It seems to me that no-one, and that is no-one (unless they can read the future) can know for sure what conflicts will arise in the near or not so near future. Isn't it better to be prepared for all possibilities than to only concentrate on the wars being fought right now. Sure China/Russia or whoever may not want to start a conflict, but who can say that with complete surity? If the US strays away from producing the sort of weapons needed to stop a larger power, isn't that a bit of an invitation for that larger power to try their hand? I am actually from Australia, so I may not be in such a place to say what the US should or shouldn't do, but thats just my opinion. By the way Indonesia are buying weapons from Russia as fast as they can, SU-30's and the like, currently RAAF has F/A18's and F111's - surely no match for an SU-30. We are supposedly going to get some super hornets until we buy some F-35's (if our new Prime Miniter doesn't crap the idea) but I for one would like to know we had some Raptors to take on the Indonesians if need be. Again, they may never attack us, but we won't know that unil it does or doesn't happen. Prepare for all possibilitys.

Posted by: Andrew at February 13, 2008 02:40 AM

Cole-

Just a few thoughts on some of your comments.

> Time limits at supercruise?

I dont think there is a time limit, but while it doesnt burn fuel like an afterburner, its still gonna use much more fuel at mach 1.75 than at mach .95. I thought the max range/radius was with some time at supercruise, but not the whole time.

Even if the squadrons can be transported in fewer C-17's, there will be of stress on the transports.

> F-35s on the U.S.S George H W Bush?

I dont mean to imply that other planes, including the F-35 will be involved. But the F-22 is far and away a much better plane, and as such it will have a big impact. In fact, my main point is that if the F-22 is only 35-50 million per copy more than the F-35 why not buy 4 F-22's instead of 5 F-35's. Cut the F-35 buy by 150 - 175 and buy ~125 F-22's.

> Plus why fly to the mainland when the bad guys are probably over the top of Taiwan

Its best to intercept the bad guys furthest from where they can launch/drop their ordanance.

> Sounds like the argument for two sets of pilots

The AF keeps multiple pilots for its planes, since each pilot/aircrew must have crew rest before they fly again. But the planes have a regeneration time as well, this is not dictated by the aircreww, mut on maintanace for the plane.

> But if they do that, the USAF should consider
> coming off its 1760+ F-35s...by a lot

Like I say, if the the costs of the F-35 and F-22 are within 40-50 million then we wont have to cut the F-35 buy that much.

Posted by: NTV at February 10, 2008 05:48 PM

NTV, great comments as usual. Thanks for providing concrete examples for the unfamiliar like me.

NTV: "Supercruise is great, but its not going to help in transit, besides the problem is bigger than just getting the F-22's to the region. The logistical tail needs to get their as well."
-----------------------------------
Time limits at supercruise? Thought I read that max range was at supercruise. From Virginia to California to Hawaii to Guam with tanks and/or aerial refueling...can't take, what, 15-16 hours at just 500 knots with refueling stop? Maybe an 8 hours rest (or other ferry pilots)but still seems you arrive a day from VA launch. Hopefully, satellites picked up preparations and we arrive before the attack. I thought moving a F-22 Squadron dropped from 14 C-17s to 5 C-17s?
------------------------------------
NTV: "But, where will the F-22 be flying from in a potential conflict with China? S. Korea? Japan?, Phillipines? We can't count on the ability to fly missions from any of those countries in the region. We might be able to, but we cant be certain. Where does that leave us? Where would the F-22's fly from? Taiwan? They would be subject to air attacks, so probably not."
-------------------------------------

F-35s on the U.S.S George H W Bush? That includes some VSTOL versions and maybe others from Okinawa that can land on cratered runways. Taiwanese engineers? I've played with Google Earth and see Taiwan's airbases on the east side of the island, with taxiways leading nowhere. Supposedly the steepness of the mountains precludes missile attack trajectory. Maybe we deliver Taiwan's AMRAAMs to them before the Chinese attack.;)

Hopefully some of Taiwan's many F-16s can survive to help protect both sides of the island for a while and Patriots will take out some PLAAF aircraft as well. I understand parts of the west side are within the S-300PMU-2 threat and we know the west side will bear the brunt of many missile attacks.

Still suspect between Air Force F-22s, Navy/Air Force/Marine F-35s, and Taiwan aircraft we still dominate and B-2s help bomb the bases where Chinese aircraft launch.

