Our island adventure, hope for a better, as if the joy of childhood when the growth to continue in pursuit of that future~ can step by step, the development of advanced, it, of our time, the motherland Time, the world's time, gradually the past, our childhood memory of ~~~ happy time! We have to remember that to purchase maple mesos, to facilitate our task to do!

Posted by: maple mesos at August 8, 2008 03:56 AM

In the Beach City is such fearfulness, I am owning many Archlord money in my pocket.

Posted by: Archlord money at August 6, 2008 01:51 AM

They all teach me many skills of defence and how to make cheap eve isk.

Posted by: cheap eve isk at August 6, 2008 01:47 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 14, 2008 08:32 PM

ok i know this is off the subject. but i am looking for air force insgina form 1967. if anyone can help me please email me at danceqwueen@yahoo.com

thanks

Posted by: Dianna at March 26, 2008 01:46 PM

ok i know this is off the subject. but i am looking for air force insgina form 1967. if anyone can help me please email me at danceqwueen@yahoo.com

thanks

Posted by: Dianna at March 26, 2008 01:45 PM

Well this has been a very interesting topic and I am glad there are others that are concerned. China is no longer backward China, they have 400 SU-27/30's that are equal or better than any F-15 we have. They are producing the J-10 which is probably better than the latest F-16s we have. They also have thousands of other fighters and have retired most of the obsolete aircraft. During the money drain that is the Iraqi war China has sped forward and are well on their way to becoming the next superpower.

Russia is also rising again and they too are throwing money around, also keep in mind most of their fleet of aircraft did not undergo high flying hours in the 90s and 200s and are in good shape. THey are upgrading everything now.

183 F-22s is not much at all, there needs to be a few hundred more to ensure air supremacy against a nation like China. 183 means only around 100 can be devoted to any one conflict. This money drain that is Iraq needs to stop so we can replenish the military and prepare for future challenges. We cannot afford to kill new equipment acquisitions to pay for an unnecessary war. Right now the USAD is looking at 183 F-22s and maybe 1000 F-35s (yes that 1763 number will drop way down). I think the solution of F_16 block 60s also is a good one and an affordable one.

Posted by: Matt at January 8, 2008 03:50 PM

NTV et all,

I hear ya, but the Army did have the M6 Linebacker that had Stingers mounted on the Bradley...until they removed them in 2006? The Army is also developing the Mid Range Munition that may potentially have an anti-helicopter capability, fired from a 120 mm main gun.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/digits/120MRM.htm

To all, apologize for playing the "whine" and casualty card in my last post. Purple fast movers are essential, and recognize the need for air supremacy, but perhaps you boys will admit that history indicates a major part of that supremacy is catching bad guy air on the ground and keeping them on the ground, or running for cover. Not sure you need more the 183 F-22s, 234 F-15Es, lots of F-16s and F-35s, and a few B-2s and more B-1s to do that, and read that the Chinese jets aren't impressive.

Also admit to semi-idolizing the C-17, writing a 1991 Armor magazine article about it and the need for lighter Army forces and sending said article to the multiple O-6 PMs of the various tank-sized armored vehicles they wanted to build back then. Heck, the article even criticized Sec of Defense Cheney for limiting the C-17 buy to 120, which fortunately was changed later.

Sounds like you guys probably will end up with more F-22s since I read Congressman Murtha has stated as much. Other things he has said lead me to wonder if the future Army procurement will be the bill-payer....which is my main fear.

BTW, SMSgt Mac, I read that German historians include the night bombing of Britain from Sept 1940-May 1941 as part of the Battle of Britain. That bombing killed upwards of 43,000 civilians and leveled a million Brit homes, and buzz bombs and V2 rockets later killed another nearly 9,000. British historians focus prior to Sept 1940 when the Spitfires/Hurricanes, as you point out, deterred further daylight bombing...with relatively few aircraft that were equal but by no means superior. ; ) The fact that Brit fighters had more difficulty with German bombers at night corresponds to the reality that threat aircraft would have a hard time shooting USAF aircraft down at night given our stealth, superior radars, and night vision systems.

Thanks for serving no matter what branch you serve/served in.

Posted by: Cole at December 31, 2007 02:02 PM

Cole, I think you missed my point. I realize the Army has SAM capability, but the waepons you listed THAAD, SLAMRAAM, C-RAM, etc are all standalone single purpose weapons. Much like the F-15v was designed, single purpose. So while the Army has SAM capability they didnt put that capability on the M-1? Why because they didnt want to make the M-1 less capable as a tank killer and in exchange give it some SAM capability. The same goes for an original F-15 the AF didnt want to sacrifice Air to Air capability for some air to ground capability.

AS for stress's, I didnt bring them into the discussion.
The problem with UAV's is that they need to be autonmus, or have some human controler. If they are controlled by humans then you run into problem during manuvering during air combat. How do you keep the UAV in contact when its juking and jiving? The UAV will have to have a large number of ending and reciving antennas so that communication can be maintained during the continous manuvering.
Lastly, large number of UCAV's controlled from the ground will use exstensive band width. This could lead to not being able to operate in an area because of a bandwidth shortage to losing communication from jaming or loss of the satallite.
Now, granted, some of this could be overcome, but in what time line and a what expense? I would suspect, that problems like this are why the AF is going slower on UCAV's than people want them to.

Posted by: NTV at December 31, 2007 09:57 AM

"Part of the reason for purchasing more F-22s is that it will drive costs down, both now and later on. If we only purchase 183 Raptors, we'll have a pricey, boutique fighter with expensive repair needs. The more we purchase, the cheaper they will be to maintain and operate, and thus, the longer we can field them into the future."

Drive costs down?? By doubling the purchase? Sure you amortize the R&D- but the F22 will still be way over $100 million a plane.

In ten years (if that's as long as the F15's will last) we can always buy F35's (if they don't cost $100 million plus) or F18's or something else. We probably will be moving towards UAV's

I don't want to bring back Turkey's or Greece's f4'S- my point is why can F4's last 40 years but not F15's?

Posted by: Emastro at December 30, 2007 11:57 PM

RE air dominance:1. yes, I can name one. The 1967 Arab-Israeli Wars was a clear case of airpower as the dominant force. It would have repeated itself in ’73 except Israeli and world politics prevented the Israelis from executing another pre-emptive attack.

Reply: Because I served in the Sinai in 1989-90, I thought you were wrong on this but will concede you are partially correct...that COMBINED air-ground success yields the best results.

From what I read, the IAF was able to destroy most of the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian air forces on the ground and sent the remaining third of the Syrian aircraft into hiding. Great argument for giving up a "pound for air-to-ground." Seems to me that is almost exactly the identical sceanario we saw in both Iraq wars.

In contrast, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Egyptians and Syrians chose to fight under ADA cover and were far more effective against the IAF. As a results, Arab surprise attacks were successful at first despite Israeli awareness of the possible attacks. But once more Israeli ground forces prevailed in turning the tide, despite less support from the IAF. BTW, I'm buddies with a USAF LTC who navigated C-5s during Operation Nickel Grass to support the Israelis with artillery rounds and M60 tanks. Kind of parallels the possibilities of C-17 ground augmentation to shorter airfields.

Israeli ground efforts were also extremely successful in the 1967 6-day War. Arial Sharon sent the entire 950 tank, 1100 APC, and 1,000 Arty Egyptian Army with 100K soldiers in the Sinai into retreat after the 3 1/2 day Battle of Abu-Agueila. Air supremacy assisted that ground effort but certainly did not create it.

2. As to OIF and FSCLs, and “we won didn’t we?”. But if the Army hadn’t been so rigid perhaps we would have been able to smack down the cream of Saddam’s elite instead of letting them slip away and then maybe we would have had a different intervening 12 years, eh? There are too many ‘what ifs’ to tell, and other than from gaining insight for future action, ‘if only’s' are a futile waste of time.

Believe you are mixing up your wars. The 100 km in front of the FEBA FSCL was in the 2003 war. BTW, an overambitious MLRS group of 7 km Position Areas of Artillery (should have been 3 x 3km)along the flank forced the 11th Avn Regmt to divert from their preferred flank air axis, which led to fuel problems and small arms engagements on their deep attack. But I will personally concede (as a former non-attack pilot) that deep attacks are not the Apache strong suit.

However as the RAND study admits, attack helicopters are far better at supporting troops with close combat attacks and aerial reconnaissance which should remain under Army control....not USAF as the study suggests.

Posted by: Cple at December 28, 2007 07:39 PM

RE: We should all accept equal risk so that one service is not suffering disproportionate casualties? As I read and re-read that statement, it would mean that you believe that because the Army (to date) has not been able to lower the risk of the individual infantryman everybody else should live a little more recklessly so they will unnecessarily incur more losses? Sorry, but that sentiment is so manifestly stupid (and I know you are NOT stupid) that I am certain you must want to take it back or rephrase it."

Yeah it was stupidly worded. The point is that survival and combat effectiveness requires money. The Air Force gets more money. We cited earlier that a stealth fighter was funded while a stealth helicopter costing a fourth as much was not.

While I in no way want to downplay the sacrifices of every serviceman serving...wherever they serve, the fact remains that the Army/Marines are bearing the overwhelming brunt of casualties and deployments in combat zones.

Remember that cost figure for fighter versus helicopter? In Afghanistan, I note that a full 15 of 29 Air Force deaths occurred in helicopter crashes or shoot downs. I note 3161 Army deaths and 1012 Marine deaths in both Iraq/Afghanistan compared to only 75 Air Force deaths. I do applaud those Airmen volunteers. The death toll of 15 for them in 2007 equals the totals for 2006/2005 combined indicating the greater risk they volunteered for....and as you can guess, most are enlisted men killed by IED attacks. They were for the most part not officers who died because the aircraft they were flying was shot down or crashed.

So forgive me if I make snide comments when I hear the USAF whining that it needs excessive quantities of the absolute best equipment to survive/thrive on the battlefield....because those costs directly subtract from monies available to help other ground servicemen survive/thrive.

That was my point...for now.

Posted by: Cole at December 28, 2007 04:13 PM

Cole, your ‘logic’ is slipping and not quite hiding the “Hooah !”. I’ll try to keep close hold on my inner “What The!? ” -- But no promises

In the first part of your reply we get:
a) ‘But being an ace on the ground isn’t the same thing, I guess.’
b) “and you have ejection seats if they don’t. Army/Marine helicopters don’t have ejection seats. Ground Soldiers don’t have ejection seats from armored vehicles”
c) “Can you understand the perception problem that it causes when a Soldier/Marine is away from home much longer than an Airman?”

About the only thing worthy of response in that pile of Snide is that AF rotations aren’t based upon how long the people can or should handle the rotation, it is about how long the unit can maintain a forward presence without making it more efficient to rotate them, from a total worldwide air capability point of view. Train ‘em up Push ‘em out, Get ‘em back, Train ‘em up, Push’em out again-possibly someplace else. You see, a large part of the AF (and Navy of course) is also helping to keep the rest of the world safe by picking up the slack in power projection and readiness BECAUSE the Army is so committed in CentCom and the WOT.
About three years ago my Son (Former Marine and then AF Munitions Maintenance officer) did a double deployment to South Korea and Okinawa when we had to flex our stuff in the Pacific to remind a certain little despot that just because the Army was a little stretched at the moment didn’t mean we weren’t thinking of him. My Daughter-in-law just did an extended deployment working 12-14 hours days, 7 days a week to make sure all the AF stuff got moved to all the right places as much as possible WORLDWIDE. This included all the transports moving all that stuff the Army needs, including people, out and back. In about 2 weeks, they’ll start keeping an eye on China and that certain little despot from a ‘forward location’ for the next three years.
So everybody is doing ‘their part’ – everybody has their trials and not everybody can do a job that gets them a CIB. From your ‘armchair’ perspective, I’m getting the vibe that you are not aware of just how much the AF is embedded into the Army while ‘helping’ in CentCom. At the height of convoy IED attacks, about 1/3 of all transportation billets were manned by AF volunteers. We won’t even go into how many Air Force Combat Controllers and Security Forces personnel have been assigned, embedded, or attached. For a while, when I went into the local Commissary, I would usually see 1 or 2 Airmen in BDUs with Army Division shoulder patches of the unit with which they served in combat. I even saw one Tech Sgt with a Big Red 1 on one shoulder and an AA on the other. [ I would not rule out the idea the AF may have rescinded the authorization to wear them by now, perhaps because it was becoming apparent that there were a LOT more people pulling Army duty than was healthy for morale and therefore something they did not want to advertise, but the point just may have become moot since the new (ugh!) AF combat utilities don’t allow a lot of things.]
Now let’s get to the rest...

RE: But ground Soldiers face advanced threats as well. We should all accept equal risk so that one service is not suffering disproportionate casualties. You guys seem on the right track to creating a loitering SEAD/DEAD aircraft in UCAV. UCAV, on board ECM and jamming aircraft as described in the article, and JSF (less than half the cost) are other alternatives that allow you to accept risk in numbers of F-22s

“We should all accept equal risk so that one service is not suffering disproportionate casualties” WTFO? As I read and re-read that statement, it would mean that you believe that because the Army (to date) has not been able to lower the risk of the individual infantryman everybody else should live a little more recklessly so they will unnecessarily incur more losses? Sorry, but that sentiment is so manifestly stupid (and I know you are NOT stupid) that I am certain you must want to take it back or rephrase it.
May I suggest: “While the Air Force has improved its survivability and effectiveness manifold since becoming a separate service, the lot of the individual soldier has not improved in proportion and we must do more to make the individual going door to door and house to house in urban warfare.”? That is a statement with which I can totally support and one which with enlightened leadership and technology the Army can accomplish. But the key is ‘enlightened leadership’. 6 years ago I would have said it was hopeless, but today I have hope for the Army. Historically, ‘mopping up’ operations are the most dangerous mission for the grunt, and I don’t see how they could ever take enough risk out of the mission to ever make it safer than others, but the cuurent path the Army is taking I think can and will improve it. As a gentle reminder lest we forget: in the WOT there is no FEBA or rear areas: no place is safe, just some are less so than others.
To summarize, I reject categorically the concept that ANYONE should experience more risk than absolutely necessary and am amazed at your callousness towards meat servos who are after all, as much as I hate to admit it, people too.

RE: Th[e]n why does the Air Force attempt to become the executive agency for UAS?

I would argue because they think it is because they are the ones with the expertise, dollars and ‘air’ responsibilities. This is truly a (misnamed) ‘Roles and Missions’ discussion, but suffice to say I would counter the question with “why not?” Why is it inappropriate for the Army to provide requirements that make the AF responsible for delivering a product/system to meet their needs? If you had studied instead of merely read my earlier references you would have realized that time and time again since WWII the Army has demonstrated an inability to think outside the scope of its basic unit of maneuver, consistently viewing the battlefield as a ‘bowling alley’ and ignoring the bigger picture required at the campaign level beyond a unit’s AOR. The demands of today’s and tomorrow’s information-dependent warfare requires a SYSTEM of reconnaissance capabilities. (This is why the AFRL and DARPA are working on the HURT project BTW. See: http://dtsn.darpa.mil/ixo/downloads/20071108DRD24887.pdf)

After that point, your arguments seem to devolve into a kind of staccato and somewhat disjointed appeal to emotion, but to answer in good faith...

RE: Why limit it to post Cold War? We bombed the heck out of Germany and Japan. Did that end those wars (short of final nukes). How about Viet Nam? Did England throw up it hands and quit when it was under storm from buzz bombs and the Battle of Britain?.....

Not a very sneaky way to discount the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as ending the war, but I’ll play along. First Europe: I’d say airpower helped end the war quite a bit earlier on both fronts. It was fashionable for a while to discount the effect of heavy bombardment on the War in Europe for a while, but the accounts from those who were on the receiving end of the bombardment generally support the notion that airpower shortened the war. Now Japan: accepting the bizarre disregard for the Enola Gay and Bock’s Car missions, the Japanese survivors will tell you that LeMay’s bombing campaign, including the firebombing of major war material producing areas and cities was devastating. You tell me, that it didn’t have an effect.
Vietnam? Hard to tell. Airpower was as misapplied as ground power for political reasons, But I do note that the NVs had thumbed their noses at the peace process in the middle of 1972 and after only twelve days of the only serious effort to bomb the North (Linebacker II) they were back at the table and like magic ‘peace’ was on again. Pity we didn’t do it in 1965 or so.
Your Battle of Britain example is the odd man here: it is an example of British Airpower winning the day against the Luftwaffe.
In any case this line of argument is a Strawman. It has never been the case that the Air Force as an institution,(not talking about a few religious Airpower types) has claimed supremacy: it has always strived for PARITY. One of the main points of one of my references is that the traditionally Army mentality has absolutely refused to see itself EVER in a supporting role. I would call your argument tht the AF calims superiority a clear case of projection.

Not to give short shrift to your other points, but
1. yes, I can name one. The 1967 Arab-Israeli Wars was a clear case of airpower as the dominant force. It would have repeated itself in ’73 except Israeli and world politics prevented the Israelis from executing another pre-emptive attack.
2. As to OIF and FSCLs, and “we won didn’t we?”. But if the Army hadn’t been so rigid perhaps we would have been able to smack down the cream of Saddam’s elite instead of letting them slip away and then maybe we would have had a different intervening 12 years, eh? There are too many ‘what ifs’ to tell, and other than from gaining insight for future action, ‘if only’s' are a futile waste of time.
3. Your ‘big bombs’ comment is cliche and wrong, since we are working very hard to reduce collateral damage through weapon miniaturization, programmable warheads, better targeting and increased accuracies. Little Bill Arkin and other ‘damage assessment' types were severely disappointed when they went into Iraq after the Storm and found no large scale collateral damage or fear from the bombs by the populace. Tsk - it broke the poor hippies’ hearts.
4. Your cherry picking of the air and ground interdependence quote is telling. Did you also catch the big reason Arnold and others felt that the reason the Air Force must be created? I was because that as long as it was part of the Army, the realization of air and ground interdependence would NEVER be considered much less achieved.

Separate services – One Mission!

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at December 28, 2007 02:09 PM

NTV, the first THAAD will field in FY09 with a second a year later. Should help protect key airbases. SLAMRAAM is funded for a battery in 09 and a battalion in FY11 which should help protect A-10s flying CAS.

Of course C-RAM is already protecting 7 FOBs/airfields as is JLENS and Sentinel. Avengers are a plenty, as are Patriots with missile upgrades coming now that it was merged with MEADS.

So the services have air, ground, and sea air dominance capabilities. This allows risk in numbers of air superiority aircraft that have superior everything and therefore don't need excessive numbers.

The early F-15s are 25 years old....not the F-15E. The Apache and Blackhawk both will be around until 2025+ making some of them nearly 45. How old is that BUFF, Chinook, and outgoing CH-46?

If you argue for different stresses on fighters, then you don't comprehend the aggressive flying occurring in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the many more take-offs/landing to field sites with plenty of brown-out dust wearing components. I can only imagine it given a year of Sinai flying.

I will also argue to spend the money to make a secure data link during UCAV jinking. Since the latter would almost never fly agressively outside of combat...using simulator training instead...so UCAV could last much longer.

