1st Air Force composite Air Dominance Wing Operational

[MattC]

True, enough, I hadn't really counted on the difference in cost being so narrow to be honest, and I'm not absolutely sure about the need for any sort of "mixed group" as it were, given that on front line operations, this is done on a mission specific basis anyway.

[Jonathan_Lotton]

Is that in $US? Thats really not such a bad price is it, and using development costs is always a bit unfair, especially when new technology is being utilised as in the F-22.

Interesting comparisons;

EF Typhoon - £70m flyaway = US$ 107m

Rafale - US$ 90m

F35 - US$ 83m

PAK-FA (Estimated) 10Bn development cost, Unit cost approx 100m

Gripen - US$60m

Yes, thats all $US for the Raptor and Silent Eagle.

[Murph]

flippin 'eck, I thought the F-22 would be a lot more than that, or, at least, the difference would be greater, although, thats £100m is the unit price for something which is intended for export, so I would assume thats the price tag for other nations and not what the US would pay?

Would it also make sense that there is a degree of commonality between current F-15 models and the SE? If so, then the maintenance and spares costs come down somewhat perhaps? I'm guessing it would cost less to update current F-15 ground crews to the SE model than to train them to F-22?

I guess part of the problem is with the whole issue, is that there's naff all cash in the pot, but that conversation starts getting into the realms of defense spending and strategy, and, erm, I can't go there.

Actually the latest Raptors have been around U.S. $105 million each from the factory. Just for comparison, the last F-15Es bought for the USAF were around $110 million per copy IIRC due to the small numbers they were bought in (2 per year to keep Congress happy).

Regards,

Murph

[TaiidanTomcat]

Actually the latest Raptors have been around U.S. $105 million each from the factory. Just for comparison, the last F-15Es bought for the USAF were around $110 million per copy IIRC due to the small numbers they were bought in (2 per year to keep Congress happy).

Ouch

[Vpanoptes]

Interesting discussion. Just a couple of comments 'cause I can't figure out a way to cut and paste from all the various sources.

1) Presumably the situation with the BUFF being around (almost) forever is because it no longer need act as a penetrating bomber but rather as a stand-off cruise missile platform in the face of a high/sophisticated ADS but that is still serviceable as a bomb truck over places like Afghanistan, therefore extending potential service life for another what, 20-30 years?

2) Refurbishing F-15C's is probably still cheaper in the long run than buying new airframe Silent Eagles. Also consider that if the USAF bought new-build Silent Eagles, then their potential out-of-service date might be what - 20-30+ years? Presumably one of the reasons behind resistance to this idea is that the USAF wants to eventually get out of the Eagle maintenance & repair business and transition to 6th Generation airframes.

3) Comments about always being prepared to fight the last war are pretty much on the mark. Imagine how long a lot of these (relatively) cheap low-end and even high-end UAV/UCAS birds would last against a competent ADS? Does the term "target-rich environment" sound familiar?

4) Seems I recall reading somewher (AWS & T?) that the "resurrection" cost (beyond the current 187) of a new Raptor would run somewhere around $173 million if A, and B, and etc.

No great insights, maybe just some comments for comment.....

Edited April 19, 2010 by Vpanoptes

[GreyGhost]

Actually the latest Raptors have been around U.S. $105 million each from the factory. Just for comparison, the last F-15Es bought for the USAF were around $110 million per copy IIRC due to the small numbers they were bought in (2 per year to keep Congress happy).

Regards,

Murph

Well that was just stupid for stupid's sake ... ;)

Gregg

[MattC]

1) Presumably the situation with the BUFF being around (almost) forever is because it no longer need act as a pentrating bomber but rather as a stand-off cruise missile platform in the face of a high/sophisticated ADS but that is still serviceable as a bomb truck over places like Afghanistan, therefore extending potential service life for another what, 20-30 years?