Can't see too many slow transport planes making it all the way with airborne troops. Our Navy shoots them all down.
-------------------------------------
NTV:"So then where? Guam, 1800 miles away. A round trip from Guam to the Chinese mainland and back, plus 2 hours on station is a 8 hour mission."
------------------------------------------
I've got no clue how you guys will operate but isn't 1800 miles about two hours away with tanks at supercruise? Plus why fly to the mainland when the bad guys are probably over the top of Taiwan and you want to stay away from the China ground air defense envelope? Let them come to you, especially for the Taiwanese F-16s? Or will they fly low on the waves to take out radars/ships?
----------------------------------------
"This mission does not including penetrating the mainland. Now throw in a 4 hour regen time for the aircraft and a F-22 could make 2 flights a day. In order to keep 4 planes on station the US will need 24 F-22 planes operating with no down time. Keeping 8 planes on station will take 48 total F-22's.
----------------------------
Sounds like the argument for two sets of pilots. ;) Isn't 48 F-22s about 3 squadrons with 60 at an optimistic readiness rate?
---------------------------------------

"These missions, as I said are only CAP type mission, not interdiction missions, which would take 2-4 more hours each. So, we need more F-22's to carry out that mission. Keep in mind that Airplanes wont be operating at 100% availibility, maybe 80%. so we need to bring in another 20 0r 30 to cover for that."
----------------------------
Langley AFB,Virginia aircraft? Two pilots per aircraft?
----------------------------
NTV: So now we have 48 CAP + 50 Strike + 30 backup = 128 F-22's leaving a grand total of 52 left over. Thats a VERY thin reserve, considering we need to train, a perform depot maintanece, not to mention let other bad guys know that we have F-22's to smack them if we need to. Now the number I metioned are examples for illustration, and I would bet the PACCOM wants more F-22's in an event of conflict with China. The point being that the 184 being proposed falls short.
------------------------------------
I hear you, but it isn't F-22s all alone. That's my primary point. They have lots of help.

There is a big difference between 187 and 381 and seems like a compromise quantity in the low 220s would be sufficient without breaking the bank.

But if they do that, the USAF should consider coming off its 1760+ F-35s...by a lot...and keeping A-10s and upgrading some F-15E and F-16s.

Posted by: Cole at February 8, 2008 09:34 PM

> How long does it take to fly to the Pacific at
> supercruise with stops in Hawaii or with linked
> up aerial refuelers?

Supercruise is great, but its not going to help in transit, besides the problem is bigger than just getting the F-22's to the region. The logistical tail needs to get their as well. But, where will the F-22 be flying from in a potential conflict with China? S. Korea? Japan?, Phillipines? We cant count on the ability to fly missions from any of those countries in the region. We might be able to, but we cant be certian. Where does that leave us? Where would the F-22's fly from? Tiawan? They would be subject to air attacks, so probably not. So then where? Guam, 1800 miles away. A round trip from Guam to the Chinese mainland and back, plus 2 hours on station is a 8 hour mission. This mission does not including penetrating the mainland. Now throw in a 4 hour regen time for the aircraft and a F-22 could make 2 flights a day. In order to keep 4 planes on station the US will need 24 F-22 planes operating with no down time. Keeping 8 planes on station will take 48 total F-22's. These missions, as I said are only CAP type mission, not interdiction missions, which would take 2-4 more hours each. So, we need more F-22's to carry out that mission. Keep in mind that Airplanes wont be operating at 100% availibility, maybe 80%. so we need to bring in another 20 0r 30 to cover for that. SO now we have 48 CAP + 50 Strike + 30 backup = 128 F-22's leaving a grand total of 52 left over. Thats a VERY thin reserve, considering we need to train, a performe depot maintanece, not to mention let other bad guys know that we have F-22's to smack them if we need to. Now the number I metioned are examples for illustration, and I would bet the PACCOM wants more F-22's in an event of conflict with China. The point being that the 184 being proposed falls short.

> ? Does the F-22 carry HARM missiles? It sounds
> like we need EA-18s and UCAVs, plus F-35s

I dont think the F-22 is going to caryy HARM's, but they couldfity them with it. And yes, more of the other planes would be nice, but if a F-35 costs 115 million and a F-22 costs 150 a shotbuyiing more F-22's makes sense.

> China has few logistical reserves to fight a
> long war. How much force do you think China
> could put on Taiwan in a few days and how would
> they support it once there?

Yes, their logistics is limited, currently. But they have been increasing it, and will do more in the future. Also, the limited distance to Tiawan reduces their logistical issues. They wont go away, but its only 150 miles across the straight. The question becomes, how well will Tiawan defened itself once troops are on the island? Its hard to say. So IMO its very important to keep China's troops from actually invadeing in the first place.

