Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...

[dm 9]

Except they are.

While they may not seem expensive on the surface, its when you start looking at the support that things go wrong.

Older aircraft like the A-10 and the SU25 are very intensive on maintenance hours. If every hour of flight generates 10 or more hours of maintenance (as is common with airframes of that age) then it is not a cheap aircraft to operate. And thats why a lot of older types are retired - the aircraft might be perfectly good at what it does, but if it ties up all your line guys after every flight then its just not worth it...

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Except they are.

While they may not seem expensive on the surface, its when you start looking at the support that things go wrong.

Older aircraft like the A-10 and the SU25 are very intensive on maintenance hours. If every hour of flight generates 10 or more hours of maintenance (as is common with airframes of that age) then it is not a cheap aircraft to operate. And thats why a lot of older types are retired - the aircraft might be perfectly good at what it does, but if it ties up all your line guys after every flight then its just not worth it...

Built around two main criteria, survivability and ease of maintenance, the A-10 is a very well designed aircraft. Large maintenance panels on the sides of the aircraft provide easy access to the A-10's main systems. Since it had a generic airline propulsion system, two General Electric TF-34A's, engine repair and maintenance costs are still relatively inexpensive. In fact, the most expensive repair on the A-10 is a new paint job.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10-maintenance.htm

[Inkompetent 0]

Also have to think about that if one is supposed to field for example A-10s you need a whole crew of mechanics and technicians educated on that particular airframe, spare parts for yet another type of aircraft, a completely (or at least partially) new pilot education, new munitions that the other airframes can't or usually don't use, expanded training for forward air-controllers, as well as possible expanded training for other troops and ammendments/changes to military doctrine.

To warrant all those extra costs the plane has to be fielded in large enough numbers, and be given a large enough role, and thus the question is if you get that much extra bang for the buck, compared to using fighter-attack airplanes to bomb the bajeezus out of the enemy the ordinary way (i.e. without FFARs, Mavericks and air-to-ground auto-cannons).

And speaking of the A-10 providing more fire power and range than a WAH-64 it is true. But a WAH-64 can loiter and provide reconnaisance in a way fixed-wing CAS can't. Even though their roles overlap on the battlefield, they don't do the same job.

[jagheterjan 10]

Ludwig, you might want to check the paragraph following the one you've quoted - having to re-design, re-tool and re-manufacture replacement parts when the original ones need to go to mx shop IS driving up mx hours quite a bit.

Anyways, talking the A-10 here is pretty pointless since the production line for the Hog has been closed since 1984, replacement parts situation isn't exactly great either and making the bird carrier-ready would very likely prove difficult enough to make it unfeasable.

[dm 9]

Built around two main criteria, survivability and ease of maintenance, the A-10 is a very well designed aircraft. Large maintenance panels on the sides of the aircraft provide easy access to the A-10's main systems. Since it had a generic airline propulsion system, two General Electric TF-34A's, engine repair and maintenance costs are still relatively inexpensive. In fact, the most expensive repair on the A-10 is a new paint job.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10-maintenance.htm

Its nice PR fluff, but airframes as old as the A-10 are not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. Ink and Fail Cakes have already covered most of the reasons.

Most importantly tho, it doesnt matter if its cheap to fix, if you have to fix it for 10 hours after every flight. That one component that fails every flight might only cost a few $100, but if you have to replace or repair it after every flight, then the costs quickly mount up.

I cant find (nor can I really be bothered to find) a decent MMH:FH stat for the A-10C, but I'm fairly confident that something like a Predator would be lower and cheaper. (I'd comment on the Apache, but the design is just as old as the A-10 is... It does however have the advantage of a current production line)

[spooky lynx 73]

Except they are.

While they may not seem expensive on the surface, its when you start looking at the support that things go wrong.

Older aircraft like the A-10 and the SU25 are very intensive on maintenance hours. If every hour of flight generates 10 or more hours of maintenance (as is common with airframes of that age) then it is not a cheap aircraft to operate. And thats why a lot of older types are retired - the aircraft might be perfectly good at what it does, but if it ties up all your line guys after every flight then its just not worth it...

Speaking about Su-25, it takes rather small amount of time to fix it or to make afterflight check or prepare it to the next flight. By this parameters it was the best aircraft during Afghan war. And it may be operated from rather small and remoted airfields. And... it's still produced:D

[Star Four One 10]

UG!! F22's.

No thanks, mate.

You're all right keeping all that technology safe by yourself.

