehow made it through my F-14 patrols.

 

If you ever play Harpoon again, try playing the same scenario with your mostly F-18 airgroup & then try it again with a mixed airgroup. I bet you will find you will be more successful with your mixed airgroup. If your mostly F-18 airgroup consists of 1 squadron of F-14, 4 squardron of F-18 & 1 squardon of A-6, I bet you find yourself withing you had more F-14s & A-6s.

 

Your argument would hold more water if the F-14 was not capable of carrying ground attack weapons (something that is has always been capable of doing abiet only with free-fall bombs but 90some% of all ground targets are attacked using GPS or laser-guided bombs nowadays anyway).

 

The whole idea behind the A-12 was for it to penetrate enemy airspace using stealth & therefor would not require escorts (each A-12 would carry 2 AMRAAM for self defense).

 

Don't get me wrong, the F-18 is a great (abiet comparatively short-ranged) aircraft but it is not as good a fleet defense fighter as the F-14 or as good a strike aircraft as the A-12 would have been.

Edited October 7, 2005 by pfcem

[patteng]

Here is a somewhat recent and interesting RAND study comparing the procurement programs for the F/A-22 and F/A-18 E/F. I found the part about the F/A-22 splitting the work load among manufacturers and moving the management base (but less than 10% of core team) from Burbank to Marietta to be interesting. Overall, the Raptor looks like a very ambitious, almost revolutionary program in many areas - too much to chew for one program?

 

My view is that the F/A-22 development is mostly paid for, so may as well get some airframes out of the project. This will at least help to familiarize and develop tactics for any follow on programs (stealth usage and integrated avionics are things I would expect in other programs including UCAVs). However, Ken keeps mentioning future avionics upgrade costs being another monetary black hole - do you have any links to information about this, Ken?

 

The F-35 is interesting. My impression was that a lot of F/A-22 R&D has helped to lower the risk/cost of R&D for the JSF. So far it appears to be progressing relatively smoothly. The decision point on scaling back or cancelling can still be put off for a while longer. Every one talks of UCAVs as the future, but a lot is unproven in this area, such as air management of a large strike force. Keeping the F-35 ticking is probably a safety bet, unless or until the various UCAV programs prove their worth. You will note that the F-35 promotions even talk of using this as a forward platform for controlling UCAV flight missions.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

That is hardly the case with the F/A-22. It is plausible that the F/A-22 is too expensive to be justified. But unlike the A-12, the F/A-22 has produced something that exists and there can be little doubt is the best in the world.

 

A better analogy with the F/A-22 is the V-22. Expensive, painfully protracted development program, impressive capability although not necessarily cost-effective.

 

For all: do not forget the debacle of the USN A-12 program...$12B in development and nothing to show for it.

231575[/snapback]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Why the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet?

 

It's a reasonably affordable, reasonably capable, highly reliable/maintainable and safe aircraft to fill up carrier flight and hangar decks. It's good enough to handle enemies other than what the USSR might have become for the forseeable future.

 

The F-14 was and is frightfully expensive to maintain and operate. It's overkill unless you are facing regimental attacks by Backfires, which is not a likely scenario in the real world.

 

The A-12 was about as real as the X-Wing Fighter. A total flop that simply was not feasible.

 

The A-6F would have been a great airplane for the fleet, but was cancelled to pay for the A-12 fiasco/scandal. A most unfortunate decision, but water under the bridge at this point. Go the Intrepid museum if you want to see one.

 

The F/A-18E/F is not the best airplane possible, but it is the most cost-effective solution given the plausible alternatives. Better is the enemy of good enough. And with all the latest in weapons and avionics, it is no slouch. Assuming that the enemy is not the USAF, the British, the Israelis or the United Arab Emirates, it will be a superior weapon system. Against the Chinese, the Iranians or the Syrians, Super Hornet pilots and WSOs have a good chance of becoming aces in a few minutes.

[Guest pfcem]

Why the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet?

 

It's a reasonably affordable, reasonably capable, highly reliable/maintainable and safe aircraft to fill up carrier flight and hangar decks. It's good enough to handle enemies other than what the USSR might have become for the forseeable future.

232055[/snapback]

 

At $80+million a peace, I hardly call the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet reasonably affordable. The F-15E (a much more capable aircraft) cost about $60million a piece.

 

There is a chance that (if enough of them are procured) the per unit cost of the F-22 will end up being less than $100million.

[patteng]

At $80+million a peace, I hardly call the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet reasonably affordable.  The F-15E (a much more capable aircraft) cost about $60million a piece.