> How long do you think starving Soldiers would/could fight for Kim Jong-il?

I dont know, I would have expected thier starving soldiers to quit putting up with him long ago.
But in reality, I dont see an invasion of SK that much of a threat. I do see a NK implosion and resulting instability in NK and the region as a bigger threat.

Posted by: NTV at February 8, 2008 10:38 AM

"Cole, to use your NFL analogy, we need to buy more F-22s so we can, in effect, stockpile future 1st round draft picks. Otherwise we're in danger of having a bunch of pro bowl players age and demand higher salaries. How long do you really expect Brett Favre to keep playing?"
----------------------------------------------

Reply: Please don't buy two starting quarterbacks (381), when only one (187) is needed at a time. Buy quality backup quarterbacks (F-35/F/A-18). A finite number of F-22s are required for the worst case Chinese threat, and most squadrons will base near the Pacific anyway. It's a red herring to claim that some aircraft stationed in the U.S. , or elsewhere, can't respond effectively to a crisis. They won't arrive tomorrow, but it's not like a ground force that requires months to deploy...unless we have more C-17s, upgraded C-5s, and FCS forces to secure the crucial east side of Taiwan...and west side when we get the chance.

----------------------------------
"We need the higher number of Raptors because that will drive down the per-unit cost of the aircraft as well as the cost of their replacement parts. If you only buy the bare minimum, the replacement costs will be higher, the repair costs will be higher, and any combat losses or unforseen accidents will cause a real blow to our warfighting capabilities. If we buy more, the service life of the aircraft will be increased greatly, because the production lines will run longer. It saves us money in the long run to buy more aircraft now."
---------------------------------------

Reply: The long run? The money crisis is NOW because the 1990s were a procurement holiday. Another procurement slowdown may be approaching. In 2030 when F-22s start getting older and some aircraft are lost to accidents, we will have many new F-35s. Think maybe the services will be asking for a Joint UCAV air superiority fighter around that time that can team with SLEPd F-22s?

Spend an extra $40 billion to save money? That's saving your way into bankruptcy. ;) There isn't enough procurement stagger to mean some F-22s will be much older than others. Buy twice the aircraft and all you have is twice the operating cost. Double the F-22 order means double the future wanna-haves of future leaders. How is that saving money??

-------------------------------------

"Your point on numbers and needs also holds true with ground unit requirements. We have the capability to defeat any enemy with technology and a smaller number of ground forces than what we have now (Rummy and Franks attested to that many times and fought against increases in Army/Marine size). That proved true in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is especially true with domination of the skies which you profess can happen with the number of F-22s currently slated to be produced."
---------------------------------------

Reply: North Korea has 40 Mig-29s and a bunch of lesser old aircraft that would be splashed in the first few days….if they ever got off the ground.

True, China has 76 SU-76s, 100 SU-30s, and 96 J-11s, and 100 J-10s…372 quality aircraft plus a lot of old junk. Forward-deployed F-22 squadrons, whatever F-35 and F/A-18 squadrons are nearby, and 140+ Taiwanese F-16s can hold the fort until more F-22s/F-35s/F/A-18 arrive. They fly. It doesn't take that long. When you add sea and ground air defenses, and stateside B-2s moved to Guam…how long could China delay the inevitable. China's military budget is far smaller than ours and with F-22 purchases halfway complete and procurement of thousands of F-35s just beginning, there is no emergency justifying 381 F-22s.

What both threat countries DO have that would be difficult to handle is large standing armies. China: 1.6 million. North Korea: 1.2 million. U.S. Army: half a million a long way from the fight.
-----------------------------------

"You forget to mention who had the homefield advantage, and who had to fly in from 3,000 miles away. You also forgot that while one side can use all their forces/players at once the other side may have other games to play with their all stars, so they are spread all over the globe. What about the other guys defense, as in IADS, they just cant be discounted out of hand."

---------------------------------------

Reply: Heh, the U.S. military and New York Giants have two things in common…they're both good road teams. How long does it take to fly to the Pacific at supercruise with stops in Hawaii or with linked up aerial refuelers? Does the F-22 carry HARM missiles? It sounds like we need EA-18s and UCAVs, plus F-35s that can see and lase moving ground air defenses with their excellent optics.

---------------------------------

"And lastly, the other guy doesn't need to beat us head to head, they just need to stay alive long enough to achieve their goal(s). In the case of China they don't need to wipe the Raptors out of the sky, they just need to occupy Taiwan and if they lose a large chunk of their military doing so, even if the don't "beat" us they still win."

--------------------------------------------

*Reply: China couldn't win that fight overnight. Read a recent UPI article that stated China has few logistical reserves to fight a long war. How much force do you think China could put on Taiwan in a few days and how would they support it once there? Taiwan has a highly effective military well-protected in mountain fortresses. But heck it may be academic if they end up reuniting anyway.

*South Korea has a strong military and we have forward-deployed forces there, and air support in Japan. North Koreans are starving, yet currently are holding winter exercises for reservists, forcing them to bring their own food. How long do you think starving Soldiers would/could fight for Kim Jong-il?

Posted by: Cole at February 7, 2008 02:09 PM

@Captian
> if china invades anything, there is nothing we can do about with military force

Really? Why wont we be able to use military force?

> Wake up folks- yesterday's ideas about war are
> worthless when you are sitting on 10K nuclear
> weapons

An odd statement, for sure. We have had nukes for the last 50+ years, how are things different today?

And a note our nuclear delivery capability is around 2500 - 3000, and going down.

Posted by: NTV at February 7, 2008 10:11 AM

Cole,

Your reality is based on one thing: US Army. And you don't pay attention to the rest because your focus is on the Army and their needs.

You speak of China and Iran like they aren't major players, easily beaten. It would take a triad of dominance to do anything against China. We need as many F-22s as we can muster to dominate the skies. We need as many combatant ships as possible to protect the convoys of prepositioned ships leaving Diego Garcia and subsequent supply ships (as well as Marines on amphibs). And we need a dominant Army to finish the fight once a beachhead has been established.

All you can see is FCS because that is what you work on. If you look at the overall military budget and procurement, you will see that all three services are spending about the same amount of money (just over $100B each) on purchases. This is everything from bombs, planes, M-4s, F-22s, CVN-21, everything. That seems to be pretty fair to me.

Yes the Army and Marines are bearing the burden right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a result (believe it or not) the other services are suffering too. But we are passing over $200B in supplemental funding each year to help alleviate that situation and the majority of that money is going to the Army and Marines.

My Navy is retiring the last squadron of S-3s right now, even though the airframes still have many hours of life in them. That will leave the carriers with no fixed wing ASW platform. The reason: it can't fly over Iraq and drop bombs. You might not think that is a big deal until you are waiting on supplies to get to you either in China or Iran. But the ships can't get through because we can't find the subs.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 7, 2008 08:03 AM

"Not ANOTHER thread where Cole demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of reality..."

Enlighten me where I'm wrong smartarse.

History?

Chinese worst case air/AMD threat?

Our capability to get F-22s into the Pacific theater...at supercruise...

The strain on the budget of another 200 F-22s?

Ground threat?

Future Combat Systems?

Its easy to throw out oneliners without backing 'em up. Show me what you got. I haven't been a PFC Combat Engineer since 1975, so I'm a bit rusty on reality.

Posted by: Cole at February 7, 2008 07:46 AM

Not ANOTHER thread where Cole demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of reality...

Posted by: pfcem at February 6, 2008 11:15 PM

Brave Captain,

Yes, we've seen that modern military technology is absolutely useless since the creation of the atom bomb. It had absolutely no effect in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq I, Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq II. I remember when we fought communist forces in Vietnam and the Soviets destroyed Los Angeles. Oh, wait.

Posted by: Brian at February 6, 2008 10:31 PM

R U really going to compare football to global power politics ?

What happens to the game when either coach can vaporize the stadium if things are not going well ?

What kind of possible situation puts us in a war with russia or china that does not involve all of our metro areas being glassed over ?

truth is, if china invades anything, there is nothing we can do about with military force. All we can do is to try and make them a lot poorer by cutting them (as much as possible) out of the global markets. Or vice-versa.

We dont really need the kind of power we are maintaining- and its basically hollowing out our nation to keep it up. We are going to go the way of the USSR if we keep up this level of spending- which does nothing for us because we only now have two possible quanta of warfighting; all out or pretty limited. If its all out, its a nuclear war and who gives a shit at that point who 'wins'. If its pretty limited war, other nations should be helping in big way or the object is probably not worth the effort.and it wont take a trillion dollar military machine to 'win'those conflicts.

Wake up folks- yesterday's ideas about war are worthless when you are sitting on 10K nuclear weapons- and when other global players have some number of thousands themselves.

This aint a football game- its bar scene where three or four guys have big guns drawn and pointed at each other, and everyone else is milling around- little scuffles can happen, but when all hell breaks loose, F22's wont mean shit.