Zerg for the win.

We aren't fighting any high tech airforces.

We are fighting mud hoppers.

What we need is some el cheapo propellor driven close air support. Cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to train, cheap to support. Easy to deploy on small runways made from mud. Numerous. Available to drop bombs on demand.

What we have is a supersonic jet interceptor on order instead.

We also need some new AWACs/submarine hunters/spyplanes and some transport planes.

A supersonic jet interceptor with stealth!!! No thanks.

You keep that.

You prepare for the enemy of tomorrow, not today. I sure would feel much safer flying into the target with Raptors in my package then ANY other A/C flying today.

PS: Coming home with everybody alive is also a bonus. :rolleyes:

S41

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

f35 was a joke. f22 is the shit really but we can just sweep the skies clear with them and put bombs on em

[rksl-rock 1300]

has to be done....

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1832273&postcount=56

Wave that flag baby!

[Hans Ludwig 0]

has to be done....

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1832273&postcount=56

Wave that flag baby!

Europe - minus the UK - has never had any interest whatsoever in really having a defense force or one that could project power. Why should they when they have the United States having bases in Europe?

The defense industry, which is heavily subsidized by European taxpayers, is a tool that Keynesian economist use to control the economy.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[rksl-rock 1300]

Europe - minus the UK - has never had any interest whatsoever in really having a defense force or one that could project power. Why should they when they have the United States having bases in Europe?

I'm not entriely sure what this has to do with the topic so this is sailing dangerously close to being so far off topic it might be unwise to continue. Maybe this should go in the politics thread.

But, there is a school of thought that the US should not have bases or a large presence in Europe and the Med. Especially since the cold war era is over.

The defense industry, which is heavily subsidized by European taxpayers, is a tool that Keynesian economist use to control the economy.

And the US defense industry isn't?

And to be honest that isn't actually true. Especially in the cases of Airbus and BAE Systems. You should realise that a lot of EU defence contractors were/are actually part owned by their respective governments. There were never any real subsidies. Low or zero rate loans to start projects yes. But they were always had to be paid back. Unlike the open book funding for US research contracts...1-5 year research programs that don't produce anything but a US$2.5 billion bill.

From my own personal experience actually working in both US and EU industries I have to say the US companies get far more overt and covert assistance from their government than any EU business. They seem to go so far out of their way to make sure any non US venture fails. I mean the EU nations don't overturn competition results because they lost. Nor do they rewrite the rules the 2nd time around to make sure only an EU contractor can win. KC-X is a perfect example. US101 is another one that got sabotaged. (I was amazed it was even allowed to start) They kept moving the goal posts so quickly its no wonder the costs spiralled.

Edited March 20, 2011 by RKSL-Rock

[Prydain 1]

.....I have to say the US companies get far more overt and covert assistance from their government than any EU business......

...and they scream "socialism" as if it is an anti-American ideology at any attempt to help their people in any fashion. I suppose that can be saved for a politics forum or something though.

Hans Ludwig, the A-10 is never going to be put into production again, the UK isn't going to buy any and I don't know how we got from me saying that we have platforms that can do the job of an A-10 with more overall efficiency to bashing a helicopter gunship.

Modern deployments are expensive, aircraft have to be more generally capable than specific and the Typhoon is a great example of modern aircraft. When the most agile and advanced fighter aircraft can drop bombs and launch ground attack missiles, why bother having a separate aircraft that is specifically designed for a single task? In the last 5 years we have had the manned Harrier, Tornado, Jaguar and Typhoon all available and able to do the same task as the A-10, they have done it, so we don't need another burden.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Hans Ludwig, the A-10 is never going to be put into production again, the UK isn't going to buy any and I don't know how we got from me saying that we have platforms that can do the job of an A-10 with more overall efficiency to bashing a helicopter gunship.

I never said anything about the UK buying them. I think you got me mixed up with the guy that actually suggested the UK buy the SU-27 or A-10?

I'm not entriely sure what this has to do with the topic so this is sailing dangerously close to being so far off topic it might be unwise to continue. Maybe this should go in the politics thread.

Yeah, because only people in the US think their stuff is the best.

Since I believe in the capitalist system, I had to show you why the Europeans don't really have a military and their equipment isn't all that great. I already mentioned why. So next time, check your left and right before you post a link that is only designed to flamebait.

has to be done....

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1832273&postcount=56

Wave that flag baby!