 

There is a chance that (if enough of them are procured) the per unit cost of the F-22 will end up being less than $100million.

232066[/snapback]

 

This news item says the latest budget includes $65m for a single F-15E (presumably a replacement purchase). However, it cannot land on a carrier.

 

F-15Ks and F-15Ts are going to be more expensive (and capable). This does make the fly-away cost of the F/A-22 more attractive in comparison though.

[Ken Estes]

Flag officers have absolutely no say in USN procurement.  If they did, we would have A-12's as a dedicated stike aircraft & probably something along the lines of the Super Tomcat 21 as a dedicated fleet defence fighter.

231952[/snapback]

 

hahahahahaha That will be news to more than a few of them! Especially now that the CINCs are allowed to weigh into the budget fracus.

[Scott Cunningham]

The A-12 program was way out of control. The companies involved were upping the cost on a daily basis, while admitting that they were not even close to achieving design specifications. Once it was cancelled the US military was sued by all the companies that had been milking the program, and the settlement cost damn near what the program was projected to cost anyways. I still doubt they ever would have gotten it to work. They were not even close.

 

As a result the USN realised it needed something. If not, it would have hit 2010 and had no operational planes. The result was the Super Hornet. It wasn't a plane the Navy wanted, but it was one it needed. Not an ideal aircraft by any means, but far better than the A-12, which never would have flown.

[swerve]

And portraying JSF as a net tech transfer to the US so far seems a little in the kneejerk to a supposed kneejerk category. Sure there's been transfers, but in the context of a program basically piggybacking on US R&D (and past ones which reflect the state of art starting point for the program, incl the F-22).

 

Joe,

 

I didn't say there's been a net technology transfer to the USA. The point is that I think the USA has got new technology it can use in future programmes, but I'm not at all sure the foreign partners have. If the F-35 is cancelled, something will replace it, & I suspect a lot of what's gone to the USA could be used on it, but I don't see any similar future projects in any of the partner countries.

[pluto77189]

Those drop away pylons are pretty impressive.

 

Northrop just challenged Lockheed on its claim of bringing a reasonble price FB22.  Northrop asserts that it can produce a better and cheaper FB23.

 

I wonder if Northrop is working on a FB23 prototype.

231977[/snapback]

Yeah, this was in the news a few months back - they took the

black widow out and started doing stuff to it. Northrop is going to

push to get the YF-23 used as the interim strike bomber, in

competition with the LM FB-22 and the rockwell B-1R(a heavily

modified B-1B, with F-119's, an dall other cool stuff to make it

work like the B-1A did, kinda sorta...).

 

If the F-22's place was secure (I liked it more than the YF-23

anyway), I'd give up the FB-22, the B1-R, and maybe my left nut

to see the FB-23 in service. It was better for the strike role in the

first place, the y could easily strethc the thing and make it the

coolest thing in the sky.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Joe,

 

I didn't say there's been a net technology transfer to the USA. The point is that I think the USA has got new technology it can use in future programmes, but I'm not at all sure the foreign partners have. If the F-35 is cancelled, something will replace it, & I suspect a lot of what's gone to the USA could be used on it, but I don't see any similar future projects in any of the partner countries.

232121[/snapback]

If the program pans out it will be a plane the partners wouldn't (I won't say plain "couldn't" to avoid nationalistic flaming, but practically couldn't) have produced, building from a basic state of art largely developed in US, especially tons of money spent on the F-22; there are lots of connections from everything I've read, obviously the prime contractor is one in the same. So it's an asymettry, without a plane at the end of the process there's a small amount of tech, relatively, perhaps, transferred to the US. With a plane there's a large amount of tech has been made available* going the other way that wouldn't have been otherwise. So it's kind of like an option premium paid by the partners, given a realistic eyes open attitude that any program can be cancelled.

 

*let's not be so narrow on "tech transfer" in sense somebody gets all the instructions to produce the same thing themselves, the product of the technology in the plane itself also counts, especially being involved producing it. Without it again you have last generation planes instead, big difference. Also your basic statement reflects grumbling in press articles from the Brits. I've read that too but it's somewhat short of a cut and dried fact, even so far as tech transfer in narrow sense is concerned.

 

Joe

Edited October 7, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Chris Werb]

I have played Harpoon as well (& still do from time to time) & if I did not change the loadout of my F-18s to LR anti-radar (with the 70nm range HARM), they ended up just sitting on the carrier while my F-14s & A-6s conducted air operations far from the carrier.  I would usually have 8-12 F-18s loaded as air-to-air just in case some enemy flight somehow made it through my F-14 patrols.