Posted by: brave captain of industry at February 6, 2008 10:18 PM

Cole, to use your NFL analogy, we need to buy more F-22s so we can, in effect, stockpile future 1st round draft picks. Otherwise we're in danger of having a bunch of pro bowl players age and demand higher salaries. How long do you really expect Brett Favre to keep playing?

We need more F-22s NOT because any one nation will require all 300+ Raptors to defeat. We need the higher number of Raptors because that will drive down the per-unit cost of the aircraft as well as the cost of their replacement parts. If you only buy the bare minimum, the replacement costs will be higher, the repair costs will be higher, and any combat losses or unforseen accidents will cause a real blow to our warfighting capabilities. If we buy more, the service life of the aircraft will be increased greatly, because the production lines will run longer. It saves us money in the long run to buy more aircraft now.

Half of money we spent on the F-22 was spent on development costs. That money isn't coming back. We should take advantage of that investment rather than let it go to waste. Jerry Jones doesn't spend a billion taxpayer dollars for his new stadium just to put some aging players and a bunch of 7th round picks on the field. Ultimately, at some point we'll have to replace the F-15s, the F-16s, and the F-18s. We WILL need a new plane. The Raptor, on a fly-away cost basis, is not so much more expensive than any other fighter that may end up as a replacement for the legacy fighter fleet.

We should buy more Raptors not for pure ass-kicking power (not JUST for that, anyway), and instead because it makes good business sense for the maintenance of our long-term air assets.

Posted by: Brian at February 6, 2008 02:16 PM

Cole,

You hit the nail, but you were off a little on your last post.

The F-22 will definitely be needed at the start of any war (Iran, China, Russia, et al). What we will not need is the F-35. The procurement dollars we have forecasted for the F-35 should be allocated to F-22 and F-16E production.

The F-22 cannot carry a 2,000lb bomb internally, but the B-2 can. And this bomb will only be used in the future for hardened targets. The 1,000lb or SDB can do what is necessary for all other applications.

What the B-2 cannot do based on sortie regeneration, the ALCM and TALCM can supplement.

Your point on numbers and needs also holds true with ground unit requirements. We have the capability to defeat any enemy with technology and a smaller number of ground forces than what we have now (Rummy and Franks attested to that many times and fought against increases in Army/Marine size). That proved true in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is especially true with domination of the skies which you profess can happen with the number of F-22s currently slated to be produced.

So the answer to your issues is simple. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis (which is currently being discussed), focus our forces on the true enemy in Afghanistan (Pakistan border region) and we will have more than enough ground forces for them to spend 1 year in country and 2 years stateside. The "long war" will continue and hopefully we can maintain focus on the true enemy in the future.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at February 6, 2008 10:52 AM

Cole,

You forget to mention who had the homefield advantage, and who had to fly in from 3,000 miles away. You also forgot that while one side can use all their forces/players at once the other side may have other games to play with their all stars, so they are spread all over the globe. What about the other guys defense, as in IADS, they just cant be discounted out of hand. And lastly, the other guy doesnt need to beat us head to head, they just need to stay alive long enough to achive their goal(s). In the case of China they dont need to wipe the Raptors out of the sky, they just need to occupy Tiawan and if they lose a large chunk of their military doing so, even if the dont "beat" us they still win. Or not just Tiawn, China could be in position to take over other island in the region for their resources. What about Iran or Syria, or NK? They just need to survive long enough for international pressure to stop any US attack. Pakistan? They need to survive long enough for the nukes to be sectreted away. In future wars time will be our enemy. And thus we need to be able to achive our goals quickly.

As for ground forces, its doubtful that they will be used in future fughts aginst NK, China, Iran, Syria, and any full asuallt in Pakistan.

Posted by: NTV at February 6, 2008 10:44 AM

Vstress, no, the Chinese numbers are irrelevant when our air numbers are equal/greater with far greater quality throughout those numbers. Where we are NOT equal in numbers, is on the ground. Don't you think that justifies spending there so at least quality circumvents threat numbers???

In addition, the Chinese are the worst case threat. Most countries lack numbers AND the quality. 187 (4 more have been added) F-22s is almost overkill given other joint capabilities. F-22s are not fighting alone against the air or air defense threat.

The Germans lost WWII because they fought a two front war and were unprepared for the Russian winter. They had complete air superiority during the early Russian campaign but couldn't close the deal in the winter allowing western mass production to overwhelm them with numbers. Goes back to that "long war" thing again. Apparently, Sir Arthur Harris must have been thought enough of a crackpot that he was not let in on the Enigma deal where we were monitoring their coded communications, and new the Germans had logistics issues. After D-day, his bombers were diverted to munitions and oil production facilities...and he was upset that he couldn't keep rubbling German cities. Do you want to risk American pilot lives fighting smart or fighting for revenge?