Posted by: Cole at December 28, 2007 01:25 PM

Cole,

I am not saying the F-22 should in any way be launched from a carrier. The F-18E/F does a superb job right now. I have posted about this many times. I don't think the Navy needs the F-35 and I don't think the Marines need VSTOL. They can do just as well, even better, launching F-18s from a carrier or land base. And because of the reduction in Navy aircraft, there will always be Marine squadrons deployed on carriers. And as a footnote, the Marines want to go all VSTOL in their F-35 purchase. So if they deploy on carriers a whole new doctrine will need to be developed so that CTOL and VSTOL aircraft can operate together on the flight deck.

Congress has voted against F-22 sales, just as they are wrangling over what to provide our JSF partners. In fact, a lot of countries that have contributed to this partnership are rethinking their needs. Australia just bought F-18E/Fs as a stopgap measure due to JSF delays.

We are currently having issues with B-2 parts availability just as we have had issues with F-117s. Because of the low number purchased, they are becoming harder to maintain. Think about it, what company is going to supply parts (even routine maintenance parts) to support 20 aircraft. And if they did, the price would be outrageous. The same will hold true for the F-22 once production stops in the next couple of years. We need to at least double the number of these aircraft we plan to buy. As a result, we should scrap the JSF totally and have the Air Force buy F-16 Block 60s. The cost savings in the F-16 purchase would pay for more F-22s.

And as an aside to you, I will be 5 years into social security in 2043. It might not matter to you but it matters to me. This mentaility is why we don't have a problem with our kids inheriting the deficits we are currently creating.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at December 28, 2007 01:09 PM

DC2,

Agree with most of what you say, but I'm surprised you would think that the F-22 could be modified cheaply (or at all) to be launched from carriers....which is your implication if you suggest abandoning F-35. And of course there would be no Marine VTOL version (which might be good given the Harrier crash record).

Plus, thought Congress decided against foreign military sales of F-22, and most other countries couldn't afford it anyway, nor can we afford a crashed one to get into the wrong guy's hands.

Seems like thousands of F-35s sold to many countries creates economies of scale far superior to a couple of hundred F-22s. Don't know why Brian etc. think 183 F-22s is a small unsustainable numbers when we have 20 B-2s, which really must create logistic challenges.

As an aside, DC2, just got my annual Social Security future benefits letter and it mentioned not having problems until 2043 which will be OK by me since I doubt I will be around then. ; )

Posted by: Cole at December 28, 2007 12:09 PM

Cole- your response to the Creech quote clearly illustrates part of the problem and mistrust of many outside the USAF. Clearly the AF supports the ground fighters and joint campaign objectives. Aint that what the F-16 and A-10 do? Yes,there is a predisposition to air to air in the AF, but without control of the air A-10's become junk littering the battlefield. So in the end aining air dominace is paramount. And gaing that needs a dedicated air to air aircraft, which for the last 25 years has been the F-15. Furthermore it makes sense to make it a dedicated air to air weapon, so that it does that job superbly, agin if air control cant be gained ground attack isnt going to happen.
As a ground pounder comparison, would it make sense to equip a M-1 with a SAM system? Does the fact that the M-1 isnt so equiped show that the Army doesnt support the AF and joint campaign objectives? No. It just shows that the M-1 is damn good at one thing, killing other tanks. Much in the same way the F-15 is damn good at killing other aircraft.
> Pilots can fly an air supremacy UAV from the ground, sans the g-forces
The problem here is how do you maintain contact between satellite and the UAV during the high-g manouvers? How many antennas will be needed? and how much band width? A ground controlled UAV also has its shortfalls.
> But being an ace on the ground isn’t the same thing, I guess.
Yes, I am sure its all about that.

Posted by: NTV at December 28, 2007 10:56 AM

Brian, I got those costs from the Air Force website. But my point is more towards the need for more F-22s which you and MAC agree with (and Cole obviously does not). However, there needs to be a tradeoff in the process. I personally think the JSF is completely useless (redundant), especially with the ground capabilities the F-22 now has. MAC said it best when he indicated this aircraft will not be used for air dominance, it will be used as a bomb truck with some air to air capability. I fully support ditching this aircraft in favor of F-16 Block 60s. They may not last long in an IADS environment but that is why we have F-22s, B-2s, Tomahawks/ALCMs, UAVs, and soon JASSM. You have the F-16 and A-10 to work in lower threat environments such as what we face right now or actually on the battlefield where CAS is more important than stealth.

I agree with MAC on the defense spending vs. GDP issue. However, we are in a deficit right now and will be looking at social security insolvency really soon. Just like there needs to be an interservice tradeoff on systems, there is the same throughout the government. If the people of this country are willing to pay more in taxes (like that will happen) then anything is possible. Heck, we could all have our cake and eat it too. My Navy would have a shipborne fix wing ASW platform again, 16 carriers, 600 ships, and would be doing normal deployments with their own aircraft on board the carriers. We would even have a few more state of the art subs.

The honest truth is the Army/Marines are bearing the brunt of this war we are currently in. They need the money and resources more than the Navy/Air Force. But we cannot let any of the branches fall behind to support another. There are tradeoffs that must be made, especially with our military systems getting older.

The Army lost the Comanche in favor of a far less capable ARH-70 (I personally would prefer a version of the AH-1 based on the original light attack design). The Navy lost a ton of aircraft and ships with time left on their hulls. The Air Force has just gotten old. The Marines have always done more with less (as a sailor it takes a lot for me to type those words).

But we also have to look at our shortcomings and how they can be fixed. One of those that face us right now is the age of Air Force aircraft and how they will be recapitalized.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at December 28, 2007 08:15 AM

Very impressive SMSgtMac,

RE: First, Not all F-15s are created equal. F-15Es are primarily air-to-mud with secondary capabilities as a ‘fighter’ (General “Not a pound for air-to-ground“ Creech must be still protesting from his grave over the hybridization of ‘his’ F-15)…..RE: I said nothing about ‘dogfighting’ (although I won’t rule it out in the future). UCAVs will be yanking and banking at high subsonic speeds and maneuvering ‘heavy Gs’ on the ingress and egress. I’d like anyone to check the price tag on the UCAV-N and tell me nobody will care if it doesn’t come back.

Reply: The Gen Creech quote illustrates part of the problem and mistrust that the USAF would rather dogfight than support ground troops or joint campaign objectives. You gotta chuckle when the UAV master plan explains that artificial intelligence cannot yet support a dogfighting UAV. Why do you need AI? Pilots can fly an air supremacy UAV from the ground, sans the g-forces, with greater low observability, and the same AMRAAM missiles and highly effective radars. But being an ace on the ground isn’t the same thing, I guess.

RE: …we do not want to be ‘competitive’ in any case. We do not want a fair fight -- we want to be overwhelmingly dominant, if only to keep someone else from seizing the initiative, but also if we have to put boots on the ground. The US Army hasn’t been bombed by an enemy in a long time and we’d kind of like to keep the streak up thank you very much…..RE: We cannot afford to only think in terms of the “here and now”, or even “as far as we can see” because that will set us up for a disaster. We chose (and still choose) to break the historical pattern of ‘he who has the biggest Army wins’ by leveraging advanced technology, better-educated warriors, and innovation on all fronts. Hap Arnold set the AF culture in this regard. He wanted to make certain after WWII we were never caught flat-footed as to technology and capability again. 183 Raptors are NOT enough to cover all the possible bases for the next 30 years. (BTW: I am on also record asserting the AF should buy many fewer F-35s and more long range strike assets, and the Navy needs to dump the F-18E/F and buy more F-35s). Whatever threat we end up facing, we know from experience it is rarely the one we thought it would be. 30 years is a long time for some really nasty now-unforeseen contingencies to appear.
Reply: Good stuff. but other services want overwhelming dominance, too. We want integrated air defenses to ensure we aren’t bombed by TBMs, cruise missiles, and armed UAVs that you miss. We want all around protection against air or artillery launched top attack munitions and close-in or long range direct fires. These cost money that is unavailable if one service sees itself as more worthy of completely dominating than others.

Your superior training and superior radars and missiles will help you prevail in any aerial endeavor…and you have ejection seats if they don’t. Army/Marine helicopters don’t have ejection seats. Ground Soldiers don’t have ejection seats from armored vehicles.

RE:….we still have to allow for multiple demands on our capabilities anywhere in the world while still keeping hearth and home protected. We are currently riding the Air Force as hard as ever but mostly unnoticed and without nearly the same hand-wringing we hear over our ‘troops on the ground’. Most of that is political because of the direct risk to life and limb that more ground troops face, but the fact remains that the AF is still shaking out and making changes to its (misconceived IMHO) Expeditionary Air Force and is just trying to keep all the activities now ongoing covered. One shudders to think how we would handle things if we were REALLY stressed.

Reply: If the USAF is that stressed, why 4-6 month tours while the Army endures 15 months? My brother-in-law mentioned that part of the hassle with the Air Force was that it controlled the air base and every new rotation came in wanting to reinvent the wheel. The Army aviation unit that briefed us admitted they were most effective late in their tour. How can a 4-6 month rotation give an Air Force unit the necessary experience in theater to be most proficient? Can you understand the perception problem that it causes when a Soldier/Marine is away from home much longer than an Airman?
___________________________
RE: There is more than one potential hotspot on this planet that will take more than just a couple of days to gain Air Dominance over. The Serbs in ’99 played a very cagey game with their AD assets and were surprisingly effective in many ways, some of them you will not read about for a very long time. It is far better to be for all practical effect ‘invisible’ to deal with the more those more clever in deploying and preserving their systems like the Serbs. I suggest reading “Kosovo and the Continuing SEAD Challenge”

Reply: Interesting read. Also see elsewhere that Israel in Syria faced more advanced ADA than what is described in Yugoslavia. The Iranians have just been given SA-10/S-300s. But ground Soldiers face advanced threats as well. We should all accept equal risk so that one service is not suffering disproportionate casualties. You guys seem on the right track to creating a loitering SEAD/DEAD aircraft in UCAV. UCAV, on board ECM and jamming aircraft as described in the article, and JSF (less than half the cost) are other alternatives that allow you to accept risk in numbers of F-22s.
___________________________
RE: There are UAVs and then there are “UAVs”. Each has a role. Some should be organic to the Army and Marines and some should not. I have no idea what you mean by ‘only fooling around’ however. Global Hawk is overhead for all practical purposes 24/7, and the Predators (AF and ‘other’) are IN theater: only some of the controllers are at Creech – a truly ‘Global Engagement’. I agree there is no need for officer controllers, but as someone who did that job before they did away with the career field to make way for ‘banked’ (and rated) meat-servos, I’m a little prejudiced on the subject. Also, don’t get me started on the Army’s misuse and abuse of attack helos: I’m sure they learned a valuable lesson in OIF that is still reverberating from Rucker to Irwin.

Reply: Than why does the Air Force attempt to become the executive agency for UAS? The numbers of Global Hawk and Predators flying 24/7 are simply insufficient. They are too few and too expensive to support all the NAI/TAI/other ISR, target acquisition/engagement, and comms extension needs of the ground Soldier at lower echelons. Sure we want joint solutions and have them in Warrior and Fire Scout. Manned-unmanned teaming is another solution, but the technology demonstration UCAV seems more oriented to fully autonomous operations, when as discussed earlier, you could fly it just as you fly Predator.

RE: First, I highly recommend to anyone who thinks that the AF is somehow poaching money from the Army as part of an interservice tussle, that they read two recent RAND papers: “A New Division of Labor” and “Learning Large Lessons - The Evolving Roles of Ground Power and Air Power in the Post-Cold War Era” that might change their minds. They are both free at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG499/ and at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG405-1/ respectively. The second document in particular is a terrific reference as a centerpiece for study and leaping off to other sources.

Reply: Read the latter study pretty extensively and noted the clear lack of interservice rivalry and absolute objectivity. ;)
Why limit it to post Cold War? We bombed the heck out of Germany and Japan. Did that end those wars (short of final nukes). How about Viet Nam? Did England throw up it hands and quit when it was under storm from buzz bombs and the Battle of Britain?

Now to present times. Did days of bombing cause Hussein to surrender in 1991/2003 or was it the combined efforts of both air and ground forces? How did that no-fly zone do in ending the Hussein regime? Did air power dominate any of the Arab-Israeli wars? Would agree that bombing solved the Kosovo problem, but you guys always choose the easy fixed targets, planned days in advance, that often have little relevance on ATO day to what the rest of the Joint Force is doing. Your bombing often leads to LOST dollars, innocent/friendly lives, and good will. Can you say Marshall Plan? How about the repairs under fire after OIF? Guys on the ground are the ones getting shot at when repairing your attacks against infrastructure. We get blamed and lose hearts and minds when big bombs cause collateral damage.

Perhaps the FSCL was too far out front in OIF. Did we win? Can we do better next time with better distributed graphics and new systems that give all a common air and ground picture? This is the one quote from that RAND study that I found most applicable….from the 1943 doctrine:

“LAND POWER AND AIR POWER ARE CO-EQUAL AND INTERDEPENDENT FORCES; NEITHER IS AN AUXILIARY OF THE OTHER”

They capitalized it in the study yet seemed to miss the word “INTERdependent.” You guys act like you want to be “independent” and do your own thing in attacking your own targets, and oh BTW, control or abandon attack helicopters and ATACMS, too. Pilots that aren’t flying 200 extra F-22s could be flying more C-17s filled with Army systems to expedite early deployment….but that just isn’t sexy is it. Come on guys. We all do best when we work together as a joint and combined arms team. Even though there is no “I” in TEAM, I guess there is one in Air Force.
;)

Great discussion...many worn out armchairs...

Posted by: Cole at December 28, 2007 01:10 AM

Emas, you wanna be Greece or Turkey? I thought not.

Part of the reason for purchasing more F-22s is that it will drive costs down, both now and later on. If we only purchase 183 Raptors, we'll have a pricey, boutique fighter with expensive repair needs. The more we purchase, the cheaper they will be to maintain and operate, and thus, the longer we can field them into the future.

Yes, many of the uses we'll have for our aircraft will be counter-insurgency like we're seeing today. You could equip a piper cub with the tools necessary to do many of these tasks. But we should not gauge our air power needs on our least technologically advanced enemies. Hell, Grant's Union army could do a fairly good job against most of the insurgents we now face, that doesn't mean that we need to dial back the clock to 1863 on our Army gear.

F-15 repairs will not add much to their service life. They'll still be old, they'll still need replaced, and they'll still be gradually surpassed by newer, better fighters. Spend the money on the F-22 NOW. Even if you repair every grounded Eagle, you'll still need a new plane in 10 years. We have a new one today that is currently being produced. The math seems easy to me.

DC2: My understanding is that those F-15 costs are not accurate. That is what we may have spent for them upon initial purchase, but it is not the cost that would be required once production is restarted. F-22 fly-away cost is totally dependant on how many more are purchased. Some estimates from the Air Force web site indicate that fly-away costs could drop to $116 million if we purchase an additional 100 aircraft.

Posted by: Brian at December 27, 2007 03:58 PM

"and the cost of purchasing another is only marginally higher than buying another Eagle"

I'm sure it is- I'm also pretty sure that welding some titanium- or heck- steel braces in the F-15 should cost only 5-6 figures a plane (triple that in Pentagon numbers)

If we have to scrap the F15 when nearly a thousand F4's are still flying in Greece, Turkey, Japan, etc- I'll join Greenpeace.

Posted by: Emas at December 27, 2007 03:02 PM

RE: “Read somewhere that the original F-15s were only designed to 4,000 hours but later ones were upped to 8,000. Most F-15Es, I read, are less than a decade old and are strengthened and now ungrounded. So you really think there is a threat out there that 183 F-22s, 200+ F-15Es, and many F-16 Block 50s can't handle until JSF comes around?”
___________________________
First, Not all F-15s are created equal. F-15Es are primarily air-to-mud with secondary capabilities as a ‘fighter’ (General “Not a pound for air-to-ground“ Creech must be still protesting from his grave over the hybridization of ‘his’ F-15).
Pilot skills aside, I would not consider it equal to the C/Ds, because the E is heavier, slower, and cannot fly as high. Even all C/Ds are not created equal, with only a handful of ‘C’s to-date receiving the AESA radar that puts it on a par with or slightly ahead of the latest Fourth-Generation fighters now being exported all over the world. The F-16 is a wonderful platform for protecting your own territory from 25K ft down against pre-fifth-generation systems – The Block 60s sold to Oman are particularly impressive. These aircraft merely keep us ‘competitive’ if we stay over friendly territory in the short run, NOT in the long run, and we do not want to be ‘competitive’ in any case. We do not want a fair fight -- we want to be overwhelmingly dominant, if only to keep someone else from seizing the initiative, but also if we have to put boots on the ground. The US Army hasn’t been bombed by an enemy in a long time and we’d kind of like to keep the streak up thank you very much. Metal fatigue, corrosion, chafed wiring, parts obsolescence -- high maintenance structures and systems are not conducive to Air Dominance. The ‘old’ F-15s and -16s are at their core still late 1960s designs. One of the unintended consequences of jet age design experience is that after the first couple of generations we no longer ‘overbuild’ aircraft, so they are not really conducive to SLEPing on the cheap.
The JSF is NOT a ‘little F-22’. It is designed to replace the F-16 for the AF, the A-6 (now F-18s) for the Navy and the AV-8 for the Marines. The JSF does not have the range, absolute speed, supercuise speed, or air-to-air weapons load-out of the F-22. The F-22 is optimized for energy maneuvering and Air Dominance with an air-to-mud capability, the F-35 is vice versa. I am on record as wishing the F-22 was the F-23, but that is another story.
Your reference to ‘a threat out there’ (as in one) may be a metaphor for all threats or it may not. But let us say there are many threats out there and many more potential ones, and while we have dumbed-down defense planning to something like ‘win one major contingency and hold another while we do a humanitarian mission somewhere else’ we still have to allow for multiple demands on our capabilities anywhere in the world while still keeping hearth and home protected. We are currently riding the Air Force as hard as ever but mostly unnoticed and without nearly the same hand-wringing we hear over our ‘troops on the ground’. Most of that is political because of the direct risk to life and limb that more ground troops face, but the fact remains that the AF is still shaking out and making changes to its (misconceived IMHO) Expeditionary Air Force and is just trying to keep all the activities now ongoing covered. One shudders to think how we would handle things if we were REALLY stressed.
We cannot afford to only think in terms of the “here and now”, or even “as far as we can see” because that will set us up for a disaster. We chose (and still choose) to break the historical pattern of ‘he who has the biggest Army wins’ by leveraging advanced technology, better-educated warriors, and innovation on all fronts. Hap Arnold set the AF culture in this regard. He wanted to make certain after WWII we were never caught flat-footed as to technology and capability again. 183 Raptors are NOT enough to cover all the possible bases for the next 30 years. (BTW: I am on also record asserting the AF should buy many fewer F-35s and more long range strike assets, and the Navy needs to dump the F-18E/F and buy more F-35s). Whatever threat we end up facing, we know from experience it is rarely the one we thought it would be. 30 years is a long time for some really nasty now-unforeseen contingencies to appear.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RE: Give me a break on the capabilities of air defense systems well into the campaign. All those stealth fighters/bombers take out those systems real early leaving far less capable systems remaining that HARM can take out if they turn on their radars. Plus you boys have all kinds of ASE and air combat maneuvers to avoid those threats.
___________________________
There is more than one potential hotspot on this planet that will take more than just a couple of days to gain Air Dominance over. The Serbs in ’99 played a very cagey game with their AD assets and were surprisingly effective in many ways, some of them you will not read about for a very long time. It is far better to be for all practical effect ‘invisible’ to deal with the more those more clever in deploying and preserving their systems like the Serbs. I suggest reading “Kosovo and the Continuing SEAD Challenge” at http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/sum02/lambeth.html for some pretty good insight.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RE: Meanwhile Army and Marine helicopters are flying around at 2500' and lower relying on ASE, yet Congress kills Comanche and gives us an upgraded current aircraft and still complains about costs. The laser-guided rocket that would make the ARH-70 a true threat also sees its budget zeroed out. …. ….UCAV wouldn't be out there practicing dogfighting and if it did come apart...so what, especially once it is 25 years old. Airmen can certainly practice evasive maneuvers in a simulator using a UCAV...no need to experience those g-forces for realistic training.
___________________________
I said nothing about ‘dogfighting’ (although I won’t rule it out in the future). UCAVs will be yanking and banking at high subsonic speeds and maneuvering ‘heavy Gs’ on the ingress and egress. I’d like anyone to check the price tag on the UCAV-N and tell me nobody will care if it doesn’t come back.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RE: I just got a day and half of briefings about a great Army unit flying UAVs out of Iraq. They had keen ground awareness and could coordinate closely with manned aircraft for cued manned-unmanned teaming...something the Army is embracing in Block III Apache and ARH-70 while the Air Force and Navy still fool around with technology demonstrators. Until you fly UAVs out the theater of conflict and get and disseminate local timely ISR imagery/data, you are not helping the ground Soldier. There are insufficient satellite links to ever support the numbers of UAS that the Army and Marines need. You gotta fly them up close and personal, using automated control to eliminate the need for officer pilots.
___________________________
There are UAVs and then there are “UAVs”. Each has a role. Some should be organic to the Army and Marines and some should not.
I have no idea what you mean by ‘only fooling around’ however. Global Hawk is overhead for all practical purposes 24/7, and the Predators (AF and ‘other’) are IN theater: only some of the controllers are at Creech – a truly ‘Global Engagement’. I agree there is no need for officer controllers, but as someone who did that job before they did away with the career field to make way for ‘banked’ (and rated) meat-servos, I’m a little prejudiced on the subject. Also, don’t get me started on the Army’s misuse and abuse of attack helos: I’m sure they learned a valuable lesson in OIF that is still reverberating from Rucker to Irwin.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RE: ...Seems like we have some pretty outstanding capabilities already...now an into the indefinite future. We just disagree over sheer numbers that would rob Army funding by buying another 200 unnecessary F-22s.
__________________________