 

If you ever play Harpoon again, try playing the same scenario with your mostly F-18 airgroup & then try it again with a mixed airgroup.  I bet you will find you will be more successful with your mixed airgroup.  If your mostly F-18 airgroup consists of 1 squadron of F-14, 4 squardron of F-18 & 1 squardon of A-6, I bet you find yourself withing you had more F-14s & A-6s.

 

It would depend what scenario. A cold war style scenario with hordes of Backfires and several enemy SAGs with very credible air defence would certainly have me wanting F-14s and A-6Fs - the latter particularly useful because of the lack of air to surface PGMs and had very few (if any) Tomahawks compared to today.  As Kenneth pointed out, that scenario just isn't going to happen anymore.  If you play Harpoon, you'll find that the AIM-120s hit rate more than makes up for its inferior range over the AIM-54.

 

Your argument would hold more water if the F-14 was not capable of carrying ground attack weapons (something that is has always been capable of doing abiet only with free-fall bombs but 90some% of all ground targets are attacked using GPS or laser-guided bombs nowadays anyway).

 

The trouble with using F-14s A to G pre JDAM was that they'd have to get perilously close to point defences and would still have little chance of hitting and less still of KOing a protected target. I don't think H2 (out of the box) modelled free fall bombs for the 14, but I could be wrong.  Later in its life the 14 got Paveway, JDAM (and IIRC Harpoon) capability, but it lost the AIM-54 and never received AIM-120 , HARM or JSOW.  You thus ended up with a long legged, but maintenance intensive bomber with a moderate self-escort capability.

 

Ken, you mentioned loiter capability.  the best answer to that would IMHO be to have retained the S-3 in the inventory as a tanker/bomb-truck, ISTAR and airborne C4I platform.  The S-3 is a very versatile plane that could have benefited from some relatively inexpensive upgrades.  IIRC at the moment it can only use free fall bombs, mines and CBUs, AGM-65E and F and AGM-84H/K.  It really shines in getting precision target locations for other platforms to use their GPS/INS guided munitions on.

[Ol Paint]

--SNIP--

The trouble with using F-14s A to G pre JDAM was that they'd have to get perilously close to point defences and would still have little chance of hitting and less still of KOing a protected target. I don't think H2 (out of the box) modelled free fall bombs for the 14, but I could be wrong.  Later in its life the 14 got Paveway, JDAM (and IIRC Harpoon) capability, but it lost the AIM-54 and never received AIM-7, HARM or JSOW.  You thus ended up with a long legged, but maintenance intensive bomber with a moderate self-escort capability.

--SNIP--

232205[/snapback]

F-14 never received AIM-7?? That's a surprise... Now, if you had said AIM-120, that's possible.

Specification of Grumman F-14D Tomcat:

Engines: Two General Electric F110-GE-400 turbofans, each rated at 16,090 lb.s.t. dry and 26,795 lb.s.t with afterburning. Performance: Maximum speed (with four semi-recessed Sparrow missiles) Mach 1.2 (912 mph) at sea level, Mach 2.34 (1544 mph) at 40,000 feet. Combat air patrol loiter time 2.05 hours (at 173 mile radius with two 280 US gallon drop tanks). Combat air patrol radius (with 1 hour loiter) 423 miles. intercept radius (Mach 1.3) 319 miles. Initial climb rate greater than 50,000 feet per minute. Ferry range 2200 miles. service ceiling greater than 58,000 feet. Weights: 42,000 pounds empty, maximum takeoff weight, 75,000 pounds. Dimensions: wing span 64 feet 1 1/2 inches (unswept), 38 feet 2 1/2 inches (fully swept), length 62 feet 8 inches, wing area 565 square feet. Fuel: Maximum internal fuel 2385 US gallons. A 267 US-gallon drop tank can be carried on a hardpoint underneath each air intake. Armament: One 20-mm General Electric M61A1 Vulcan in the nose with 675 rounds. Provision for six AIM-7F/M Sparrow and two AIM-9L/P Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, or six AIM-54A/C Phoenix long-range air-to-air missiles and two AIM-9L/P Sidewinders, or four AIM-54A/C Phoenix missiles underneath the fuselage and two AIM-7F/M Sparrow and two AIM-9L/P Sidewinders on the wing glove pylons. Up to 14,500 pounds of external stores can be carried underneath the fuselage, beneath the engine inlets (fuel tanks only), and on a wing rack underneath each wing globe. For the attack mission, four 1000-lb Mk 83 or 2000-lb Mk0 84 low-drag GP or laser-guided bombs can be carried on the Phoenix fuselage mounts. For the SEAD mission, four AGM-88B HARM missiles can be carried on fuselage stations.