Now here's a major unmentioned problem with airpower bombing. Who do you think paid for rebuilding all those German and Japanese firebombed cities? Look up "Marshall Plan." Still think bombing cities makes sense?

The F-22 is great for what it does. There just isn't that much work for it to do beyond the early war. It's stupid to spend too many billions on a mission mostly irrelevant to the long war. Near as I can tell, the F-22 has no built in Sniper XR-like system which means it will not excel at air to ground. It can hit preprogrammed and JTAC-fed GPS targets, and targets fed by JSTARS. But if the target is moving, hidden, a decoy, etc....they are likely to miss or waste munitions. The USAF went after easy fixed infrastructure targets in Kosovo because the Serbs hid their military assets and used many decoys.

That's why you need ground forces. We force the enemy to choose between dying in place or moving from cover/concealment so that assets like F-35 WITH visual air-to-ground systems identify targets and engage them, or ground forces annihilate them with long range fires and close combat.

You need a Joint and combined arms team that isn't affordable if you spend too many scarce procurement dollars on one small aspect of airpower.

Posted by: Cole at February 6, 2008 09:44 AM

So what you are saying is against a foe like China you say fight fire with fire... ie. let's use a multitude of numbers against a foe that clearly can mass produce?

Put it simply look at history - say the greatest tank battle - Kursk.

The Germans lost because they had too few good tanks - not because they didn't have enough tanks.

The Germans physically never had and would never have had enough tanks and people to counter the suicidal waves the Russians sent during that battle and during the whole war.

So - yes we should get as many pro-players as possible because we can never manage to overcome them any other way - unless maybe you plan to create a family breeding programme?

I'm trying to not do my part by ensuring I'm protected when I go out ;)

Posted by: Vstress at February 6, 2008 06:35 AM

Oh Vstress, forgot to mention that our 11 first-string players knock their 11 starters out of the game with injuries in the first 5 minutes!!! The other team then has to play the rest of the game without any players...or with its few remaining scrubs, or just its defense.

Wait there's more. Even if the bad guys start the game while we are still on the sidelines, and score first. When we enter the game...they still lose all their players fast and you can guess what the final score is.

Now you wonder how the ground force fits into all this? The ground team represents 8 MORE ALL-PRO starters who go into the game and do things the F-22 players can't do for the next 55 minutes against the enemy's surviving defensive players. Plus you don't want to injure those F-22s ALL-PROs if you can avoid it. They are way too valuable and cost WAY TOO MUCH of the salary cap to risk playing most of the game.;)

Posted by: Cole at February 5, 2008 09:28 PM

Vstress.

Imagine a football game where one side has:
* 4 All-Pro players (F-22)
* 7 other Pro starters(F-35)
* PLUS 20 other Pros/college players (F-35/F-15 AESA/F/A-18/F-16)standing on the sideline waiting to get into the game if someone gets hurt.

They also have a great offensive coaching staff (AWACS/Hawkeyes/EA-18/Carriers) and great defensive staff (Patriot/THAAD/Standard Missile/Aegis)

On the bad-guy side, they have 5 Division I College starters, 4 Division II College players, and two Division III college starters. They also have lots of high school players on the sidelines HOPING that nobody gets hurt.

That is the worst case against a country like China. Most countries would be like our team playing a high school team with a few Pop Warner starters....maybe not even a full 11 and defintely nobody on the sideline.

Their coaching staff. Maybe some semi-decent high school coaches but it doesn't matter because they can't communicate with the players anyway.

I understand wanting to keep production lines open but suspect if you work on F-22s you could get a job working F-35s or commercial airliners if you don't wish to move.

To make 20 F-22s each year costs $4.6 billion dollars if this year's budget and next year's request is any indication. With the final 20 F-22s due in 2011, that $4.6 billion disappears from subsequent year procurement budgets. If the USAF gets its way and buys 200 more, that is 10 more years at $4.6 Billion, or around $46 billion...unavailable monies for other USAF priorities (or "should-be" priorities)and possibly threatening the survival/timely fielding of other service programs.

Wanna know the worst part? 200 more F-22s is like adding another 4 more All-Pro Players to a TEAM and coaching staff that really doesn't need it. Now isn't that foolish?

