Retiring the Raptor now?!?

[Rick50]

Apparently the operating and maintenance costs for the F-22 Raptor are so expensive that the Pentagon is considering storing some Raptors for later use. I doubt they are retiring them complete and wholesale, more saving money and resources by parking some and wrapping them in plastic!

 

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20220403.aspx

 

I can understand the need to keep expenses within the confines of reality... but I have to admit this gives me some pause.  Particularly in light of the island that wants to remain independent, and the peninsula that sees a country wanting the same... just seems to me that the psychological effect of the F-22 is almost a strategic deterrent? Or maybe I'm oversold on it's usefulness?

[Kilo]

It's the single best fighter jet as of today. But there's relatively few of them, they're expensive and there are even better things coming, all while its job can be done by other aircraft, too (but with a bit worse performance). For now, they're retiring some ~36 beat up airframes that were not upgraded to the latest version and are currently used for training.

[SUBS17]

They will not scrap the F22.

[Zius]

War? The last time that happened was 1945, right? That's 75 years ago! Why even still have fighters?

 

Do you know which aircraft is cheap to fly?

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/264198-cessna-172/

 

On 4/6/2022 at 3:39 PM, Kilo said:

there are even better things coming

Sure, so have the Russians and the Chinese. There is always something better coming. It just isn't here yet and won't be available in any numbers for years to come.

[Rick50]

You know, the source materials are a bit deceptive in their headlines... go figure~!  It's not really accurate to say it's "retiring" the Raptor, or even "retiring" any of them. Ready storage is just saving some so they are fresh in future!

And there's probably  some weasle words being assembled now for a future deception to Congress, to get more dollarinos for something else, without throwing out all the Raptors for real.

[Skyracer]

On 4/13/2022 at 2:31 AM, Rick50 said:

You know, the source materials are a bit deceptive in their headlines... go figure~!  It's not really accurate to say it's "retiring" the Raptor, or even "retiring" any of them. Ready storage is just saving some so they are fresh in future!

And there's probably  some weasle words being assembled now for a future deception to Congress, to get more dollarinos for something else, without throwing out all the Raptors for real.

Put it in a template bag!

[SUBS17]

The upgrade is called the Super Raptor.

[Rick50]

 

Reminds me of the A-10 being retired. All through the 1990's, all through the 2000's, the USAF kept trying to ditch the Warthog, either in part or completely, with no replacement. 

See, the USAF just doesn't like spending on the CAS mission. They think the non-stealthy bomb-truck is useless and want no part of it. The small money spent on keeping Warthogs, would be better put to F-35's and Stormbreakers, I guess. Or a single repaint of a B-2 after overhaul. Remember, they've been out of production since 1984, although there was 716 produced and many are upgraded wing boxes to give more airframe hours, along with the C upgrade.

 

Even after proving it's usefulness in 1991 Desert Storm, 2003 Iraq invasion, GWOT, Afghanistan, specops use, calls from allied troops in Afghanistan for quick CAS... EVEN THEN the USAF wanted it gone. In more recent years, the attitude changed, and I'm not sure why. Might have a lot to do with soooo many veterans with direct experience with the A-10 now being civilians who are powerful voters... who'd have a LOT to say if they retired it now. Maybe also the Taiwan and South Korea needs too? Maybe some Eastern Europe nations getting nervous? Anyway, IMO retiring the A-10 shouldn't have even become a serious thought, much less a real budgetary proposal in the first place.

[Pilotasso]

The report only mentions 33 of the earliest aircraft in operation. This of course is still is not normal. Either it means there is something wrong with the funding, or that a new undisclosed aircraft is indeed being developed that will replace the type in the not too distant future. There was indication by the USAF in this direction last year, though they did not mention or connect that announcement with this one.

[Rick50]

So on the subject of retiring airframes... they're gonna keep the B-52 going for another long while by soon doing an engine upgrade, and they'll pay for that and more by retiring the awesome but very maintenance costly B-1B Bone. 

I think  it's a shame to ditch that graceful aircraft, but I can also see that B-52's are cheaper to keep for non-stealth standoff, and B-2's and B-21's are FAR more stealthy than the B-1B could ever be. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

The joys of internet blogging replacing actual subject matter journalism.

[Rick50]

Well, considering that "journalism" has for the most part flushed itself down the drain... then blogging it is! 

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Well, with individuals like Tyler Rogoway and other such dudes who barely do any legwork and just reblog stuff they 'feel' is right or muck-rake, I'll stick to Jane's and other associated media. Or even first hand reports, since we do have that capacity now.

[Krez]

On 4/14/2022 at 4:19 PM, Rick50 said:

See, the USAF just doesn't like spending on the CAS mission.

Correct, but the flip side of that is the funds allocated for CAS must be spent on the CAS mission, otherwise they could lose it to another branch.

[Rick50]

 

True, that whole issue of keeping the Army from buying too many fixed wing vehicles! 

