If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Strike Fighter Squadron OPTEMPO factors
Hello,
The weekend comes, but I think it might be interesting: I've thought about several factors which could determine the capability of a Strike Fighter Squadron to perform high tempo operations, or a large number of sorties for a short time. Maybe you know something that I do not know, or have some other ideas? The following example is for a carrier-based F/A-18E/F squadron, built on the rule "the more of something you have, the more sorties you can generate"... 1) The number of aircraft per a squadron (now about 12 F/A-18E or 14 F/A-18F). Some official sources say the number of aircraft per squadron would decrease to 10, but I can see it concerns only future F-35B/C (JSF) squadrons. More aircraft give more flexibility (some of them may be permanently configured as recce or tankers), and greater margin for possible operational losses. 2) The number of aircrews (pilots, WSOs) in a squadron (16 pilots for a 12-plane F/A-18A/C squadron?). 3) The number of maintenance people for a squadron (244 men for an F/A-18A squadron, IIRC). 4) Aircraft carrier flight deck/hangar deck issues: - number of people for the "roof" and "hanger", - number and availability of workshops/maintenance devices, - issues connected with the flight deck itself and/or the air plan. I've heard there was such an experiment made aboard USS Nimitz, when additional people ferried to the carrier in the 5th Fleet AOR make it possible to "wind-up" the tempo of air operations. Also, I guess that a failed aircraft elevator or a broken cat can spoil you the whole day... 5) Availability of aircraft "consumables" on board of a carrier, that is: - JP-5 fuel, - lubricants, - LOX, and so on... 6) Availability of aircraft "expendables" aboard a carrier: - various external ordnance and modification kits (in case of modular weapons as JDAM or Paveway) In the WWII on the Pacific the ship's ordnance stock could be tailored for the mission - for example, there were less torpedos and more HVARs close to the end of the war... - gun ammo, chaff, flare, - missile adapters, multiple bomb racks etc. - weapon pylons (in "clean" configuration removed), - external fuel tanks (I guess every squadron brings aboard their own ones?), - buddy refueling stores (4 per a squadron?), - ATFLIR pods, AFAIK F-14 squadrons used to have 6 LANTIRN pods each, I am not sure how it can be with F/A-18s. I've just learnt the Navy is going to buy about 574 ATFLIRs, so it looks like every deployed F/A-18A+/C/E/F having its own navigation/targeting pod... - SHARP pods, Again, F-14 squadrons had 3 TARPS pods - so, also 3 SHARPs for an F/A-18F squadron (F/A-18E can carry the pod also, but is not expected to fulfill the recce mission). - other pods, including ECM (this issue will appear when EA-18G with their ALQ-228 and ALQ-99 comes into service. What do you think about? How it is in other services? Best regards, Jacek Zemlo |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you, Bob, for emphasising some aspects.
Serviceability, MMH/FH? Yeah, isn't that one of the main benefits (critics would add: not many) of switching to all-Hornet air wings? Personally, I have always believed the number of 12 aircraft per squadron was used, because it was very easy to divide into pairs, flights of 3 or 4, and also easily divided by six (for example, when 3 pairs of Tomcats were required for a CAP at the time). Now sources vary on this subject: some say: 12 a/c for F/A-18 sqn and 10 a/c for F-35/JSF sqn, other say: 10 a/c for CV-based squadrons, 12 a/c for land-based, or: more than 10 F/A-18s per a squadron, but only when they provide the air wing with tankers... Best regards, Jacek |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Jacek,
The question might be will switching to an all-Hornet airwing actually result in a lower MMH/FH number for the involed squadrons? Bean counters and analysts would probably agree that benefits of scale, less duplicity, and better support concentration should result in a lower MMH/FH. I doubt it. On the other hand, having four or five squadrons with the same airplane might very well net you better availability just from the improved competitive environment. Guys would try harder to be number one in all quantifiable aspects of their efforts. There would be a distinct tendenency for your supply system to anticipate lower inventory need and give you fewer high failure parts per embarked airplane. Reshuffling a carrier's supply inventory takes a major effort so it would be unlikely all the non-Hornet parts would be off loaded. Carriers spare parts lockers are space limited. Most often the most used parts are in short supply with the least called for being the majority. No matter how you provision expected MTBF's will not equal actual usage. Peter principle. The longer your AOCP times become, the lower your availability and higher the MMH/FH. Long AOCP times result in squadron ratholing and resulting lower supply parts availabilty. Any guy who would be smart enough to solve this should be transferred to working on world peace. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, we are talking about not one type, but two - because we can
say about a great degree of commonality between F/A-18A+ and C, or between F/A-18E, F/A-18F and (future) EA-18G. That is why every "older" CV (I mean: except CVN-75 and CVN-76) which is gonna to deploy with F/A-18E or F (or both), has to undergo some modifications first. CVW-9 in 2003 - with four F/A-18C squadrons (VFA-22, VFA-146, VFA-147, plus VMFA-314) - yes, that was commonality indeed, but capabilities (combat radius, on-station time, cycles lenght etc) must have suffered. Surely, putting Rhinos on carriers should be a progress when compared to MMH-eating F-14 and A-6s. But there will be a time some day when now brand-new F/A-18E/Fs also get older, and IF consider them "stealth" aircraft, they may require more maintenance to be kept as radar-clean as possible after being exposed to AAA/SAM fire and/or harsh weather conditions?... Regards, Jacek |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
U.S. Air Force to purchase 1,763 LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets for $245 billion | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 0 | July 22nd 04 06:06 AM |
Spangdahlem-based fighter squadron performs 3-week exercise in preparation for deployment | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 3rd 04 11:19 PM |
Joint Strike Fighter focus sparks concern | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | March 19th 04 09:19 PM |
A-4 / A-7 Question | Tank Fixer | Military Aviation | 135 | October 25th 03 03:59 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |