Posted on 01/11/2008 4:39:08 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Much of the blame lies with a Democrat controlled Congress, and with the Clinton administration, failing to properly support the R&D programs. That failure to properly support includes both inadequate funding and poorly defined requirements. The Air Force itself bears some of the blame, as well.
Most of that $161M is amortization for development costs. The per-unit manufacturing costs are lower. If you increase the production run, then R&D and tooling get amortized among more fighters, lowering the per-unit cost, and allowing the per-unit price to go down
But perhaps you CAN use one or more UAVs to fly along WITH the fighter to supplement its missile load with missiles that can be launched from the UAV but guided by the fighter's electronics
The problem is that we may not always be going up against an enemy that doesn't have an Air Force. It takes years to spin up a production line for a fighter aircraft. Once the aircraft reaches early production, you need to develop tactics to take advantage of the aircraft's capabilities. Once you have the first few airplanes and have initial tactics you need to train pilots. The pilot training pipeline for the F-15 was two years long - about eight months of that was in the F-15. That got you a minimally qualified wingman. It took at least another year to qualify him as a flight lead.
We need to have the aircraft in the inventory and have trained pilots at the beginning of any hostilities.
Does anyone else remeber when the C-17 was about to come on line that the C-141s started to be declared unsafe due to wing spar issues. The number of C-17 purchased went up.
Now the F-15s are grounded with 60% now allowed tot fly. Is the Airforce trying to get more F-22s?
That may be a possibility in the future, but I don't think the technology is available today to make it happen in the Air to Air mission. UAVs are pretty good for surface attack missions because the scenarios are less dynamic. There are still a lot of visual cues from the cockpit that are needed in the air to air mission.
Some of the problems that have to be looked at are visually identifying targets. A passenger jet coming out of Iranian airspace looks a lot like a bomber on a radar. The Rules of Engagement require a visual ID on the target before you launch missiles. That turns the fight into BFM/ACM requiring a lot of communications, teamwork, and instant decision making. A UAV doesn't provide the Situational Awareness required to be effective.
The F-15 problems aren't just cropping up. The aircraft has had several structural problems with the wings that have limited the amount of Gs the aircraft can pull for the last 15 years. The airplanes are worn out. They started entering service in the mid to late seventies. The Air to Air mission is a lot tougher on the aircraft than other missions. The airplanes have to make 8G turns and maneuvers that are violent enough to render a pilot unconcious if he isn't properly trained and equiped. The daily twisting and turning has weakened the frame of the plane.
To put it into perspective - If you owned a 30 year old car that had a rusted out frame would you continue fixing it or would you bite the bullet and pay for a new one?
“We are operating a fleet of aircraft to battle the now defunct Soviet Union, except our current enemies are uneducated, third world thugs armed with AKs and RPGs.”
You really need to pay a little more attention to what’s going on in Asia.
HMMM....
I think you are right and I WAS KIDDING (kind of like a conspiracy..)
It should be put into perspective, national security is the governments number 1 job. SS, Medicare, Welfare are all drains on what it SHOULD be spending money on.
I say buy the Raptor’s and cut SS benefits and thank the generations before us who decided to raid the “lock box” in the first place.
SS was always a Ponsey Scheme, no matter who raided the “funds”.
It was doomed to failure that day it was signed into law.
Otherwise, I agree that we fulfill our constitutional obligations and fully fund our military at the expense of social programs.
I remember hearing this song before. It was the wrong tune back in the 60's and it's the wrong tune still.
We had to learn a hard lesson with missile carriers only during the Vietnam unpleasantness,that's why even the F-22 mounts a gun today. Trying to regress to less capable, but numerous, aircraft and putting too much faith in UAV's is a prescription for disaster.IMHO.
Navy & Marine fighters need the backing of the heavy cavalry if they are to take on major trouble makers like Iran or China.
True, but what percentage of those targets were destroyed by bombs dropped by B-1s, B-2s, B-52s versus fighters? They aren't the same thing.
I'm not bashing the AF, I'm just pointing out the fact that the entire air combat complement does not reside with the AF.
Not the same discussion.
More importantly, I think the F-22 and the F-35 will be the last single-seat combat aircraft. Technology is advancing quickly, probably much faster than doctrine. Some of the autonomous stuff being developed by Boeing is incredible.
Perhaps it’s time to go back to first principles: the significant mission of the air force is to put bombs on a variety of targets (strategic and tactical, static and dynamic)target and shoot the bad guy’s airplanes out of the sky. What is the most combat effective way to do this, bounded by logistics and support (including R&D, manufacturing capacity, cost, supportability, etc)?
I think the handwriting is on the wall: manned combat aircraft are on the decline. The mission soon will be more effectively and efficiently performed by unmanned aircraft.
Technology happens and upsets the apple cart: cavalry, coastal artillery, navigators, bombadiers, gunners, reconnaissance, etc.
It is part of the discussion-
Bombers are not the only part of the airforce which will be vital for the navy,the air superiority fighters are as important & increasingly so.The Super Hornet & F-35 B/Cs are just not in the same league as the F-14 WRT modern threats-they will need the F-15 & F-22 to clean up the bad guys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.