First, I highly recommend to anyone who thinks that the AF is somehow poaching money from the Army as part of an interservice tussle, that they read two recent RAND papers: “A New Division of Labor” and “Learning Large Lessons - The Evolving Roles of Ground Power and Air Power in the Post-Cold War Era” that might change their minds. They are both free at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG499/ and at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG405-1/ respectively. The second document in particular is a terrific reference as a centerpiece for study and leaping off to other sources.

I categorically reject any argument that the Army has been held back by Air Force (or Navy/Marine) acquisition programs. (I would also tend to smack anyone alongside the head who suggested the other Services were poaching from the AF.)
I’m sitting here trying to think of what ‘things’, from boots to heavy armor, that the Army HASN’T fielded NEW since the first F-15s went operational and I’m not having much luck.. Maybe the M109? But even that is slated to be replaced by the XM1203 (after Crusader was killed) and in the meantime the Army fielded a whole new capability in the MLRS and ATACMS. Maybe the M-4 (as just an evolution of the M-16)? But that is about it - not much else. When the F-15s were first fielded the Army had Jeeps, Deuce-and-a-Halfs, M-113s, M60s, Hueys and Cobras at its ‘systems core’. Now the Army has Hummers, FTMVs, Bradleys, Abrams, Blackhawks, and Apaches. And most of those have been upgraded or remanufactured in the meantime.
Bottom line, we are now (and apologies to all who have seen me write this before) pretending we can be a superpower on a shoestring and doing so while fighting a war. We should be spending, as a percentage of GNP, during peacetime as much as we are spending now with the WOT. Think “Peace Dividend” and “Acquisition Holiday” and you are thinking about what has brought us to this point.

And Like Forest Gump: "That's all I have to say about that"

Yours in the Common Defense-

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at December 27, 2007 02:47 PM

Brian, I'm no huge fan of the $34 million each Comanche. The demise of 650 Comanches went a long way to upgrading 501 Apaches, 452 CH-47F, lots of UH-60Ms, and 345 LUH. It also buys 512 ARH-70...if the latter gets its act together and comes in at under $9-10 million each. But one of my points was that Congress doesn't even want to ante up for an aircraft that does the same mission at less than a third of the Comanche price.

I will speculate that had it survived, 4 Comanches costing the same as one F-22 would have been a pretty good deal. The F-22 maybe essential early due to stealth...but what is its value 3 months into the conflict when obvious targets are gone and the enemy has gone to ground. The Comanche, and now ARH-70/AH-64D Block III teamed with locally flown UAS, continue offering unsurpassed support to ground Soldiers ferreting out the elusive enemy. Even a 250 lb bomb is a bit too much at times, while a 100 lb Hellfire or 25 lb laser-guided 2.75" rocket are often just right. With few nations able to mount a credible long term aerial or air defense threat against even our non-stealthy Air Force, 183 F-22 seems more than adequate.

With Democrats likely to control both the legislative and executive branches come early 2009, we may as well start thinking about more austere military budgets. If a family needs only two cars but can get a great deal if it buys two more, wouldn't it be smarter to divert those "savings" to other items in the family budget?

Great comments DC2.

Posted by: Cole at December 27, 2007 02:28 PM

According the the Air Force website the following flyaway unit costs should actually apply:

F-15C 1998 dollars cost $29.9M and would cost approximately $40M in 2007 dollars.
F-16C 1998 dollars cost $18.8M and would cost approximately $25M in 2007 dollars.
F-22 costs $159.9M today.

And it isn't a matter of interservice rivalries. It is a matter of budget dollars. And even within the Air Force needs, there are other aircraft they have to purchase as well. These guys are now relying on supplemental appropriations to purchase the aircraft they need or manufacturers lobby for, the C-17 is a prime example.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at December 27, 2007 01:07 PM

Sigh. Can't we analyze a fighter without inter-service rivalries rearing their head? There's a lot of hate for the Air Force because they get expensive planes. "That's good money that the Army could waste!" The reason the Comanche helicopter was cancelled is because the price was soaring and because last I heard the thing didn't work right. Don't hold the success of the F-22 against the Air Force just because the Army programs of the same tech level have been dismal failures.

There is a reason the Air Force wants more F-22s than it does F-15s. The F-22 is a much better plane, and the cost of purchasing another is only marginally higher than buying another Eagle. Last I heard, fly-away cost on a Raptor was about $135 million now, while fly-away cost on an Eagle is around $100M. So by paying a 35% premium, you get an aircraft with stealth capabilities, lower fuel use, better avionics and radar, improved maneuverability, and much lower maintenance costs. It's like paying 100 grand for a 1975 Ferrari or paying 135 grand for a 2008 Ferrari. Other than value as a collector's item, there's no reason to go for the old one as opposed to the new one.

There are no currently available F-15 production lines in operation. Yes, there are some that are producing an F-15 variant for foreign sales, but those aircraft are already sold. You'd still need to open another line for US production. Why open up another production line for a 30 year old aircraft when the production cost for the most dominant fighter in the world is only slightly higher? It's like getting a hamburger from McDonalds for $5 when you can get a steak for $6.50.

Posted by: Brian at December 27, 2007 12:11 PM

I have been doing a little lurking on this site for the past few weeks. Not doing much posting but this is still one of my favorite and hot topics right now.

I agree with Cole on a number of aspects he brings up and it really reflects on what MAC focuses so much on. We are talking about overall dollars here and how taking money to fund one program will take away from other programs from other services.

We need more F-22s just for attitions sake as well as a reduction in maintenance costs. What we do not need is the JSF, which is a drum I have been beating over and over again on this site. The F-22 can do all the SEAD/DEAD that needs to be done just like Cole indicated. From there, you only need 4th or 4.5 generation aircraft to do the job. We do not need and cannot afford two 5th generation aircraft, even for the Navy and Marines to be a part of. Buy more F-16s, even the UAE Block 60 version, they will do the same job as the bomb truck JSF.

Cole brings up a good point about what the Army currently has to field, but that is also being done to support a war and recapitalization of the equipment being used up over there. The Marines have been doing the same for a lot longer and with amazing results. They are just now getting new generation systems like the V-22 to replace very old helicopters.

MAC, if we had an infinite budget we could do a lot of things and I have said this before too. But we don't so we need to prioritize and realize the constraints we operate under.

I would love for my Navy to have 16 aircraft carriers again, but instead we have to rely on the surge doctrine. I would love to have all of my squadrons on a carrier to be Navy, but we have to augment this force with Marine squadrons due to the amount of aircraft we can afford to operate.

And you can talk about increasing the military budget all you want but nobody is going to support the tax increase that would be necessary for that to happen. Or would you rather get rid of the entitlement programs like social security instead? Because Defense and Entitlements are the largest part of our budget.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at December 27, 2007 11:26 AM

We need a bigger F22 fleet so that when half of it is grounded in 2025 with no immediate follow on, the have that is still flying is enough to get the job done.

We'd be screwed if the F-15Es were gronded now.