But I don't think they like it. It seems like a "necessary drudgery" to the top brass. I'm not talking Hog drivers or line crew, or maintenance people, or Viper drivers, or PJ operators, or JTAC operators... they seem to  all "get" the need for CAS... but it seems the walls of the Pentagon make it difficult to see how CAS isn't just "solved" purely by a fancy multimode smert-boom with wings an GPS an datalincks. Sometimes, in rare but critical cases, it means going low, getting down in the weeds, either slow or really really fast... just make some NOISE, maybe drop some high drag iron, strafe a little. Might not seem important in the strategic sense to the Pentagon boffins, but it's HUGELY important to ground forces, be they Army, Marines, SOF, or allied ground forces.

And yes, I do know that fancy ord does go a long way, brings CAS help  from platforms that you'd never expect to help out (for instance Bones, be it from JDAM's, laser pods with Paveways, or just doing a full afterburner low pass as fast as your Bone can go!!).  But... for all the Vipers, Bones, Buffs, and Bugs, Litenings and Euro2k's helping out,  or the Reapers and , ground guys still request Hogs and Specters often enough to ask "why is that?". I'm guessing that the Marines are calling for Harvest Hawks for similar reasons.

I've noticed that several western armies are increasingly investing in their own smart weapons, such as GMLRS, Excalibur 155mm, ATACMS, and now a new generation of ground launched smart ordnance. One such test took the SDB with it's folding wings, GPS and penetrator, and mounted to the 227mm MLRS rocket, giving a rather substantial range (100km ? I can't recall)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb#Ground_Launched_Small_Diameter_Bomb_(GLSDB)

Quote

Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB)
Boeing and Saab Group have modified the Small Diameter Bomb with a rocket motor to be launched from ground-based missile systems such as the M270 MLRS. With the Army demilitarizing cluster munitions from M26 rockets, the company says a special adapter case could reuse the rocket to launch the SDB. After the motor launches it to a high enough altitude and speed, the wings will deploy and glide the bomb to its target. The company believes it can fill a gap for long-range precision fires while using its smaller warhead to save larger rocket munitions for strategic targets. While typical MLRS systems follow a ballistic trajectory, the rocket-launched SDB can be launched to an altitude and glide on a selected trajectory. Boeing and Saab Group conducted three successful GLSDB tests in February 2015. The system is cost-effective, utilizing an existing weapon paired with a stockpiled rocket motor, while maintaining the loadout on a rocket artillery system.

Unlike other artillery weapons, the GLSDB offers 360-degree coverage for high and low angles of attack, flying around terrain to hit targets on the back of mountains, or circling back around to a target behind the launch vehicle. The GLSDB has a range of 150 km (93 mi), and can also hit targets 70 km (43 mi) behind it. In a 2017 demonstration, the GLSDB engaged a moving target at a distance of 100 km. The SDB and rocket motor separated at altitude and the bomb used an SAL seeker to track and engage the target.[52] A 2019 test extended this range to 130 km against a target at sea.

 

Also, the Army is about to award a new longer range ground to ground guided rocket to supplement or replace the ATACMS, one that would be more modular in nature, cheaper to field and maintain, basically it'd be a single rocket per pod, like the ATACMS allowing one in a HIMARS and two in a M270.  Then there is the unguided but increasingly accurate and fast to fire new generation of 155mm artillery, such as the Swedish Archer truck 155mm systems that both America and British Army are taking a very serious look at right now, serious enough it might lead to a new sale. It's VERY automated to lay, load, fire and fire several in MSIP missions (fire several shells, that all impact a single target area at the same impact time on target, due to different velocities and trajectories). And if they need raw precision, they can easily direct the selection of a GPS guided EXcalibur shell, that's proven effective in many uses in Afghanistan.

Then there is Mojave UCAV drone... basically a Reaper that's got a high lift STOL wing. Carries more Hellfires or other ord, still a lot of loiter, but can operate from a gravel strip thanks to Tundra tires more commonly seen on bush planes like Twin Otters, Beavers and Piper Cub variants!  Then there is Spike NLOS, and Switchblade... the 300 is good for dealing with situations that no other platform is effective at... snipers and such. But the 600 is a game changer, almost bringing a small level of CAS right to the grunt. And Phoenix Ghost basically is a Mega-600 that has enough range to do commando raids behind enemy lines. I think this trend of the Army adapting to the needs of CAS will increase a great deal over the next decade.

But at the end of the day, troops on the ground still want the comfort of a Hog or Specter on station when the chips are down. A B-2 Spirit isn't going to strafe a technical, or do a fast low-pass to scare away enemy combatants...  Regardless of ground-fired ordnance, if you are running away for your life from a kill zone, you hope like hell that someone in the air sees you being chased and decides to put a reticule on the guys trying to kill you, and I just don't see that changing any time soon!!

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Rick50