By: Freehand
- 1st March 2014 at 20:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How so? I feel as if reducing the number in operation and the resulting flight hours might show a significant cost savings. Based on the hourly rates from 2010, the F-15C should be the one to go.
By: TomcatViP
- 1st March 2014 at 20:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How so? I feel as if reducing the number in operation and the resulting flight hours might show a significant cost savings. Based on the hourly rates from 2010, the F-15C should be the one to go.
F15C is needed in the vast empty spaces of the Pacific.
@Alan:
(Isn't "Helo" the term used for US Navy helicopters )
Large bladed tech, slower rotor rotation speed, tilting rotor and a dramatic increase in speed might lead to a sensible decrease in acoustic detection.
Some have reported that the Tiger is undetectable unless at close range.
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 1st March 2014 at 21:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How so? I feel as if reducing the number in operation and the resulting flight hours might show a significant cost savings.
Significant perhaps, but not enough. There is a direct quote to that effect from a snr. USAF official that I can't be bothered looking up.
EDIT: Not the quote I was thinking of, but close enough:
General Mark Welsh, the USAF chief of staff, said on 11 December that divesting from entire fleets of aircraft may be the only way to achieve the level of savings required, and the A-10 is a prime candidate.
"We looked at divesture of fleets of airplanes because it is one of the very few practical ways to get at dollar signs with a B [for billion] behind them [....]
The service would have to shut down three to four times as many F-16 squadrons to achieve the same level of savings, he said, and at that point the USAF would not be equipped to do its air superiority mission.
By: Freehand
- 1st March 2014 at 23:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F15C is needed in the vast empty spaces of the Pacific.
What about the F-22A? There are not as many of them as there are F-15C's, but a redistribution of the fleet could cover those gaps. Not to mention the Navy could kick in and provide over-water support with their F/A-18's.
By: TomcatViP
- 2nd March 2014 at 04:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[...]What's wrong with using F/A-18's at the coastal bases?
I was thinking about projection of power over the Pacific. Not about defense of CONUS where the 16 might be more adapted in peace time (on a per $ basis again).
The USN have 500+ F18. If you deprived them of, let's say 150 of that total (1/3rd of their fleet), the USN does not lost only 1/3rd of its capacities but far more. Units are rotating, not single tasked etc... Unless you plan to park some carrier to make for money aswell.
The prob is that the capacities are scarce and nobody wants to cut in the priorities (well, Obama just did that by refocusing away from regional conflict... and Paf! what he just got... Ukraine! :rolleyes: *).
By: Freehand
- 2nd March 2014 at 13:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I may be coming at this from the wrong angle. I am only considering defense of the CONUS and not being the world's police force. The U.S. should certainly not get involved in the Ukrainian situation. What about keeping the carriers off-shore? What is the farthest we'd have to project in the pacific? The Marshall Islands, Guam?
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 1st March 2014 at 20:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It depends on the hostile environment. Can an A-10 seek cover behind a treeline or a small hill.
Posts: 980
By: Freehand - 1st March 2014 at 20:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How so? I feel as if reducing the number in operation and the resulting flight hours might show a significant cost savings. Based on the hourly rates from 2010, the F-15C should be the one to go.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 1st March 2014 at 20:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F15C is needed in the vast empty spaces of the Pacific.
@Alan:
Large bladed tech, slower rotor rotation speed, tilting rotor and a dramatic increase in speed might lead to a sensible decrease in acoustic detection.
Some have reported that the Tiger is undetectable unless at close range.
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 1st March 2014 at 21:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Significant perhaps, but not enough. There is a direct quote to that effect from a snr. USAF official that I can't be bothered looking up.
EDIT: Not the quote I was thinking of, but close enough:
Janes
Posts: 4,996
By: AlanR - 1st March 2014 at 22:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, but it would less likely to have the need.
Posts: 980
By: Freehand - 1st March 2014 at 23:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What about the F-22A? There are not as many of them as there are F-15C's, but a redistribution of the fleet could cover those gaps. Not to mention the Navy could kick in and provide over-water support with their F/A-18's.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 2nd March 2014 at 00:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hack something in the vast array of F22 soft, and grounded it is for a couple of day at least.
The possibility of just this will preclude the USAF to retire the 15 until an equal nbr of 35A are at hand reach.
I do agree with the 18 but it does not fit the per $ view unless you decide to base them on USAF airbases ;)
Posts: 980
By: Freehand - 2nd March 2014 at 00:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No doubt the F-22A is vastly more complex and technical than the F-15C/D. What's wrong with using F/A-18's at the coastal bases?
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 2nd March 2014 at 04:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was thinking about projection of power over the Pacific. Not about defense of CONUS where the 16 might be more adapted in peace time (on a per $ basis again).
The USN have 500+ F18. If you deprived them of, let's say 150 of that total (1/3rd of their fleet), the USN does not lost only 1/3rd of its capacities but far more. Units are rotating, not single tasked etc... Unless you plan to park some carrier to make for money aswell.
The prob is that the capacities are scarce and nobody wants to cut in the priorities (well, Obama just did that by refocusing away from regional conflict... and Paf! what he just got... Ukraine! :rolleyes: *).
Posts: 980
By: Freehand - 2nd March 2014 at 13:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I may be coming at this from the wrong angle. I am only considering defense of the CONUS and not being the world's police force. The U.S. should certainly not get involved in the Ukrainian situation. What about keeping the carriers off-shore? What is the farthest we'd have to project in the pacific? The Marshall Islands, Guam?