I don't know what the potential for extending the B-52's lifespan is, but my guess is that it may be fairly significant. Thats an undecuated guess, but my feeling would be that in any future conflict requiring "heavy" bombing of any sort, the buff's wouldn't be sent in until any serious air defence systems had been taken out, but its difficult to see a strike mission which couldn't be done more effectively with a higher speed, low observable platform.

We're not likely to see another conflict where massive attrition is the name of the game, principally because any future threats are either going to be contained within civillian areas or in small, highly mobile units which, even if they have no defence against a B-52 strike, would be more than capable of seeing/hearing/tracking it coming, and simply not be there by the time the strike arrives.

Thinking about it some more, are the export F-15's (ie JASDF etc) reliant on the US for any of their operation/maintenance etc? It might be that by continuing "some" F-15 operations in the USAF, the capability,tooling,manpower etc for those export markets can stay in the US, providing employment and tax revenue. Otherwise, if the whole F-15 "operation" in the US winds down, a market for civilian defence contractors opens up everywhere else that uses the Eagle?

So until those other markets transfer onto a different type, it may be in US economic interest to keep a limited F-15 program running "on idle"?

[Rapier01]

Actually the latest Raptors have been around U.S. $105 million each from the factory.

That's not including the engines- which are govt furnished equipment right? In which case I believe the total comes to 140 million...

[Wayne S]

Ouch

Do not let those F-22 fans fool you. We will need the more expensive F-35 for its 4000 pound capability.

The terrorist use a new technology in their home structures. Code Name JTH "Jabba The Hutt". Jabba's are built from material similar to-----

Moon Sand

1000 pound bombs will not do the job, it takes 2000 pound bombs to disperse this new composite material over a greater distance. The F-35 is "greatly" needed in the wars of today. Specially! Since the US Navy has been caught off guard fighting yesterdays wars with 1000 pounders.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Wayne S

[Spongebob]

but my feeling would be that in any future conflict requiring "heavy" bombing of any sort,

Do you really see 8th AF/Arclight style carpet bombing ever having a home anywhere in the US's bag tricks?

Not saying we don't need the B-52 or B-1, but their place in the lineup is secured because in permissive/contested airspace they have long loiter time, great dash speed and are a veritable weapons Wal-Mart...as opposed to a section of F-16's carting 4,000 of ordnance and plugged into a tanker the whole time.

Just to spur the conversation - just think of how usefull ALL of the current UAS's/RPV's we're buying will be in an environment where someone is shooting back (not even talking air-to-air..just advanced MANPADS and AAA). Doesn't seem like sliced bread now, does it?

Spongebob

[Kei Lau]

Just for comparison, the last F-15Es bought for the USAF were around $110 million per copy IIRC due to the small numbers they were bought in (2 per year to keep Congress happy).

Regards,

Murph

Well that was just stupid for stupid's sake ... :D

Gregg

The F-15E equivalent is still in production for the Korean and Singaporean Air Forces. They have to pay significant more than the USAF paid, but not more than $100M. The F-15K and F-15SG won over the Typhoon after exhaustive evaluation by the Korean and Singaporean Air Forces. Call them stupid if you may, there was solid strategy and technical reasons behind the decision.

The Saudi Arabian Air Force is the only operator of both the F-15C/D, F-15E and the Typhoon. They are rumored to buy another two squadrons of fighter in 2010. It would be interesting to see what they pick.

[Murph]

That's not including the engines- which are govt furnished equipment right?

Dave,

When they're picked up at the factory the pilot has to sign for the jets, and the price tag is included in the paper work; the latest ones have been in the area that I mentioned above. I'm assuming that's "fly away" cost, including the engines, but maybe not.

Regards,

Murph

Edited April 19, 2010 by Murph

[TaiidanTomcat]

The F-15E equivalent is still in production for the Korean and Singaporean Air Forces. They have to pay significant more than the USAF paid, but not more than $100M. The F-15K and F-15SG won over the Typhoon after exhaustive evaluation by the Korean and Singaporean Air Forces. Call them stupid if you may, there was solid strategy and technical reasons behind the decision.