 

Douglas

[Rod]

This news item says the latest budget includes $65m for a single F-15E (presumably a replacement purchase).

232068[/snapback]

 

That Boeing lobbyist just earned his high paycheck

[JOE BRENNAN]

F-14 never received AIM-7??  That's a surprise...  Now, if you had said AIM-120, that's possible.

232248[/snapback]

I assume no AIM-7 was a typo, of course carried on F-14's and not only in theory, fired in exercises often in recent years (and often from F-18's too, presumably to fire off the inventory). No AIM-120. The Baugher page mentiones HARM's but also never integrated AFAIK. Harpoon was mentioned before: US thought it might be fitted to Iranian F-14's, one reason for the Vincennes incident; but never to USN ones. For JSOW you can find a quote on web from article by Tony Holmes in a recent "Hook" (also probably his Osprey book on recent F-14 ops) seeming to say JSOW and SLAM-ER were used by F-14's in Afghanistan but I think poorly written sentence actually saying F-18's carried those alongside. Though no big deal software wise for JSOW once mods were made for JDAM, SLAM-ER another story I think.

 

The basic bombcat evolution in combat (per clearer parts of same article mentioned above) was LGB dropping (with F-18's designating) in NATO v. Bosnian Serb stuff in mid 90's, self designation with LANTIRN pods in Desert Fox '98, JDAM's from F-14B's in Afghanistan and integrated to the different weapons system of D's in time for OIF. The detailed ordnance totals for the sdns in OIF include only LGB's, JDAM's, a few dumb bombs for some, and some 20mm for all. Wrong lists of F-14 retirements have been on the web but latest one you see with 4 remaining (as of end '04) B sdns by end of this year and the 2 D sdns next year seems to be correct or close.

 

Joe

Edited October 7, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Chris Werb]

I assume no AIM-7 was a typo, of course

Joe

232286[/snapback]

 

Ooops! I had to make an arse of myself after calling Slater on GBU-15 being laser-guided!

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Meaningless numbers except in terms of quantity of aircraft in order, government vs contractor furnished equipment, installed avionics, etc.

 

At $80+million a peace, I hardly call the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet reasonably affordable.  The F-15E (a much more capable aircraft) cost about $60million a piece.

232066[/snapback]

[Chris Werb]

Other than for loitering on-call CAS, I don't think range is necessary as it used to be. Firstly, very few countries have systems that make it necessary for a CVBG to stay a long way away. Secondly, unless a war materialises out of the blue where a CVBG is already stationed, the odds are the USAF will aready have hit everything remotely valuable in the theatre by the time the CVBG arrives. You can put enough near-precision ordnance in one bomber to effectively take-down a medium sized industrialised nation in one sortie. The USAF has lots of bombers and lots of ordnance.

[gewing]

Other than for loitering on-call CAS, I don't think range is necessary as it used to be.  Firstly, very few countries have systems that make it necessary for a CVBG to stay a long way away.  Secondly, unless a war materialises out of the blue where a CVBG is already stationed, the odds are the USAF will aready have hit everything remotely valuable in the theatre by the time the CVBG arrives.  You can put enough near-precision ordnance in one bomber to effectively take-down a medium sized industrialised nation in one sortie.  The USAF has lots of bombers and lots of ordnance.

232804[/snapback]

 

 

 

I would think that flexibility would have reared its head in favor of longer range.

 

Also, it is only in the last few years that USAF bombers could really do that, imo.

 

How about 15 years ago?

[FlyingCanOpener]

Meaningless numbers except in terms of quantity of aircraft in order, government vs contractor furnished equipment, installed avionics, etc.

232780[/snapback]

 

And especially the fact the Mud Hen can't take off from a carrier!

[Guest pfcem]

You can put enough near-precision ordnance in one bomber to effectively take-down a medium sized industrialised nation in one sortie.

232804[/snapback]

 

Oh, really.

 

Lets see. Were any of these "medium sized industrialised nations" effectively take-down by one bomber in one sortie?

 

Bosnia... Nope

 

Afghanistan... Nope

 

Iraq... No again

 

Your batting average isn't looking too good there.

 

If we could put enough near-precision ordnance in one bomber to effectively take-down a medium sized industrialised nation in one sortie, we wouldn't need any carriers at all.