Some will say we're not in a big war, but maybe the enemy is just waiting to catch us with our pants down, eh?

Posted by: Sam Adams at December 27, 2007 03:08 AM

Some good comments.
IMHO the reason America needs more F-22's than it really "needs" is to maintain some kind of detterent by being able to counter any threat - real or perceived.

Thats the price you have to pay for being the sole superpower - in order to stop potential challengers, you need more than you will really use in a realistic scenario.

Posted by: frankie at December 27, 2007 02:55 AM

SMsgt Mac,

I respect your service and the Air Force Senior Master Sgt. My father-in-law is a retired CSM and I had enlisted time prior to graduating from West Point..but have been out of the military for some time.

I'm on your side, but it is extremely tiring to see a double standard applied to the respective services and the lives/needs of Airmen/Sailors vs. Soldiers/Marines.

Read somewhere that the original F-15s were only designed to 4,000 hours but later ones were upped to 8,000. Most F-15Es, I read, are less than a decade old and are strengthened and now ungrounded. So you really think there is a threat out there that 183 F-22s, 200+ F-15Es, and many F-16 Block 50s can't handle until JSF comes around?

Give me a break on the capabilities of air defense systems well into the campaign. All those stealth fighters/bombers take out those systems real early leaving far less capable systems remaining that HARM can take out if they turn on their radars. Plus you boys have all kinds of ASE and air combat maneuvers to avoid those threats.

Meanwhile Army and Marine helicopters are flying around at 2500' and lower relying on ASE, yet Congress kills Comanche and gives us an upgraded current aircraft and still complains about costs. The laser-guided rocket that would make the ARH-70 a true threat also sees its budget zeroed out.

The Block III Apache starts production in 2010 and will be around a long time...and it originated around the same time as the F-15/F-16. Chinooks have been around since VietNam and we are starting a M model UH-60 to keep that aircraft around forever. Lots of all these aircraft are shot at and shot down every year. How many fast movers have been shot down? Who faces the bigger real threat now and well into the future?

My brother-in-law flew C-23 Sherpas in the Guard in Iraq and has one 12 month tour under belt with another sure to come. How many Air Force pilots do that kind of time in theater? He laughs at the Air Force guys who feel the need to take off under full afterburner at night thus waking up the whole base. Then the C-130 guys see flares shot by our own guys and want an air medal.

UCAV wouldn't be out there practicing dogfighting and if it did come apart...so what, especially once it is 25 years old. Airmen can certainly practice evasive maneuvers in a simulator using a UCAV...no need to experience those g-forces for realistic training.

I just got a day and half of briefings about a great Army unit flying UAVs out of Iraq. They had keen ground awareness and could coordinate closely with manned aircraft for cued manned-unmanned teaming...something the Army is embracing in Block III Apache and ARH-70 while the Air Force and Navy still fool around with technology demonstrators. Until you fly UAVs out the theater of conflict and get and disseminate local timely ISR imagery/data, you are not helping the ground Soldier.

There are insufficient satellite links to ever support the numbers of UAS that the Army and Marines need. You gotta fly them up close and personal, using automated control to eliminate the need for officer pilots.

I did read that I am well behind the times in not realizing that F-16s/F-15E now have the Sniper XR system instead of LANTIRN. Seems like we have some pretty outstanding capabilities already...now an into the indefinite future. We just disagree over sheer numbers that would rob Army funding by buying another 200 unnecessary F-22s.

Posted by: Cole at December 26, 2007 07:42 PM

Excellent arguments but I do have this one question...Why is it that the push is always for additional F-22's and not to acquire modernized F-15's? I know nothing about the air side of things so bear with me, but from my armchair, an F-15 with the latest AESA, engines and avionics (taken straight from the F-22 but applied to this warbird) would be a match for the latest fighter scheduled or projected to come from threat countries. The F-15 line is still open and it would seem a rather straight forward upgrade/buildup. Additionally with these new builds being all E class or better fighters, the deep strike mission will be enhanced.

Posted by: Solomon at December 26, 2007 04:06 PM

RE:
"Any fighter designed for only 10-12 years and 7-8 years of high g maneuvering is an excellent argument for UCAV ......We can't afford to replace fighters every 12 years. Period end of story."

The original comment was 12 years peacetime with ADDITIONAL 7-8 years of combat. For a design life of 20 years or so. That has been the historical basis used for planning design life since about 1968-1970. We are now using 25-30 years planning factors in design. UCAVs are being designed to the same service life criteria: no advantage there - UCAVs are not throwaways.
-----
RE: "Why do you need stealth when you can lob bombs from miles away and 20,000' to support front line troops? Can you live with fewer F-22s and JSF until you perfect unmanned aircraft?"

Because surface to air missiles and the IADS that control them can reach out over a hundred miles and multiples of 20K feet -- IF they can see you.
----
RE: "I would argue that the Air Force can live with signifiCantly fewer air superiority aircraft because the Cold War threat isn't there anymore."

Check recent history: the AF IS living with significantly fewer 'Air Superiority' fighters now. Only it is now called 'Air Dominance' because we want to smack down the bad boys hard and move on to killing them on the ground.
-----
RE: "China/Taiwan ignores the reality that China needs us more as a trading partner than it needs Taiwan."

So says a few folks (like one-trick pony Thomas P.M. Barnett). Others say differently. I find any position on the subject that assumes China will behave rationally to Western minds without 'encouragement' given their behavior to-date highly amusing.
-----
RE: "Merry Christmas to fellow armed-chair quarterbacks everywhere and to fellow Army aviators doing yeoman's work supporting even more valiant Soldiers/Marines on the ground while we sit safely in our homes...and at 20,000' or flying UAVs out of Nevada."

And thus we conclude a clear demonstration of why the Air Force had to be created before anything resembling full exploitation of the Air meduium could be accomplished.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at December 26, 2007 01:37 PM

the f-15 is supposed to be replaced by the f-22 and the f-35 but if the f-15 is grounded we will not be able to sell the f-15 to other countries to make money and if the air force doesn't get enough money then they will not be able to make new f-22 and f-35 aircraft.But the f-15 has not been grounded yet so right now we are doing all right.

Posted by: cameron at December 25, 2007 12:35 PM

the f-15 is supposed to be replaced by the f-22 and the f-35 but if the f-15 is grounded we will not be able to sell the f-15 to other countries to make money and if the air force doesn't get enough money then they will not be able to make new f-22 and f-35 aircraft.

Posted by: cameron at December 25, 2007 12:33 PM

Any fighter designed for only 10-12 years and 7-8 years of high g maneuvering is an excellent argument for UCAV and standoff missiles like AMRAAM, and improved simulator design (to include g-loads) for air-to-air combat. If we are flying at night to exploit our stealth, how will we fight visual close-in air-to-air anyway?

We can't afford to replace fighters every 12 years. Period end of story.

I thought the LANTIRN on the F-16 worked just fine? We read elsewhere about the Super Hornet F-18 and JAMMING aircraft...the alternative to costly stealth that the Israelis and Navy seem to understand? Why do you need stealth when you can lob bombs from miles away and 20,000' to support front line troops? Can you live with fewer F-22s and JSF until you perfect unmanned aircraft?

Years ago, Army aviators got caught up in a perceived responSibility for air-to-air combat training. What was ignored was the overwhelming advantage we have in pure numbers, training, armament, sensors, and other platforms that can shoot down aircraft. I would argue that the Air Force can live with signifiCantly fewer air superiority aircraft because the Cold War threat isn't there anymore.

China/Taiwan ignores the reality that China needs us more as a trading partner than it needs Taiwan.

Merry Christmas to fellow armed-chair quarterbacks everywhere and to fellow Army aviators doing yeoman's work supporting even more valiant Soldiers/Marines on the ground while we sit safely in our homes...and at 20,000' or flying UAVs out of Nevada.

Posted by: Cole at December 24, 2007 08:24 PM

I think it is interesting. I read the comments of the arm-chair "EXPERTS" and want the vomit. Have any of you even bothered to review the design criteria for the F-15. I would bet Congress hasn't either. The maximum design life of the original design was projected at 10 to 12 years of non-combat use, and no more than 7 to eight years of high g manuvering. These airframes have 2 to 3 times the original design life. It is time to retire them. It makes no difference whither they are replaced with new build F-15 airframes or the F-22. Continuing to fly our current F-15 fleet should be considered criminal. Given the cost/performance differences, the F-22 would be the better choice. However, even with the greater performance of the F-22, we require greater numbers than currently projected by either the Air Force or Congress.

Another example of irrational thinking involves the F-35. We need it to replace the Lawn Dart F-16s. Granted there have been examples of modified F-16s produced and flown, but they were one-off designs that went nowhere. They would have improved the bird and would have extended its life, but since they weren't bought, the necessary jigs have been destroyed. The problem does not lay with the technology as it is developed. Rather it is in the perception of the public, in general, and Congressional desire to buy votes with ear-marks and public programs that do not mesh with their primary responciblity. national Defense. And its our fault. And it is the fault of the liberal "Can't we all just get along?" media that they are able to get away with it. The politicians won't buy new equipment unless the performance is signifigantly greater than what we currently have. Unfortunately, that increases cost! If Congress would replace our equipment before it is hopelessly outclassed, the cost differances between generations would be signifigantly less and we would be better able to meet our commitments. But that isn't the way this country works anymore. Congress ignores history, and that is why we keep repeating it.

Posted by: exnuke at December 24, 2007 07:03 PM

Don't know lots about the Air Force. Do know that grounded F-15s would quickly become "ungrounded" in an emergency.

When we read about missiles able to shoot down ballistic missiles, C-RAM that can shoot down mortar rounds, Patriots that can down anything, and AMRAAMs that can kill anything at a distance from non-stealthy current aircraft...I'm not real worried about future lack of air superiority. The Army wants to buy a ground version of AMRAAM as well. Add all of the above to an expanded buy of a FEW more F-22s and the future JSF....I'm just not seeing the emergency.