The Saudi Arabian Air Force is the only operator of both the F-15C/D, F-15E and the Typhoon. They are rumored to buy another two squadrons of fighter in 2010. It would be interesting to see what they pick.

He meant just buying a couple at a time, which increased their price. The US buying them in bulk would have probably saved money overall. Not a slight against the Strike Eagle.

back to the original article, I would never expect fighter pilots to stay subsonic and just cruise in a straight line to avoid further fatigue... If you believe in that strategy, lets just cut out the middle man and arm the AWACs with AMRAAMs.

Or at the very least "save weight" and remove the guns from the upgraded F-15Cs... they won't need them anyway right? Rely completely on missiles...what could go wrong?

I really hope the F-22 has a boring career, and decades in the future we are retiring them and laughing about how we actually thought we needed more, rather than looking back and wondering why we could couldn't bring ourselves to buy more until it was too late.

When you fight wars on the cheap, you pay with more than just money.

[Vpanoptes]

...Just to spur the conversation - just think of how usefull ALL of the current UAS's/RPV's we're buying will be in an environment where someone is shooting back (not even talking air-to-air..just advanced MANPADS and AAA). Doesn't seem like sliced bread now, does it?

Spongebob

Definitely. Also have to wonder how many firms are hard at work developing UAV/RPV "fighter" drones that could handle air to air to deal with the increasing hordes of these aircraft. Downsized AAMs? Teeny-weeny 'winders? Sort of the UAV equivalent of a Peregrine falcon/Gyrfalcon/Goshawk in the avian world. Why does all this bring to mind RC duels I have occasionally seen at some local airfields?

- Dan

[MattC]

Do you really see 8th AF/Arclight style carpet bombing ever having a home anywhere in the US's bag tricks?

No, but I use the term "heavy bombing" to differentiate from smaller, highly specific target strikes, but as I said, I can't see that being a mission objective, unless a new theatre of operations appears, which it may well do over the next 15-20 years, we don't know.

My feeling is that there is a pretty large potential area of conflict, not too many years away from boiling over (politically and diplomatically, if not militarily) so I guess its good to keep as many tools in the box as possible.

[GreyGhost]

The F-15E equivalent is still in production for the Korean and Singaporean Air Forces. They have to pay significant more than the USAF paid, but not more than $100M. The F-15K and F-15SG won over the Typhoon after exhaustive evaluation by the Korean and Singaporean Air Forces. Call them stupid if you may, there was solid strategy and technical reasons behind the decision.

The Saudi Arabian Air Force is the only operator of both the F-15C/D, F-15E and the Typhoon. They are rumored to buy another two squadrons of fighter in 2010. It would be interesting to see what they pick.

I wasn't saying it was stupid to select the Strike Eagle, far from it, I was saying it was stupid of our government to only make such small orders with such higher price tags ... Even if they ordered 10, which would not have been a problem to find uses for, the price per would have dropped ...

As I stated earlier in this thread, our USAF could acquire more F-15K/SGs to fill a future fighter void but they don't want to do that because they're evidently already eyeballing 6th Gen designs when they can't get the latest 5th Gen fully on track ...

Gregg

[Kei Lau]

back to the original article, I would never expect fighter pilots to stay subsonic and just cruise in a straight line to avoid further fatigue... If you believe in that strategy, lets just cut out the middle man and arm the AWACs with AMRAAMs.

Or at the very least "save weight" and remove the guns from the upgraded F-15Cs... they won't need them anyway right? Rely completely on missiles...what could go wrong?

I really hope the F-22 has a boring career, and decades in the future we are retiring them and laughing about how we actually thought we needed more, rather than looking back and wondering why we could couldn't bring ourselves to buy more until it was too late.

When you fight wars on the cheap, you pay with more than just money.

I still feel that you have NOT read the original article in Aviationweek.com. Here is an alternate page that does not require registration. Would you please read it before responding. I don't know where you got this "stay subsonic and just cruise in a straight line" concept.

