UAL T38 Phlyer

C17:

I don't think, given the current state of the US economy, its likely projection for at least the next 4 years, and a $10-Trillion National Debt that the Air Force will see 1700 F-35s (although that may be the Tri-service total....seems high to me). The USAF wanted 600 F-22s, and I think they are getting about 200.

So, assume the USAF gets 60% of that 1700, or about 900 airframes. There are about 1200 F-16s in the inventory amongst the Active, Guard, and Reserve. I would be willing to bet that a similar number of F-16s (Guard Block 10s, 15, 20s, and 30s; replaced by Active-Duty Block 40s and -50s) will be gone, and right now, the F-15C fleet is being looked at by some who want to scrap it, due to the longeron failure problem...that's another 400-ish airframes. I had to laugh when the Air Staff said the $500,000 per jet it would cost to repair it justified spending $163 million per jet to replace them, one for one, with F-22s, because it was "...too expensive."

To put that in perspective, the cost of ONE F-22 would pay to repair EVERY F-15C in the inventory.

Anyway, I don't see the F-35 or F-22 as adding any cockpits..I see parity, or, since they are supposed to be 'force multipliers,' the rationale to REDUCE the total number of fighter cockpits.

c17heavy

T38, you bring up a good point. If I had to bet, I would agree with you that we aren't gonna get anywhere near the amount of F-35's the AF wants. For awhile, we've have politicians who worry more about the bottom line instead of national security. We will be in for a huge surprise when we face off against another conventional super power.

LivingInMEM

I think it is the USAF leadership who is selling our performance in a future war in return for either their next star or their next post-USAF retirement job. Sacrificing every F-117, nearly every F-15, trying to sacrifice the B-52's, etc all in the name of acquiring a few more F-22's is potentially criminal. I am sure the same will soon be said about the F-35.

Technology is not the answer to everything - the old adage "quanity has a quality all its own" still rings true. Who would reduce our entire fleet to 189 examples of an aircraft and expect them to be able to man every VUL in the world with less missiles and less gas (no external stores) than our current aircraft? I suppose the same people who would comprise our entire fleet with an aircraft that is really only required to counter maybe 5%-15% of our future probable threat. As good as the F-22 is, 4 F-22's won't stop 50 Mig-21's.

navigatro

Not to bash fighter guys, but this is what happens when most of the 4 stars are fighter types.

ryan1234

just curious if anyone knows if any one upt base is dropping more UAVs than another?

UAL T38 Phlyer

MEM:

Exactly. Consider that, for any given fleet, roughly one-third of the jets are "down" for either mechanical problems that day, or Phase Inspections (Planned periodic inspections, typically around 100 hours, 300 hours, 600 hours, and 900 hours). The 600 and 900 hour inspections on the T-38 take about a month or so. I would assume more sophisticated airplanes take longer.

Which means you have about 120 F-22s to save the world.

Read a very interesting editorial in AW&ST about a year ago. The guy was an aerospace engineer, and he argued the "quantity' argument you cited.

His example was: Mainland China threatens Taiwan. We position US Naval vessels in the Straits to call their bluff, and position F-22s on Taiwan.

China calls our bluff and attacks.

The F-22s get superior BVR shots with no fratricide, with ratios of 6 or 8 kills per no losses---but now out of AMRAAMs, there are still hordes of low-tech fighters armed with anti-shipping missiles headed towards the boats.

So, the F-22s staunchly and bravely keep going, and get superior Heater and gun-kill ratios before being overwhelmed by superior numbers and a lucky shot.

The West has proven their point of view that superior technology gives superior kill-ratios.

The East has proven their point that superior numbers of slightly inferior weapons can still prevail.

Navigatro:

On the other hand, after World War II, Bomber guys ran the Air Force, and bought airplanes that could go fast, but couldn't maneuver. Read "John Boyd: the Figher Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." Excellent book. They didn't know what made a good fighter--they thought "fast" meant "Good."

I think the real problem is the top levels of Brass are more about politics than combat. Think about the games these guys play to get promoted beyond LtCol...to make it to the 4-star level means they've honed this skill to a fine-edge. That's the internal politics of the USAF--then there are the external politics, either with Congress, Sec Def, or inter-service rivalries. Also addressed in the book, above.

Finally, by the time they get that far up the food-chain, they've been out of the front-line cockpit so long that they are relying on what worked when they were Captains, or the advice of aides, Staff Summary Sheets, and Think-tanks. They won't know the pressing issues the guys on the line complain about, nor will they know the simple and elegant solutions guys have come up with. The USAF isn't very good at soliciting internal recommendations--they usually come from the Scientific Advisory Panel. That means by the time a problem is identified, it has been a problem for a long time. And a solution--if there is one--takes even longer.

Solution? I don't have one.

USMCFLYR

They built great INTERCEPTORS wouldn't you agree? They weren't FIGHTERS. They launched, climbed rapidly and to a high altitude to get the best shots for the long range missiles they carried, then were suppose to turn around, refuel and rearm and launch again - agreed? I mean can you imagine the turning qualities of the F-104?

USMCFLYR

navigatro

Fortunately we don't have the missile geeks running the AF (yet)

UAL T38 Phlyer

USMC:

That would be true of the entire Century-Series of fighters, save maybe the F-100, which could still turn from a wing-loading perspective, but had horrible handling qualities at high AOA.

The Pakistanis and Indians had a skirmish in the 1965 with Paki F-104s dueling with Hawker Hunters on the Indian side. Score: 2:3 against the F-104, because they did try to turn. Another war in 1970, but against MiG-21s; worse results: 1:6 against.

Navigatro:

Even worse: Information Management types. Translation: blue-suit Geek-Squad.

Kilgore Trout

There's a thread "across the pond" at pprune discussing a similar topic.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-airforce.html