Edited March 21, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[rksl-rock 1300]

I never said anything about the UK buying them. I think you got me mixed up with the guy that actually suggested the UK buy the SU-27 or A-10?

But you seem to be supporting the idea all the same. Making justifications for it etc

Yeah, because only people in the US think their stuff is the best.

A view which, again, you seem to share.

Since I believe in the capitalist system, I had to show you why the Europeans don't really have a military and their equipment isn't all that great. I already mentioned why.

LMAO! You are funny you really are. European defense and aerospace industries account for more than 40% of the world's defense export spending. That's about the same as the US. The US even buys (and re labels) EU developed equipment because it's better than anything else currently made by them. BAE Systems and it subsidiaries, a UK and EU company, now contributes to about 7% of the US national defence spend. EADS, about 4% and growing and it would be growing a lot faster if the US politicians didn't keep blocking "free trade and capitalism" forcing the US armed forces into buying US made kit.

So European equipment isn't that great? Go do some real research before you make these sweeping and wildly inaccurate statements.

So next time, check your left and right before you post a link that is only designed to flamebait.

No not flamebaiting, just a reference to the frequent outcome of these debates. And to the fact that some people will not accept that the right tool for a job isn't always one that says "made in America" on it.

And lets not forget, in this particular and case considering the actual topic and the Royal Navy's requirements; Specifically that the aircraft must operate off an aircraft carrier. The F-22 or A-10 aren't even options are they.

Edited March 21, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
Added the A10 reference and some grammar

[Prydain 1]

Europe vs America again? this will end well....

Europe buys from America and America buys from Europe, so no need for an argument that is against logic until either has a monopoly on the defence industry.

To the original point: I am wondering if the current action in the air over Libya justifies not binning some of the Tornados and opting to get rid of the Harrier early instead? I am also wondering if the F35 would be sidelined for such an operation if it happened 10 years from now since it seems it is about as multi-role as the F22 without pylons.

[rksl-rock 1300]

...

To the original point: I am wondering if the current action in the air over Libya justifies not binning some of the Tornados and opting to get rid of the Harrier early instead? I am also wondering if the F35 would be sidelined for such an operation if it happened 10 years from now since it seems it is about as multi-role as the F22 without pylons.

Some mates and I were talking about this last night. I suspect a few people in the Tornado community lobbied hard for the chance to conduct these long range strikes. It does bolster the case for keeping the Tornados going until 2025. I doubt F-35s or Harriers could have conducted these raids especially not at these ranges. And given its lack of any real stand off weapons system (Storm Shadow was compatible with the later GR9s but it burnt silly amounts of fuel when carrying it) I can imagine a lot of people at Marham saying "we've proven we're better than Harrier and that we are needed".

The Typhoon community will be itching to prove themselves now too. As much as a abhor the loss of life in all this. The Libyan crisis is going to cause interesting ripples in the UK defence community.

[Baff1 0]

You prepare for the enemy of tomorrow, not today. I sure would feel much safer flying into the target with Raptors in my package then ANY other A/C flying today.

PS: Coming home with everybody alive is also a bonus. :rolleyes:

S41

Why do you think everybody would be alive?

The largest force is the one that usually wins.

10 Raptors < 80 Su's.

£ for £, Raptor will lose every battle.

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

Europe - minus the UK - has never had any interest whatsoever in really having a defense force or one that could project power. .

Nonsense.

Tell that to Sarkozy.

Other European countries with a long history of projecting power around the world are the Spanish, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Germans, The Russians, the Italians..

Currently militarily deployed in foreign lands... The Dutch, the Danes, the French, The Britsh, The Germans, The Finns, The Swedes, the Lithunanians, the Italians, the Norwegians, the Hungarians, The Romanians, the Czechs, the Estonians and the Spanish, the Bulgarians...

---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

When the most agile and advanced fighter aircraft can drop bombs and launch ground attack missiles, why bother having a separate aircraft that is specifically designed for a single task? In the last 5 years we have had the manned Harrier, Tornado, Jaguar and Typhoon all available and able to do the same task as the A-10, they have done it, so we don't need another burden.

Because it is too expensive to mass produce.

If you only have a limited number of airframes, they can only be in so many places at once dropping bombs.

Having an ultra bad ass force that can win any battle against any other bad ass force is great up until you are faced with two opposing forces at the same time.

At which point since you don't have the numbers you can only hope to win one of the battles at best. The other you auto lose by not being there at all.

You have lost the war in the manouvre phase.