The upgraded F-15Cs will carry the larger APG-63(V)3 active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. The radar's long range and small target detection capability will allow F-22s to operate in electronic silence with their low observability uncompromised by electronic emissions. The F-15Cs also will provide electronic jamming and attack capability, self-protect the force against enemy missiles and aircraft, shoot their beyond visual range missiles to supplement limited numbers carried by the F-22s and use the radar to create situational awareness for everyone else.

“Our objective is to fly in front [of any strike force] with the F-22s, and have the persistence [because of larger fuel loads] to stay there while the [stealthy fighters] are conducting their LO attack,” says Maj. Todd Giggy, the wing’s (Florida Air National Guard’s 125th Fighter Wing) chief of weapons and tactics. Giggy was formerly with the chief of weapons and tactics for the 1st Air Dominance Wing (F-22) at Langley. “That persistence is something we can add that no one else can in the air dominance world.”

The stealth technology on the F-22 is important and has its advantage. But our war fighter needs more than that alone. I hope that Maj. Giggy has explained the strategy well enough for everyone to understand.

Please, read the whole article before you comment on the USAF air dominance strategy.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Kei Lau

[Wayne S]

The stealth technology on the F-22 is important and has its advantage. But our war fighter needs more than that alone. I hope that Maj. Giggy has explained the strategy well enough for everyone to understand.

Please, read the whole article before you comment on the USAF air dominance strategy.

It does not tell us anything we do not already know. Also the F-15C is not "supplementing" the F-22. What they are actually saying is, the F-15C still has to do 50% of the work it has been doing for years on years.

But!!!!! What the heck!!!! We have enough F-22s and we are only keeping the F-15C around to give weekend warriors something to fly also to make sure the F-15C out lives the Tomcat.

[Rapier01]

When they're picked up at the factory the pilot has to sign for the jets, and the price tag is included in the paper work; the latest ones have been in the area that I mentioned above. I'm assuming that's "fly away" cost, including the engines, but maybe not.

Good to know... I'm supposed to have a chat with ACC's A8 soon. That's might come up.

[TaiidanTomcat]

It was meant towards the "the B-52 has flown forever so why not the F-15C?" argument. The F-15Cs are running out of time, and restricting maneuvers speeds and G-limits is not a real option is what I was going for.

[Kei Lau]

It does not tell us anything we do not already know. Also the F-15C is not "supplementing" the F-22. What they are actually saying is, the F-15C still has to do 50% of the work it has been doing for years on years.

But!!!!! What the heck!!!! We have enough F-22s and we are only keeping the F-15C around to give weekend warriors something to fly also to make sure the F-15C out lives the Tomcat.

You have an interesting way of twisting words. :unsure: If that is the way you read the article, so be it.

One of the most valuable asset of a fighter airplane is its reliability and high combat ready rate. The Tomcat is a hanger dweller that caused the Navy to retire it and switch to the Super Hornet. On the other hand, the F-15 is one of the best in that regard. The F-117 is retired. The number of F-16 will decline rapidly in coming years. But the number of F-15 remains in service will be stable in the foreseeable years in the USAF forecast.

Future air war will be fought in a network centric environment. The F-15 is a critical element to meet the USAF plan. It is neither a cheap way to fight nor keeping it for weekend warriors. The article explained this quite well, but you just did not read or understand it.

[MattC]

[Kei Lau]

The F-15Cs are running out of time, and restricting maneuvers speeds and G-limits is not a real option is what I was going for.

Where did you get this "restricting maneuvers speeds and G-limits" idea? If true, you believe the USAF will accept it? No way.

[Kei Lau]

The Air Power Australia is a well known unreliable site. The cost chart may actually existed at one time when the USAF tried to sell congress the F-22 program. But the reality has long sunk in. Do you know the date of this cost chart?

[TaiidanTomcat]

Where did you get this "restricting maneuvers speeds and G-limits" idea? If true, you believe the USAF will accept it? No way.

Thats my point and it was mentioned earlier in the thread as airframes get older they must be restricted in certain flight regimens, this is as you say unacceptable.