This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Impressive Scale Of The U.S. Air Force In 3 Charts
Original graphics by: CI Geography, who makes the following graphics available in prints.
In the war against the Islamic State, the United States has relied heavily on support from the skies. It’s for this reason that more than two-thirds of the $9 million-per-day of military spending on the war has been allocated to the Air Force.
Total spending on the war, according to data released by the Department of Defense in June 2015, has been $2.74 billion. Of this, $1.83 billion has gone to the Air Force, with the rest being divided between the Army ($274 million), Navy ($438 million) and Special Ops ($204 million).
But what is the actual scope of the U.S. Air Force? These three charts tell the story.
Make sure to click on the below charts to get the full size versions of each.
Combat and Combat-Support Squadrons
The first graphic shows aircraft involved with combat, either directly or for support purposes. This includes seven squadrons of the world’s most expensive fighter jet, the F-22 Raptor, which ultimately cost taxpayers a hefty $412 million each.
Bomber and Refueling Squadrons
In the second graphic, bombing and refueling squadrons are covered. There are 11 dedicated bomb squadrons, and 30 aerial-refuel squadrons that help top up other jets in mid-air.
Airlift Squadrons
Lastly, airlift squadrons include everything from the Presidential Airlift Group (89th Airlift Wing) to squadrons that can carry tanks or Humvees.
»
- 109817 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"Close support" means the enemy is close, so we need some air support.
It does not mean the aircraft providing the weapons on target, needs to be 'close' to ground forces.
The F-35 can fire a high speed JCM or Brimstone missile from 40 to 50k ft, and hit a target below in tens of seconds, with extraordinary precision, and mid-course target updates on moving targets and can of course hit with large numbers of glide weapons, and free fall PGM bombs (and all of those also have mid-course updating on moving targets or dynamically changing priorities now too).
And check out the multiple weapon racks for the Brimstone on that page. This will be the norm for the F-35s, 2, 3, 4 or 6 weapons per external pylon (SDB II will have 4), with 6 external pylons, and 4 of them capable of carrying up to 5,000 lb of air to ground weapons, which is quite staggering, and a result of it having such a massively strong wing structure. Unlike the comparatively flimsy F-16A's fighter wing, the F-35A wing was in fact designed to carry extremely heavy weapons, and lots of them.
What alleged 'critics' don't get (I can't even take the dumb bastards seriously as critics) because they never look at the numbers is that the LIRP F-35A Block-3 of today already carries 330% more weapon payload (not fuel on wings, just the deliverable available attack weapon payload) than an F-16C.
The F-35 critics are just myopic morons they are not even serious as critics! They seem to not grasp that low-observable stealth tactics and internal carriage are needed for the first hour of so of the attack. After which external weapons will be used routinely, and almost exclusively, on almost all F-35 missions not tasked with air to air patrol in conjunction with F-22As, in hi-lo mix combat air patrol.
i.e. ~90% of the F-35 fleet will be using its full external and internal weapons load almost from the second hour of the attack, and the weapon and fuel payload of an F-35A is spectacularly large, for a tactical single engine fighter, or for a twin engine fighter for that matter! The F-35A available payload outclasses the Super Hornet, and about matches the F-15E - already. And it will surpass the F-15E in later block upgrades.
Well guess what? The F-35A will have around 25,000 lb of available payload even with full fuel.
Now guess what the entire available payload of an A-10C is? 16,000 pounds! And the higher it climbs the less payload it can carry to altitude. It's engine thrust is not up to the task. This is why it is getting axed, it's performance is simply not good enough to do the job in contested SAM infested air space any longer where altitude equals life, and life equals the ability to get the mission done.
And take note that the Block-3 level F-35A can already carry ~15,500 lb of weapons! And I do not mean fuel and weapons, like the F-15E figure above, but just weapons alone. i.e. the F-35A will be able to potentially apply more firepower to a CAS attack than an F-15E can. And it's right up there with the payload of an F-111 as well, which was a deep-penetration cold war supersonic bomber!
It is also now well known that the vast majority of all CAS missions flown in Iraq and Afghanistan since 1990, and now also in the Iraq/Syria context were flown by F-15E and Hornets, not by A-10C. That fact alone is why the A-10C is going away (and thank Christ for that!).
So yeah, the F-35 will clearly be terrible at close air support and certain doom is surely upon us.
You've clearly done your homework. I guess we'll find out in 2018...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/08/27/as-it-fight...
...which should be interesting if some of the weapons system software for the F-35 won't be ready until 2019...
http://defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns-f-35-vs-a-10/
In your analysis, you are comparing one A-10 to one F-35. Given their wildly different costs, is that an appropriate comparison? If you look at new sticker price costs, you could get 3 or 4 A-10s for the price of one F-35. Given that we already own the A-10s, the difference is sharper; one commentator who has look at this suggests that the savings from killing the A-10 program will pay for 1 F-35 for ever 10 warthogs retired.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-retiring-the-a-...
Which then suggests the question - if you are on the ground, would you rather be in a sector covered by 3 to 10 A-10s, or by 1 F-35?
Not an issue though, the aircraft already has sufficient weapons to operate in most roles, block upgrades have been detailed out to about 2023, and the A-10C will be phased out - not a kplonk! - and it's all gone.
They have to build the F-35s first, and full-rate production is expected to be around 160 aircraft per year (40 now), with hundreds already ordered by allies and scheduled for build and delivery slots.
So the A-10C will be around for a bit yet, either way the F-16C, F-15E and F/A-18E/F plus drones will be in the mix too, as the F/A-18s and F-15s will both end their production runs in about 2019. So there will still be lots of new Hornets and Eagles flying around for the next 20 years as the F-35 fleet build progresses. The planned fleet changes will be progressive, almost imperceptible.
The cost verses numbers argument is a red-herring.
The A-10 is ancient, it has already had a couple of MLUs the air frames are old and tired, and new production is totally out of the question. They're done. CAS also is not what it used to be. Like all things it has evolved rapidly and will no longer be done the way it has been in the past, simply because that is not a survivable way of operating any longer.
And the situation is no longer the benign/accommodating environments we have had from 1990 to 2010, as now there is the very real chance of high performance SAMs being used and the A-10 has almost no chance whatsoever against them (I don't mean old MANPADS here) and nor does its pilots.
Modern all aspect SAMs actually aim to hit the cockpit canopy to guarantee a kill.
Yes, I have done some homework and some of it involved reading the comments of former very experienced A-10C pilots (not pretend ones, the real deal) who are satisfied that the aircraft's time has come and gone and the F-35's is just beginning. They have actually flown and tested both and the Hornet and F-16 as well, and they say the F-35 is hands down the best western CAS platform ever developed.
Now civil 'critics' can scoff at that all they want, but it's pretty blunt. They are professional career CAS pilots, not me. So I'm hardly in a position to contradict or doubt their matter-of-fact statements to that effect. And I don't think any other civilian is in a position to either.
So I will trust they know what works and what does not, and I do not.
So it is my job/fun then, if I'm interested, to work out just why the heck that would be true?
And I see enough in my examination of the issues to accept that they're not exaggerating.
As for the people on the ground red-herring, when a bomb or missile drops on a CAS target in the past decade, from 30 to 40K feet, they reported they mostly have no idea what dropped it, and do not care, they only care if it hits the target and can do it again soon. Given the US F-35 build numbers are 2,443 total, and will include operating beside hundreds of F-15E, F-16s and Super Hornets, this is unlikely to be a problem, and the US is buying a new tanker fleet with and even higher offload capacity, even as the average fuel capacity of the USAF fighter fleet and their loiter time capability rapidly rises, as the F-16 is withdrawn.