If one Typhoon costs the price of ten armed Cesna's, then with 10 armed Cesna's, 10 units of our infantry can call in air support at the same time, while with one Typhoon, only 1 can get support.

We sent 4 planes to Libya this week.

4.

I bet they were quaking in their boots when they heard the British were coming.

After 4 mid air refuels and and a 12 hour flight, they dropped a total of 8 bombs.

So if all 8 bombs got their man.... Ghafdaffi only has another 100,000 left. 4 Airframes, no matter how multi-role, isn't a war winning force.

Also there are running costs.

If you burn out your airforce from overuse, you need to replace it again quicker.

Why frazzle some pretty decent interceptors... instead of buying a cheaper platform that can perform the same role.

Saving the air superiority frames for the job that requires expensive machinery.

I can fit everything I can fit in the back of my hatchback in the back of my Lexus too. But it still worth having the hatchback.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Baff1

[Star Four One 10]

Baff, you obviously have nill knowledge on not only the Raptor, but air combat in it's complete entity.

Regardless of numbers, if you recieve heavy losses in a/c without knowing where, or who shot at you; chances are you will not press the target.

Ask someone who has participated in DACT with a couple of Raptors, psychologically your feeling sick before you get off the ground. After the 15th kill call, you feel bummed out.

This isn't Falcon 4.0 Baff.

S41

[hellfire257 3]

Until the EFA arrives on the scene... Either way, regardless of tech, a good pilot beats anything hands down. Hell, a good pilot in a Sopwith Camel could shoot down an F22. I also agree that 80 Sus could beat 10 Raptors. Lets break it down:

BVR - You can guarantee that a good proportion of the Sukhois will get past it and enter WVR.

WVR - Sheer numbers will overwhelm the Raptors.

The Sukhois also have IRST on their side.

Conclusion?

Lots of cheap(er) 4.5 or 4 Gen stuff will beat a limited number of Gen 5. Economically it makes sense. Furthermore, the design philosophy of the Sukhois means they are cheaper to maintain and have a overall shorter turn around time.

Baff is right.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Hellfire257

[Star Four One 10]

Until the EFA arrives on the scene... Either way, regardless of tech, a good pilot beats anything hands down. Hell, a good pilot in a Sopwith Camel could shoot down an F22. I also agree that 80 Sus could beat 10 Raptors. Lets break it down:

BVR - You can guarantee that a good proportion of the Sukhois will get past it and enter WVR.

WVR - Sheer numbers will overwhelm the Raptors.

The Sukhois also have IRST on their side.

Conclusion?

Lots of cheap(er) 4.5 or 4 Gen stuff will beat a limited number of Gen 5. Economically it makes sense. Furthermore, the design philosophy of the Sukhois means they are cheaper to maintain and have a overall shorter turn around time.

Baff is right.

Wrong on ALL accounts.

Tell that story to ANY Viper or Eagle guy, and regardless of pride will tell you any bunch of punks flying Raptors will trash them. Great pilots are made because of the technology that drives them.

Really, this is garnering the most delightful smile..

You cannot engage something you cannot see. When your package is recieving rippling losses without any noticable threat, chances; and I mean probable outcome is to RTB.

We build jets based upon Quality, not Quantity - we use them within our Doctrine, which in the US's case is Integrated force multipliers.

Okay, heres the best part! Every single simulated engagement with Raptors without ROE restrict, have led to zero losses. It gets better, there not fighting PESA equiped high observable MiG-29's (Or any SU in Class; PS Ask the Indians how that went, Ha), there going up against Respawning AESA equiped Combat proven airframes with GCI. :rolleyes:

Two points of Bullshit I want to point out before I wipe my hands.

Economic's don't matter when slammers start to leave the bay.

Lastly, I'll bet my job, and girlfriend that Russian aircraft aren't cheaper to maintain. I wish we could have a Indian Pilot chime in on what they do after 10 hours of flight time.

Oh, Shorter turnaround time? Any CAN/US/Brit crew want to jump in and talk about their Alert status time in OIF, OEF?

We had higher sortie rates oversea's then back home. This is throughout all the squardrons.

S41

Edited April 8, 2011 by Star Four One

[spooky lynx 73]

Great pilots are made because of the technology that drives them.

O RLY? So why germans hadn't get air superiority with their Schwalbe's? And why some of them were shot down by propeller-driven fighters? And one more question: why outnumbered vietnamese pilots flying in older MiG-17 and early MiG-21 took some good scores against F-4s equipped with the latest advanced avionics and Sparrows and supported by AWACS?

Lastly, I'll bet my job, and girlfriend that Russian aircraft aren't cheaper to maintain. I wish we could have a Indian Pilot chime in on what they do after 10 hours of flight time.

They're really cheaper to maintain - just look at the customers, not very rich countries like Vietnam, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Venesuela. They wouldn't afford 4th gen heavy fighter if the plane is not really cheap and easy to maintain.

Every single simulated engagement with Raptors without ROE restrict, have led to zero losses.

Who were the enemies?

[hellfire257 3]

Yeah, I'd like hard proof of that too. I find it difficult to believe, especially from various conflicting accounts with the Raptor vs. EF, mostly saying the EF punched above its expected weight. One source includes the BBC, but it still isn't primary.

The US Air Force has already begun to take delivery of another superjet, the F-22 Raptor.

This is very stealthy but costs twice the price of the Eurofighter, and reports suggest that RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US.

[Star Four One 10]

O RLY? So why germans hadn't get air superiority with their Schwalbe's? And why some of them were shot down by propeller-driven fighters? And one more question: why outnumbered vietnamese pilots flying in older MiG-17 and early MiG-21 took some good scores against F-4s equipped with the latest advanced avionics and Sparrows and supported by AWACS?

They're really cheaper to maintain - just look at the customers, not very rich countries like Vietnam, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Venesuela. They wouldn't afford 4th gen heavy fighter if the plane is not really cheap and easy to maintain.

Who were the enemies?

To keep this response simple, and with as few words as I can manage,

Creating a design from the ground up, late in a war that was being lost, and fielding it with enough numbers to tactically use them in engagements is not a easy practice. Then you have to have guys on the ground to repair, manage, and generally maintain a 'pig'.

As for Nam, everything starts from point A. In this case, new technology that has never been fielded or matured into a state that could decide the outcome of a engagement.

AWACS is another story all together. None were operating at that time, and our philosophy of air combat was in the grind. Hence the F-4G. Things were ALOT different back then.

Countries are always going to be committed to a/c that they note as being more proficient and loyal to their standards. Price of course is a selling point, but motives play just as big of a role. Look at Turkey with the F-35 "code" fiasco they tried to play off.

Next, the US is not a fan of selling to countries where their own equipement can be used against them.

Bet ya a Block 52 Viper has a higher operating percentage then a Fulcrum. I know, I've been with them.

Raptors kill their young, (Eagles, Vipers, Hornets, SLUF's, F4's, EF's etc..

S41

Edited April 8, 2011 by Star Four One

[Prydain 1]

Wrong on ALL accounts.

Tell that story to ANY Viper or Eagle guy, and regardless of pride will tell you any bunch of punks flying Raptors will trash them.

Will they? You speak from experience I gather?

You cannot engage something you cannot see....

Schadenfreude. Ignorance is pleasurable to me, reading your posts remind me of this:

A Weekly Standard front cover titled "Once more unto the breach" with the delicious ignorance not only shown by the front page showing an aircraft that has not and cannot be used in Libya but with a broken, uninformative, story written inside rather than a report on events in any way.

Star Four One, for you, objectivity is yet to be learned.

[going on about buying A-10-equivalent aeroplanes]

Lastly, I'll bet my job, and girlfriend that Russian aircraft aren't cheaper to maintain. I wish we could have a Indian Pilot chime in on what they do after 10 hours of flight time.

Aircraft become more expensive to maintain over time. The more types of aircraft you have the more spare parts, software technicians, mechanics, training staff, links with industry and other items/specialists you will have to pay for. Efficiency is gained by a multi-role aircraft being able to do multiple tasks, as aircraft have been able to do just as effectively as a separate specialist aircraft since the 80's. Only America, Russia and China have the capacity, along with willingness to do so will ever consider having specialist ground attack aircraft that does not offer additional flexibility.

Efficiency isn't gained by having a nice-in-theory/niche airframe like the F22 or A-10 taking large portions of expenditure and logistical 'capital' if they can only do one job and that job already has an adequate and comparably more efficient/effective suitor.

As for Indian pilots, my dad will be spending some time with the Indian airforce in an industrial and maintenance position in the near future, I'll ask him when he gets back, eh?

[NoRailgunner 0]

In 2009 the funding of further F-22 production was ceased by law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/business/29defense.html?_r=1&hpw

Some F-22 informations:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/