Posted by: Cole at February 5, 2008 08:48 PM

Why are people obsessed by a need to buy stuff for the "now" battle?

Aren't we coping? I don't know from experience, but I believe the areas we are stretched in are mainly supply and transport issues.

I don't think there is any need to buy a shed-load of cheap aircraft simply because they are suited to our current enemy!

Buying f-22's and keeping the production line open for years is our best bet at keepin potential future adversaries from thinking twice.

No-one will fight America in their right mind (too many people, each with their own firearm)! But they might mess up our interests, so our objective is to be able to deliver precise and decisive blows. Not become engaged in long battle (yes it's an irony the place we are in now - but the right idea was there, just it didn't work as planned).

ie. I say buy F-22's... and much more - I'm just a young stressman and I wan't a job for years to come! If for anything keep aerospace alive to keep our manufacturing lines open - the worst is if we let everyone abroad manufacture every component. Then we truly will be caught with our pants down if anyone does decide to attack!

Posted by: Vstress at February 5, 2008 04:40 PM

Brave Capitan,

What makes you think that unmanned aircraft will be so plentifull, cheap, and capable? If a UAV is non-autonomus, then its capability will be constrained by command an control isuues. It will most likely be "cheaper" than fully autonomus UAV's but it will have problems maintaining contact with CnC during combat manuvers. ALso the satallite links are at risk when fighting a advanced advisaery. OTOH an autonomus UAV wont have Command and Contol issues, but it will be much more expensive due to all thesoftware needed to make it autonomus. IMO the "plentifull, cheap, and capable" argumnet doesnt hold water. While the UAV's may be cheaper, it doubtfull that they will be so cheap that we or any other country can fllod the sky's with them to achive some sort of overwhelming quanity advantage.

As for 737's for carrying out strategic bombing missions. Whether they are escorted or not, they still will face a barrage of SAM's that will shorten their life span imensely. Penetrateing aircraft need a high degree of LO capability.

Posted by: NTV at February 5, 2008 01:31 PM

You posters all suffer from imagination deficit. Our future enemies are / will be working on systems that totally redefine the air to air combat AND strat bombing spaces. The F22 may be the last of the line- its pretty clear that sooner or later unmanned fighter aircraft of far greater performance, much smaller size, and far greater numbers will be thrown against our manned forces if we dont get there first. Sooner or later, F22's run out of missles and gun rounds, and still can only be in one area at one time-recall the USSR throwing essentially unarmed men at german lines until they gave way under the sheer weight.

Likewise strat bombing- if we are in a situation where we wont be nuclear warfighting but our interests are still targets for hundreds of conventional bombs, an escorted 737 with wing racks could do the job- Naturally an unmanned 737 or its cheap aluminum equal.

Wake up people- quality v. overwhelming quanity is a loser. Tiger v. T34 was a nice lesson then and unexpected huge fleets of unmanned small craft will do the same thing to us someday IF its a non-nuclear situation.

And if other nations can develop ABM tech that really works, we are in deep shit.

Posted by: Brave Captain of Industry at February 5, 2008 11:01 AM

Geez, why don't we just get 200 F-22s, that sounds like a nice even number :P

Posted by: Charley at February 4, 2008 09:16 PM

Good Morning Folks,

What is it going to take. Put a falling F-15 into a high rise. At this moment F-15's falling out of the sky is the largest "terrorists" air threat to the United states.

I would suggest that it's time to ground the F-15 A-D's for good, and the Air Force quite playing Russian (Terrorists) Roulette with Homeland Defense.

I also believe in Santa Clause, and the easter bunny.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at February 4, 2008 01:49 PM

> What is not acceptable is to assume that we
> need 384 F-22s to combat an imagined threat
> with over 3000 (8:1 ratio) top notch
> aircraft...no such threat now or ever will
> exist in our lifetime.

This is a terrible line of thinking. The 384 number is not there to give us that many fighters to use at once, because we wont ever do that, but it allows the US to distribute the F-22's so that enough of them are availible to go and fight in a specific area when needed. If we have more planes then we can base more in an area, and we can surge more when needed. Its not that we need the 384, but that we need to be able to concentrate 60+ in an area in a short period of time. As Mac said somewhere some of the planes will not be availible to fight, and we must take that into account. we must also relize that each plane has required regen time which drives a need for bringing more planes to the fight.

> How do 384 F-22s help you once the scarce enemy
> fighter threat is gone? Bombing? At two
> internal bombs per F-22, a B-2 bomber capable
> of dropping 80 500 lb bombs matches the F-22
> bomb quantity with just 10 B-2 aircraft.