So weapons raining down from 40k feet are very unlikely to diminish as the A-10 and F-16 progressively go away, just the opposite in fact as the average US tactical fighter fleet weapon payload will be rapidly rising as that occurs, even as the weapons carried get both smaller, more precise integrated and fire and forget, and much more numerous in numbers carried.
So on the contrary, expect the practical deliverable numbers and effects to double or even triple, as the F-35 build progresses (we shall see, but there will be no reduction, of that I'm very confident at this point).
The doom and gloom narrative is entirely unwarranted.
@Element
In one article all your points are refuted.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/major-obvious-f-35-pilot-says-a-10-will...
The article cited is a joke. Pierre Sprey as a source? Spare me the pet propaganda originator. Like I said, refer to current active CAS professionals and try to avoid authors with a clear partisan agenda and bias, regardless of the full facts.
Linked below are 120 blog pages of detailed and specific comments on the topic, dating from Aug 2013 thru to Sept 2015. It contains multiple people who have flown the A-10C on CAS missions and also fast jets in the CAS role. They make it abundantly clear (and some scathingly) that there's nothing the A-10C can do in today's contested battlefield environment that other attack fighters can not do better, safer and faster. Some of them seem to regard the A-10C's poor performance as an untenable tactical liability and that it has not any particular advantage or redeeming value over other types of CAS role aircraft but has some significant negatives.
And this is coming from people who have flown the A-10C and flown other jets in the same role, going after the same target types.
You see it's not me you have to 'refute' as any mere article you produce has to refute them. And it of course never can. That's what I've been pointing-out. But your article's objections are dealt with, and comprehensively dispensed with, within this exceptionally detailed 120 page active thread.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&sid=85e1372ca011810...
Enjoy! ;-)
Hmmmm.. ah now i got it from where he is getting all those skills of ignorance , fanboyism and stupidity. F-16.net military forum follower he is just another mp.net farce fanboys forum.
What irks you maxi-pootie (or is it mini-pootie?) is your inability to deal with facts and firsthand substantiation and prevail. Hence your need to resort to deflection and obfuscation. ;-)
Btw mini-pootie, I'm thrilled to bits you're such an avid A-10C fan! I had no idea! You really feel that passionate about it huh? So I take it you'd rather face an A-10C in battle than an F-35A? Well, whatever mate, I'm just chuffed you take such an interest. It's not what I would have expected from a Russian troll! :D
The charts are dated June 2015, the final decision to retire them is more recent, if I remember correctly, plus they will be phased out, not just stop.
The purpose of war and a huge military machine is not to win battles. The main idea is to transfer money from the suckers that vote and pay taxes to the 1% that own the military-industrial complex.
Somewhere I hear Ike saying "I told you so".
So why was Rushbaldi allowed to parade?
What these charts don't show are all the missile groups. While they are far fewer in number than aircraft, they aren't cheap either. One thing I did notice about this chart: UF-1 helicopters {Hueys}, these things are still active after sixty years? Same goes for the B-52s. Then there are U-2s {well over fifty years old}. Even AC-130s and F-16s {which are the backbone of the Fighter arm} are forty years old now. I see allot of obsolete aircraft. I have been out of the military for well past thirty years now, and 2/3rds of the aircraft in these charts were either in active service or coming on line when I left back in the late 1970s {same goes for the Navy}. Now I see where allot of the money goes: Keeping old, worn-out aircraft serviceable is VERY expensive.
All aging at the same time. Cannot see how they can all be replaced on an asset by asset basis. New aircraft are more expensive and not that much more capable.
The same observations can be applied to the navy. The Aegis radar system is over 30 years old and, I believe, they plan to keep hulls at sea for 50 years.
The army's Tanks are old also and they have to be continually upgraded.
Red Dawn, the original, looks more promising (key stroke loggers much china?)
The United States of Pussies.
You know what? I wouldn't be suprised if Russia ran the fuck over Canada(32million), with 93 million people in a claimed land mass over twice the size of the lower 48.
I think the Canadians have moar balls than the pussies, that inhabit the United States.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
- President Eisenhower's 1953 "Cross of Iron" Speech
The above supposes that Big Daddy Washington is responsible for everything? This is the definition of Socialism.
No it proposes that money is misspent - our priorities are all fucked up. You obviuosly have a 'socialism' complex (requires special lenses), so I will keep my distance from that.
(edit to remove duplicate post)
Considering that the DoD is spending upwards of $150 a gallon for 'green' fuel, the story is bordering on laughable.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-pentagon-paid-150-per-gal...
Collosal waste of treasury. All aging at the sametime though.
Hey, what's wrong with shooting $3 million missiles at 10 year old ISIS pickup trucks? It only takes a couple missiles to actually hit one and take it out.
Of course our air force is spending lots of money. It's expensive to fly all that military equipment and ammo from the U.S. to Iraq in order to keep re-supplying ISIS!
If you ever mention that to co-workers, you'll get the 15 second blank stare before another word is spoken. Remember back in the 80's when all this sh*t was going on in South America.
Sometimes it's useful to categorize the FSA. Wall Street and Corporations of various industries are far and above the largest members of the FSA. All the welfare queens and food stampers probably dont even equate to a rounding error.
Ya gotta' count up all of the $$$$$$$ spent in the "war on poverty". just like the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror"
Trillions.
aint no reason things are this way, its how its been and they intend to stay, I dont know why I say the things I say, but I say them anyway... prisons walls still standing tall, somethings never change at all, keep on building prisons gonna fill them all, keep on building bombs gonna drop them all. Working your fingers to the bone, breaking your back, selling your soul, like a lung thats filled with coal, suffocating slow....the wind blows wild, and yes I may be move, but politicians lieing and I am not fooled. I dont need a reason or a three piece suit to arm me with the truth. The air on th my skin and the world under my toes, slavery stictched in the fabric of my clothes, chaos and commotion wherever I go.....but love will come set me free. you can work your whole life working for something just to have it taken away....people walk around pushing back their desks, wearing paychecks like necklaces and bracelets, talking about nothing not thinking about death, every heartbeat and every little breath. people walk a tightrope on a razors edge, carrying their hurt and hatred and weapons, it could be a bomb or a bullet or a pen, or even a sentence. but love will come set me free...I know it will. Brett dennon.
The US should start buying Russian equipment.
We build ours to clser tolerances. That has advantages and costs.
Looking at the charts...looks very impressive...don't understand why we have not eliminated the enemy by now...don't you buy high tech stuff so you can kill your enemy before he kills you...I guess it is important to be invisible in the skies when someone is shooting at you with a loaded rifle..
The U.S. Airforce, bravely killing women and kids for 70 years.
U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A
Well thank the make that no other armed forces in the world do that - by accident or intentionally.
Paid for by printing money out of thin air, and dumb foreigners sending goods and services in exchange for that.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!
Not any dumber than Americans doing the same.
A ninety-year-old muscle man showing off his goods.
It was like this in Nam. At least the choppers earned their keep evacuating people.
BS - drop a couple Fat Boys - things go better with Coke
USSA like its Onkel Adolf NAZI inspiration before it will be paying for all this garbage for generations to come....if USSA survives the tsunami of Saudi Mercan fiat petroscrip I$I$ "backed" toilet paper coming home to drown US as the clogged up sewer of the Shaman banksters in their Wall St casino Potemkin Village implodes.
Onward to the end of the most evil monstrosity to ever plague the human zoo.
LMAO. The military.... you have to have served to appreciate the degree of total retardation that is masked by the whizbang swoooosh of all the shiny jets, the spectacular feats of engineering and the logistical complexities to keep the entire apparatus moving. Yet... the entire behemoth is fundamentally designed to fight combat paradigms that don't even exit anymore. Suuuuuure... if this air force showed up at the Battle of Britain that would have been great. It's not that war anymore.