I do see the President of Afghanistan asking us on national TV to quit bombing there, and frequent other collateral damage incidents involving big bombs dropped from the safety (and lack of ground awareness) of high altitude. In contrast, Army aircraft are flying many more hours at lower altitude in support of ground troops getting lots of bullet holes and surface to air missile fires, while nary an Air Force casualty occurs at altitude or while flying UAVs out of Nevada. And the Air Force sure isn't enduring 15 month tours, either.

So if it comes down to a lot more money for the Air Force and an imagined future threat or more money for troops on the ground that are overworked/overendangered, yet essential in combat, insurgency, and disaster against real world future threats, guess you know which side I'm on.

Cold War ideas about air superiority are no more relevant than notions of massed armor in Germany. There may always be a need for air-to-ground fires when targets are clear, and air interdiction can target obvious deep, and time sensitive targets, although ground-to-ground missiles can do that too. Not sure we need countless JSF or some future modified F-22, or other new stealth bomber to do that beyond what we already have. The Israelis sure didn't seem to have too much trouble with non-stealthy aircraft. At some point our purple pilots need to share the same risks and compromises that the Army and Marines air/ground forces endure on a daily basis.

Posted by: Cole at December 24, 2007 06:44 PM

Seems like most people here are drinking the Air Force's kool-aid. This is all a ploy to justify more F-22s. Simple and plain.

Posted by: Sir Mixalot at December 24, 2007 05:32 PM

Good Morning Folks,

Well it seems that the first fallout of the F-15 groundings has happened. The boys in light blue have decided to throw overboard 852 Lt's. (01's and 02's) and reassing senior to make due jobs, most with flight pay until retirement.

Letting the old eat the young, that a tradition that the U.S.A.F. may regret in the future. The he** with the defense of the country and the future of the AF, save those retirement checks.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at December 24, 2007 02:52 PM

Off-topic,but you know that Vladimir Putin is supposed to be touring the Middle East(before Bush does) & he is supposed to be making a "photo-op" visit to their lone Aircraft Carrier in the Mediterranean Sea ala Bush's "Mission Accomplished" visit to the Lincoln Aircraft Carrier.Now I know that the Russian Carrier might as well be the "Elbonian" Aircraft Carrier out of Dilbert,but someone who goes through all of that trouble to make a high profile public appearance on the "S.S. Minnow" Aircraft Carrier "Cruiser" just ain't right(in the head),if you know what I mean.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 24, 2007 08:00 AM

irtusk,
I'm not worried about Canada,I'm worried about a squirrelly nut like Vladimir Putin & Russia or the Chinese.Our disagreements with them cannot be compared with our disagreement with France under their previous adminisration,both Russia's & China's threat is far more real & serious.Iran & Ahmadinejad is to Russia & Putin what Mussolini & Italy was to Hitler & Nazi Germany.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 24, 2007 07:43 AM

Severely reduce the f-35A buy.
Increase the f-22 buy to 350-500+
Do whatever service life extensions to keep a suitable number of our current 'legacy' fighters (f-15/16/18) active. we rebuild every piece of military equipment. fix it.

And if we were really worried about our national aerospace, we could deploy any and all of the squadrons of f-18's off the 'off station' aircraft carriers.

Posted by: Aaron at December 24, 2007 01:30 AM

> I also thought about F-16s replacing the F-15's Air Defense role,but they aren't that much younger than the F-15A/B/C/Ds that are grounded.

yes, but they're not grounded, so they will be used

> You are depending on 4 Squadrons,80 F-22 aircraft total,to defend our skies,& they will not be able to be sent overseas to fulfill obligations over there.

if a real threat to our skies appeared, say canada started an all-out aerial bombardment of minnetonka, rest assured the grounded F-15s would fly

in reality, there is no problem. if the planes have to fly, they will fly

however there is currently no threats serious enough so they are taking the safe and prudent course

Posted by: irtusk at December 24, 2007 01:14 AM

Also,the Navy & Marine Corps will have to divert their F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F Hornet/Super Hornet aircraft from carrier duty to protecting our skies(I forgot to factor in Naval & Marine aircraft being able to protect our skies).

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 23, 2007 11:56 PM

OK,then we need to keep the F-22s stateside to guard our skies until we have enough to both start sending overseas & continue CONUS Air Defense.
I also thought about F-16s replacing the F-15's Air Defense role,but they aren't that much younger than the F-15A/B/C/Ds that are grounded.Heaven forbid,if they start finding cracks & flaws in the F-16,then we're really up a creek without a paddle.You are depending on 4 Squadrons,80 F-22 aircraft total,to defend our skies,& they will not be able to be sent overseas to fulfill obligations over there.Putin & Russia are getting squirrelly with their Tu-95 Bears & China can use this as an excuse to finally pounce on Taiwan.God help us all if we ever need to ask Mexico to help us protect our skies(with their F-5Es).

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 23, 2007 11:51 PM

the F-15 fleet in general is far from worn out

while i don't support buying more, it would be folly to get rid of the ones we have

Posted by: irtusk at December 23, 2007 11:37 PM

Good Morning Folks,

It's time to turn the F-15's into beer and soda cans. The are used up, like in worn out, the last fighter with aluminum skin time to hang it up.

Even if a "cheap fix" could be found and so far in all this the U.S.A.F. has been less the truthful, no one has yet proposed one. The operative question would be what mission would a "Duck Tape" patch job F-15 fly and what pilots would be willing to fly an patch up F-15, talk about a dead end career.

The more restructive operational restrictions would make the F-15 useless as a combat aircraft and assuredly keep the F-15 out of the current war zones and any future combat. That leaves DHS missions, chaseing Boeing 737's around the country what state would want shade tree fixed up F-15's flaying over its cities?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at December 23, 2007 02:07 PM

Okay Roy, asking about the squadrons got me digging:

27th Fighter Squadron, 1st Fighter Wing (Langley AFB, VA Active Duty) Fully Operational Capable

94th Fighter Squadron, 1st Fighter Wing (Langley AFB, VAANG) Initial Operational Capable

525th Fighter Squadron, 3rd Fighter Wing (Elmendorf AFB, AK Active Duty) Activated Oct 07

90th Fighter Squadron, 3rd Figher Wing (Elmendorf AFB, AK Active Duty) receiving F-22s since Aug 07

That's 4 squadrons, 20 aircraft a piece. 1 operational now, the rest will probably be operational by this time next year

Posted by: TB at December 23, 2007 12:14 PM

Never fear, Roy - there are plenty of F-16s that can be used for air defense before anybody has to call on Mexican F-5Es. The Canadian CF-18s are being called on because they're part of the NORAD structure and are deployed in the right locations.

Posted by: George Skinner at December 23, 2007 11:59 AM

Have no fear, Roy. Both F-22 squadrons are still in the states. The first squadron went to Japan for 4 months at the beginning of this year, but they're all CONUS at the moment.

Posted by: TB at December 23, 2007 11:30 AM

And somebody please tell me who is going to stop those propeller driven Tu-95 Bears from flying over us any time they like? Ok geniuses,riddle me this,with only 2 active squadrons of F-22s,with one or both currently overseas,what do we have to stop those Tu-95 Bears? What looked totally stupid on the part of the Russians yesterday,doesn't look so stupid today.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 23, 2007 10:47 AM

I hope that I'm joking,but it would totally suck if we not only had to depend on Canada to guard our skies with their (Not a Super) Hornets,but....we had to ask Mexico to help out with their single squadron of F-5E Tiger IIs.Well,I guess it would be the beginning of the North American Union(from NAFTA),but to possibly be reduced to having F-5E Tiger IIs,from Mexico,protecting us would be a damn shame.I sure hope you guys are right about there not being an Air Force that can threaten us.Right now though,without our F-15s & with a totally insufficient number of F-22s(serving overseas right now I believe),then even "ancient,pre-historic" MiG-19s & MiG-21s,both Russian & Chinese made,could threaten us.
So open up those factories,get Rosie the Riveter on the assembly lines,& buy war bonds,because we are in worse shape right now than we were when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 23, 2007 10:37 AM

Just keep the F-22 production line open so if needed you can build 200 or so more. A +- 400 strong F22 force plus the F-35 should be all the manned combat aircraft you will ever need.

By 2050 (yes that long) when the replacements come along they will be computer flown.
That is if the world still exists and we're not all gone because of climate change.

Posted by: frankie at December 23, 2007 07:55 AM

When a fix can be figured out, it does not mean that it is cheap... it might be cheaper to just leave the aircraft and buy more f-22's. A repair as such could (and probably would) mean replacing large components - each of which would need to be restressed, if not redesigned. But really - when you are talking about putting another 50k (my guess) flights max onto the airframe - you are still doing to an airframe that probably has other components that would fail before the "fix" even gets near it's life limit.

I would understand peoples outcry if only cracking had been found (a common occurance - and depending on the material and design - the crack may grow slowly so it can be monitored) but we are talking about a catastrophic failure!

Put it simply - Boeing would make more money in the long term selling repair kits now (as I'm sure they still could convince the government to buy more f-22's eventually) - and they know it - therefore I don't think they or anyone is bluffing about this one!

Posted by: Vstress at December 23, 2007 06:24 AM

Do we have 183 F-22s right now or are you counting F-22s that haven't been built yet in that total?
How many "honest to God" F-22s do we have at this very moment in time? How many do we have that are in fighter squadrons right now?

Presently there are two squadrons of 20 aircraft each. I'm not sure if both squadrons are at 100% of airframes. A third squadron of 20 aircraft will be activated late next year.

