You get a tanker to support your BFM sorties!?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Interesting Air Superiority article
- Thread starter ea6bflyr
- Start date
You get a tanker to support your BFM sorties!?
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
Usually clean jets are about a 1.5 sortie... 2 bags end up 2.0-2.5 depending on where/when/how. We have those huge CFTs, so "clean" is 23.3k fuel... two ext is about 31.5k fuel. At least once a week is a fight (or low fly, etc)/pit/fight, occasionally a fight/tank/fight. Did a fight/pit/fight yesterday with clean jets...ended up a 1.5 and 1.7. Today we had an 8v8 DCA, even raging around at 1000' low in mil/min AB with a clean jet it ended up being a 1.7 even, the jets with 2 bags ended up with a 2.3-2.5.
I'm not aware of any incident in which a drysuit has survived an ejection undamaged. Which means, realistically, you're going to end up wrapped in a shredded piece of rubber which is quickly filling up with icy seawater and trying to drown you, or at least seriously restrict your ability to swim or climb into a raft. Even if it does make it into the water intact, in midwinter we sometimes fly with water temps in the 40s and air temps in the 20s, at distances offshore that it will take a helicopter over two hours to reach and give it less than 10 minutes on station to find and recover you, so the drysuit may only drag out your death a couple more hours. I also maintain that wearing it seriously degrades my visual lookout by making it impossible to twist my body around freely, and there's no question that it rapidly dehydrates and fatigues you on warm days, which significantly decreases G-tolerance. All in all...I'm not a fan.
Are they considering bringing back the F-22 for the USAF? What do our resident pointy nose types think of this?
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/...paign=New Campaign&utm_term=*Situation Report
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/...paign=New Campaign&utm_term=*Situation Report
In Fantasyland they are, not realistic for a whole slew of reasons but this biggest one being money.
Interesting enough though they actually did more to ensure they could restart the production line for the F-22 than any other modern aircraft I am aware of, preserving the manufacturing equipment and even going so far as filming the workers making them.
Even then it may be difficult, as AF maintenance crews have apparently had problems in the past finding the correct tooling they needed to repair existing Raptors.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-what-will-it-take-restart-f-22-fighter-15862
For a two star (when service parochialism is supposed to have been washed away in a sea of purple), this article is incredibly short sighted. If only our nation had a Navy.... If the land bases and the ships are accepted to both be under an umbrella of threats, then I'd much rather be on the one that moves...
You're accusing the Air Force, of all services, of being parochial? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!
Looking at basically every major strategic decision we've been faced with as a "joint force" since 1947, there's a pretty reliable rule of thumb for estimating the right answer. If you do the opposite of whatever big Air Force is willing to go to the mat for, you might not be entirely right, but you'll probably be off to a good start.
Shitcanning aircraft carriers? Check.
Abolishing Naval Aviation? Check.
Abolishing conventional war plans in favor of nuking everything that moves? Check.
Mortaging the entire force to buy more F-22s? Check.
Retiring the A-10 in the midst of a massive counterinsurgency? Check.
I could go on.
Last edited:
While I agree with the general principle of what you say, due to the specific geography of the Baltic Sea, I wonder if the naval option was discounted out of concern for putting a CSG in such confined waters against a nation with probably the toughest threat subs and AShMs out there.
Valid. I projected a general disregard for anything not AF upon this general based on the tradition of his brothers in blue
Wouldn't be such an issue if we bought the A-29 when we should have. Thank that one to our legal system tying up the decision to buy it in court for 7 years.
But, but...'Merica! I find it amusing the Raytheon folks tout 'Made in America' when their plane isn't even an American design.
Flight hour cost per aircraft for a few different models.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/04/25/next_time_rd_against_om_109297.html
Fighter or attack aircraft type
Average cost per flight hour, 2008–2012 (CY $)
F-22A Raptor $68,362
F-15C Eagle $41,921
F-15E Strike Eagle $32,094
F-16C Fighting Falcon $22,514
A-10C Thunderbolt II (Warthog) $17,716
MQ-9A Reaper $4,762
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/04/25/next_time_rd_against_om_109297.html
Fighter or attack aircraft type
Average cost per flight hour, 2008–2012 (CY $)
F-22A Raptor $68,362
F-15C Eagle $41,921
F-15E Strike Eagle $32,094
F-16C Fighting Falcon $22,514
A-10C Thunderbolt II (Warthog) $17,716
MQ-9A Reaper $4,762
Interesting. Any idea why the Eagle is so much higher than the Strike Eagle? Possibly higher average airframe age on the Charlies?
You'd have to know what type of flight hour cost they're using to start to figure out what's driving the delta.