19 retards with plastic knives supposedly defeated that. Either it really happened, and in response we promoted all the incompetent fucktards who screwed it up so badly.... orrrrrr.... the fucktards were simply following orders, were promoted accordingly... and they continue to keep the whole motley flying circus of obscelete weapon systems flying along because, hey... say what you want, but on top of just being fucking cooooool, it' a great way to make a living. Too bad the country has to get fleeced in the process, but hey... fuck it.
And all violent movies like that dreadful 'Fight Club' should be banned! Oh yes, they may seem all kewl, sensuous and agreeable, but it's a slippery slope boys and girls. Humanity must rise above our primal urges to make each other feel something other than the veneer of 'us' that was imposed and, "Just let go!". Thus we should re-double our efforts to repress and ignore what we are and pretend we don't actually like a good old monkey on monkey dust-up despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Exercise: Read the description of movies on TV tonight.
There are underlying wet-flesh reasons for what we watch and behave as we do, and what we really do and really prefer when all the idealism and tut-tutting is stripped away. Denying it or wishing it away does not change it.
Military's simply accept thos to be self-evident, and plan accordingly.
Trying to be, or rather pretending to be what you're not, is a pretty awful situation to be placed in. Alternatively we can trust that what we naturally are is actually not that bad, it's pretty damned good in fact. Be it, excel at being that, enjoy it, make the most of it. I bet the results are a whole lot better and more constructive than trying to be what we're not, and never will be. ;-)
Who wants to give up their hate? It FEELZ so GOOOOOOOOOOD.
The NWO exploits hate. The haters are the secret NWO army. And they all think they are opposed to the NWO. Useful idiots.
You know I don't think it's ever been any different. Hate is just a product of induced fear, btw.
But it is also a response to actions.
What?
Tell me again how the verbal slop ("wet flesh reasons....") you just spilled into this discussion justified a war in Iraq agaisnt a people who had done us no harm, and who presented no threat?
OK, now your just inserting yourself off topic and out of context and acting like an arse.
Here is what I replied to above, read it:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-12/impressive-scale-us-air-force-3...
Show me in it any remark about Iraq? Oh, there is none? Really? Now show me in my reply, where I referred to Iraq either? Oh, I didn't do that huh?
So what are you crapping on about?
Just having a little troll? Your trite imaginary ideals feel impugned by nasty reality again? Unable to cope? Listen pal, I took the time to reply to you in detail above, twice, and was entirely civil and polite to you, so if you want to act like a jackass in return that's you done, you're apparently too callow and sophomoric to have left the kindergarten yet.
Cheerio
The Department of War spending $trillions and still has aging, obsolete equipment. WTF?
1oz Silver American Eagle €13 @ EurGold
https://www.eurgold.eu/silver/american-eagle-1oz-silver-coin-1-dollar-le...
B52 planned for service until 2048. But can u spell F35? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
You know you're in trouble when your most advanced fighter can't dogfight and the people that rationalize it say no one can get close. That's a dare that's bound to be taken seriously until it is proven absolutely. We'll see.
Pootin should have no problem with that tiny air force.
F-16 and A-10s, and B52s belong in a museum.
Yeah, and how did that work out on 9/11? Where was the USA 'mighty' airforce??????
yet there's war everywhere initiated by US and left the mess behind.
The problem is all the spare parts are made in China.
Dinky. US Army Air Forces topped out at over 2 million airmen and 80,000 aircraft.
drone count
Cute, the Thunderbirds group has one of the F-16s flying inverted over another one. Graphics-guy has a sense of humor.
One F-22 could buy a lot of drones and save money...
Try shooting down a J-20 with the drone.
The only 'drone' that could do it is an unmanned version of an F-35A, F-22A or F/A-18G.
Except a manned version of any of them would be even better ... and controls unjammable.