Posted by: TB at December 23, 2007 02:42 AM

Do we have 183 F-22s right now or are you counting F-22s that haven't been built yet in that total?
How many "honest to God" F-22s do we have at this very moment in time? How many do we have that are in fighter squadrons right now? If we had 183 F-22s right now,then Canada wouldn't be covering the skies protecting our nation & covering our asses right now with their "old" CF-188(F/A-118A) Hornets.Are we basing our hopes & prayers on the idea that nobody else has anything that can threaten us in the skies? My God,slap yourselves out of this fantasy that "even though we currently don't have the assets to protect our skies,the 'enemy' doesn't have anything that can threaten us right." Remember,its the Global War on Terror,so as our president has asked of us,show your patriotism by going Christmas Shopping & stimulating the economy because George W. Bush & the Pentagon has this war all covered by themselves without "national sacrifice" needed.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 23, 2007 12:48 AM

The notion that the Air Force can just "fix it" is idiotic. If there are failures occuring in one part of an airframe, it's a pretty good bet that it's only a matter of time before other failures start happening elsewhere. Combine that with all the other aging components on the F-15, and it's the equivalent of keeping a 1976 Trans-Am with 350,000 miles on it as your daily commuting vehicle instead of just buying a new car.

Posted by: George Skinner at December 22, 2007 11:56 PM

Good Evening Folks,
A lot of commemnts here, but what is the reals issues.

The F-15's are worn out. Even if a fix were possabble and there were no congressional hearings and all the Brass in the Pentagon agreeded and nobody tried to fight the program, the F-15 wouldn't be back in the air for at least five years.

The fix here is a lot more then a sleeve, pop-rivets and duct tape. It's a complete remanufacture of the airframe. What you would have in 2013 would be a remanufactured 1960's airplane that would be like using WWI bi planes in the 1970's, doesn't make sense.

With 183 F-22 the U.S. has more then enough 5th. Generation fighters to meet any need since no other country has such an interceptor.

The most likely next emeny being Iran who's top of the line fighters are 58 flyable F-14A, every F-18 jock in the fleet is licking his/her chops to bag one of the antiques, it seems that the F-22 will be under used as it is for at least a generation or even it's entire operational life.

Lets face it the U.S.A.F. has run out of enemies. China is years away from the J-12/13 and a Russian Mig-35 or Su-39 who knows. Even if both were to be developed it would be unlikely that they would be produced in quanities anywhere near the current 183 F-22 build. It's time to move out of the Cold War and on to the GWOT, it's the war we got even though it may not the one we want.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at December 22, 2007 11:53 PM

F-22 is needed for full production, probably about 600 airframes, plus you need to keep the production lines up and open. The notion that we can stretch out the F-15, a 1970's airframe, while the Chinese and the Russians race ahead with new platforms, is simply absurd.

Posted by: section9 at December 22, 2007 11:39 PM

Why cant we built more F-15E's? They are still in the air and flying fine. The current A's-D's are getting old and to fix them now is just patching up whats likely the beginning of many problems. I'm all for the F-22 but its not needed after the sky is swept of enemy planes. After that the F-15's/16's/18's can play the support roles.

Keep the F-22 lines open in case we get some freed up money later on but built some new F-15's and or F-16's since they are being built still.
The F-22 and eventually the F-35 can be the spear but they dont have to be the entire sword, it'll simply be too expensive.

Posted by: Poskiki at December 22, 2007 10:44 PM

Vercingetorix,
Our reasoning is that like Whimpy,who will gladly pay tomorrow for a hamburger today,the clamor is to retire today all of(or at least the old ones,which means "all of") the F-15s,F-16s,F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornets(again,not the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet/EA-18G Growler,but I'm still waiting for the KA-18 Refueler),F-117s,& AV-8B Harriers for more F-22s(to add to the few we already have that have not been,or even approved to be,built yet,or for F-35 JSF that probably won't come on line for another decade,tomorrow.Meanwhile,little Canada is protecting our airspace with their "old" CF-188(F/A-18A) Hornets.But then,I guess those airframes haven't been as stressed out as ours have,right?

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 22, 2007 09:50 PM

Vercingetorix,
I hope that you are directing that complaint to the Secretary of Defense,whose office feels that the Air Force has exactly what it needs today(as reported on Fox News' Special Report) to fight a war,& to Congress,who decides if we buy more F-22s or not?

irtusk,
this will get me into trouble,but my "cute new phrase" was a jab at the Neo-Con "Artists" running the Pentagon & "advising" the president,that the "Gentiles(or at least this one)" were(was) getting upset over them not taking care of the troops by their(for whatever motive) not giving them proper rifles that worked & body armor that protected,& for allowing our military equipment,vehicles,aircraft,& ships to fall into disrepair.Their motives can feed a lot of conspiracy theories,but the bottom line is that the men & women of our Armed Forces are not getting taken care of.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 22, 2007 09:37 PM

"If the F-35 JSF was ready to go online TODAY,then hell yeah,retire the F-16,F/A-118A/B/C/D,& AV-8B Harrier Jump Jets.But its not ready."

Um, we're going to retire those airframes when the F-35 comes online. So there's alot of circular reasoning going on there.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at December 22, 2007 09:26 PM

Sorry,I meant retire the F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet(not the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet").

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 22, 2007 09:24 PM

"But there's no big deal about that. Fix it."

God, well, it's so bloody simple. Just fix it.

The F-15 is older than many of its pilots. Unlike many of those pilots, those F-15s have several hundred hours supersonic, ie at and above 650 mph. Doing ACM. In all climes and places.

They are old men and we will retire them before they hit 50. I honestly cannot see what the fuss is about the F-22. It's a better plane. Buy it already. Critics, STFD, STFU. You had your chance, now the F22 is in production. Cry somewhere else.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at December 22, 2007 09:22 PM

This is the exact problem that the navy is having with the P-3 Orion.The frames are wearing down.They say they have to take apart the frames to inspect & repair each one.Then,& here is where the similarity to the F-35 JSF comes in,they don't expect the P-8 MMA to come online for another ELEVEN YEARS.Then I'm sure that the argument will be that money to repair P-3s today will cut into buying a whiz bang plane that we won't see for another decade.If the F-35 JSF was ready to go online TODAY,then hell yeah,retire the F-16,F/A-118A/B/C/D,& AV-8B Harrier Jump Jets.But its not ready.They're still test flying F-35B & the "too many cooks in the kitchen" are still deciding what to put on & in the JSF & whether they should or should not build a two seat JSF in addition to the one seat version.Can anybody see how frustrating that is? Besides that,the JSF is just one Secretary of Defense away from being canceled altogether & strangled in the cradle to join the "Island of Misfit Weapons" with the Sgt. York DIVAD,the ADATS,A-12 Avenger,Crusader Howitzer,RAH-66 Comanche,Littoral Combat Ship,the soon to be canceled Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter,God,there are so many more,I can't possibly remember them all.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 22, 2007 09:22 PM

Am I the only one that sees we're being caught with our pants down and it keeps getting worse every day?

What flaws are in the F22 that will ground them 5-10-15 years from now?

We need diversity of aircraft. Make a 400 airframe buy on the F-15 to keep it in service as a second day strike/cap platform.

Kick F22 buy up to 600, with the final 100 airframes in low rate production.

Buy more F16 to get the average fleet age below 10 years.

Continue with F35 buys as planed.

Start development of follow on airframes now and keep F22 and F35 production lines open untll follow on aircraft are in full rate producton.

Or say screw it all and spend it on national healthcare when the dems take office next year.....

Posted by: Sam Adams at December 22, 2007 08:24 PM

I would say building more F-22A is the solution. F-15s are aging and it's like doing a wack a mole fixing a fragile pipe were high pressure of water keeps on creating leaks one after another. You will have to replace the entire "aging" pipe, but that would be at a high price. Build more F-15s? Only if the lines of F-15s (excluding F-15E) has that capacity and still open. F-35s? It's not going to be availible soon. Air Force should provide graphical evidence of the cracks, and that the damage is permanent if it wants F-22As, showing the cracks revealed by the ultraviolet spectrum.

Posted by: pedestrian at December 22, 2007 07:15 PM

1. Roger Tipton is on target,
2. Irtusk nails the fix vs buy equation and,
3. Since Winslow Wheeler's sole claim to fame is his 'staffer' experience, he is manifestly NOT an expert at anything related to defense except perhaps as to how policy sausage is made.

The sinking of big bucks to SLEP the F-15s would only ensure a larger supply of QF-15s for target practice in the coming years.

You are either 'stealth' or you are a 'target'. Ask the sub drivers: they've understood the concept for quite a while now.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at December 22, 2007 06:04 PM

Heh, F35's, those are light multi-role fighters more akin to replacing the F16. So your math is invalid. Some people here are making it sound like an F15 is a flintlock. It's still a freaking F15, still one of the world's top fighters as is the F16. While it's a shame we let our fleet get to this state, a lot of it can be blamed on waiting for whatever next-gen gee-whiz fighter to come out of pipe-dream stage to reality. While agree it's important to keep ahead of the Jones' or the Changs, we as a nation tend to ignore the big picture.
As for fix it, well, that's seems a bit simplistic, I'm just a plumber, but, I do know anything that's described as a longitudal spar and main load bearing structure of the airframe, isn't something that is casually fixed.
What I personally like to see change in light of recent developments, is it may be necessary to plan ahead for this sort of thing for our next-generation aircraft. Maybe we should plan on having to do another production run after x amount of years to replacing aging aircraft. By age I refer to aging effects due to use as opposed to some date on a calendar. Let's face it, whatever takes to the skies we're probably going to see for the next 30 or 40 years( I'm willing to bet the B52 buries them all ;) ) I'm quite sure we'll have the same argument then when afficianados of the elderly