It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


GAO recommends delay in investment for F-22. DoD provides 2024 scenario assessment and capability mi

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:52 PM
Hopefully this hasn't been posted as yet, apologies if it has:

GAO report on F-22 investment

Basically the report says that the program requires a new business case for further investment because the needs and wants of the Air Force have changed substantially in the 19 years the program has been running. The DoD funnily enough disagree with this point of view!

Of interest in the DoD response was the following:

The analysis used the projected enemy's order of battle provided by the CIA/DIA-approved Joint Capability Force Assessment for the 2024 timeframe. The selected scenario for the modelling was the most challenging to air dominance in terms of enemy capability and quantity, and it was in accordance with the Joint Staff Multi-Service Force Deployment. The results showed that a balanced force structure mix of fifth generation fighters with legacy F/A-18E/Fs, F-15Es, and conventionally armed bombers met our requirements and balanced cost and risk.

2024 is a long way out, but obviously they think the F-15E is still in the mix. Would be a very interesting document no doubt!

[edit on 22-6-2006 by Willard856]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:29 PM
The F-15E has effectively double the lifespan of the earlier Eagles. IIRC it has a service life of approximately 16000 flight hours per airframe. So I'm not surprised they're talking about them being around in 2024. The C was predicted to run out of flying time around 2020.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:27 PM
My thoughts on the F-15E were more from a capability point of view rather than shelf-life. If the scenario is indeed the toughest in terms of air dominance and threat capability and quantity, you'd have to assume S-400s (or successor), SA-15 (or successor), SA-19 (follow-on), IGLA follow-on etc, or other equivalents (Chinese in particular). Does this suggest that the anti-access systems will be dealt with prior to F-15 employment (in a CAS role I'd assume?), and if so, by what (5th gen aircraft, jamming, SOWs, all of the above?). If the argument is that F-22 needs an air to ground capability beyond what was defined in the original business case, and the JSF will provide the bulk of air to ground capability, where does the F-15 (and to a lesser extent the F/A-18E/F, though I assume it is a Navy requirement more than anything else) fit into the plan of 2024?

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:39 PM
The same way the F-15C fits into the F-22 plan. Backstop. You're not going to buy enough F-35s to get rid of the Strike Eagles, F-16s, and everything else they supposedly want them to replace. And having a single platform for everything is just dumb.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:52 PM
Actually I'd suggest having a single platform for everything is extremely smart. The reduction in support costs (maintainence, flight training, upgrades, software support) tumble dramatically. And I wasn't suggesting that only one platform was needed, I was simply asking how the F-15E fits into the scenario. In 2024, with the expected threat systems, the Air Forces desire to have air to ground capability in the F-22, F-35 and F/A-18E/F, where does the F-15 fit? Considering they also mentioned conventional bombers for air to ground, I just don't see the need for the F-15E. If it was the F-15C backfilling F-22 for air to air, then in some ways I could understand (though I think by 2024 it will be stretched in capability as well). And not to mention the absence of discussion on UCAVs, which for such a high level threat environment I would have thought would be critical.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:59 PM
The F/A-18 isn't with the USAF though. It's USN. So if they stick to this report they'll have the F-22 and F-35 if they get rid of the F-15Es.

Edit to add: And if you have one platform for it all you are getting into a "Jack of all trades, master of none" scenario. You end up with a plane that will dogfight, bomb, and whatever else, but won't be GOOD at any of them.

[edit on 6/22/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:06 PM
Sorry, I disagree. The DoD response factored in the scenario (and just to reiterate, it is the particular scenario quoted I'm talking about, not an entire global force structure), and the quote specifically mentions a Joint Staff Multi-Service Force Deployment. And it was this analysis that the DoD believed justified the required upgrades to F-22, and as such the F/A-18 was a consideration.

Guess our time zones are aligned Zaphod, not too many of the usual suspects contributing at the moment.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:35 PM
You have to look at the capabilities of the airframes involved though. During the Balkans the F-15E was the only "all weather" platform that was truly all weather. And the F-18 has some serious limitations to the platform. Out of the four planes listed the F-15E is the most capable in the roles that they're showing.

Yeah, it's still early in the UK but we should see some of them showing up soon.

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:32 AM
Getting late in the afternoon here in Aus, nearly time to head off for the weekend! Had an early start with the football and all, will have a few quite wines tonight to celebrate (followed by some louder bourbon and cokes...)

I understand your point about the F-15E in the Balkans, but in 2024 surely the other aircraft will be much more suited to the operational environment than the E model? Especially an operational environment like the one that the scenario is based on (I'm guessing which country they were talking about here). I'm just having trouble working out the specific employment that it will be used for, other than maybe a bomb truck to a CAS stack, which will require removal of S-400 type systems anyway, which means there will be a lot of F-35 (and if the Air Force get their way, F-22) platforms hanging around with nothing better to do anyway. And yes, before I'm told by others (not you Zaphod!), I acknowledge the discussion in the A-10 thread regarding the possible deficiencies manned platforms have with regards to CAS, I'm simply commenting on what the DoD has obviously decided for themselves is the best mix of platforms to meet operational needs

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:57 AM
If they start now, it'll probably be 2018-2020 before we see a new platform even begin to enter service. Under current conditions it takes 10-15 years to see a new platform enter service in any numbers to be considered fully operational.

It's 2am here on the East Coast, I'm just staying up late talking to the wife in the Philippines.

new topics

top topics


log in