Yes, but we only have 21 B-2's, How many of those are combat coded at any time? How long are their flights to bomb China? Pakistan?, Iran? 30-40 hours? You will be liucky to get 2-3 B-2 missions a night. Also, if we are going against China, Pakistan, Iran we will be keeping a few B-2's in Strategic reserve, thus decreasing the number availible for conventional missions.

> Double the number of F-22 pilots...not
> aircraft. That will give the USAF the same
> number of sorties for day and night operations
> that one pilot per aircraft cannot support.

Regardless of the number of pilots, the aircraft has required regen times, in wartime the rules can be streteched, but a LO aircraft will still need to be maintanined. The AF always has more pilots than aircraft to increase sorte rates, but the aircraft itself has limits.

Posted by: NTV at February 4, 2008 10:17 AM

Takeo,

Have been out of the Army since 1992, but had tours in Germany and the Sinai and stateside time working combat developments...and time as a defense contractor doing doctrine and training developement. Spent 13 years in the private sector running my own small business...so tend to look at things that make sense from a dollars/sense (spelling intended) standpoint.

I have nothing against the F-22 other than its costs, and lack of evidence that the USAF needs as many as it wants given other demands and legitimate requirements. As Solomon aptly mentioned, you cannot use lack of modernization in the 90s as an excuse to enter a "death spiral" of exponential cost increases in the early 21st century. Decide if you want ultimate quality and fewer numbers...or compromise in quality for greater numbers. A reasonable person would realize you can't have both.

The B-2 bomber is a classic example where 20 seems wholly insufficient, carrying just 16 JDAM, but smart guys design a SMART bombrack that increases that quantity to 80!! While it isn't the same as buying 5 times more B-2s, it is a workaround that vastly increases capability.

Believe that adding more F-22 pilots is another such workaround. I knew from the get go that additional hours on the aircraft and maintenance strain were the counterargments...but still doubt it is anywhere near as costly as buying too many aircraft.

The corporation I work for has a massive contract for Army Aviation simulation, and is awaiting finalization of a subcontract on a huge joint training program...that no doubt will also involve simulation along with live training. F-22 simulation could be improved with networked trainers (if they don't already exist)to allow teams of pilots to practice TTP and skills against visually simulated enemies/ground threats that are impossible to simulate in live training at any reasonable cost.

But beyond that, believe there is a disconnect in USAF priorities when it defends thousands of fighters with questionable justification threat-wise...but won't ante up for more than a few hundred C-17s, or a needed C-130 replacement that is desperately needed and justified.

You can't find ALL the targets from the air. The ground and air components must work together...which can't begin until we get into theater. You can help...but not if all your monies and priorities are expended on too many fighters.

But don't worry, I'm a peon with no control of anything. Can only appeal to those who may be reading to invoke more common sense...and common dollars for all service needs.

Posted by: Cole at February 4, 2008 08:49 AM

Cole,

I'll excuse your virulent dislike for the F-22 for the moment and pose you this question:

More pilots for F-22's should solve the problem right? But then doesn't that mean you use up the aircraft's available flying hours faster?

Which means you take the most dominant fighter of recorded history and make it wear out in 15-20 years instead of 25-30, after which we are in worse shape than when we started, which means we'd probably have to dig up the tooling and start a second run (which definitely costs more money than an initial run) of F-22's or a development.

The F-22 has greatly reduced the load on the MXG's that are responsible for maintaining it but just like flying hours aren't free, neither are skilled maintainers. If you up the amount of flying hours used in a given amount of time you have to have a bigger force of maintainers to keep up with the load exactly the way you would if you had a larger force of planes. In a nutshell, you're not saving as much money as you think, and if you try to use a force of maintainers not properly staffed by 5 and 7 levels you can fully expect to see more crashes.

Frankly Cole, I don't know what your background is but your arguments are utter academics, not founded at all in operation experience.

Posted by: Takeo at February 4, 2008 05:12 AM

Vercingetorex,

You present some interesting scenarios. I know the Japanese weren't happy when North Korea shot missiles over their island, and they certainly aren't pals with the Chinese due to old WWII tensions. But from the gist of one article about F-15s in Japan, they could ask us to leave which may be why there is talk of building up Guam. Who knows.

I speculated that the recent cutting of internet lines in the Middle East was a message to both Iran and China. Read recently that the Chinese use the internet for Air Defense comms, so local loss of that would sure help us. Again, who knows.

We have a USAF Cyber Command now, so we can always fight hacking fire with fire. You noted from one of my earlier Missile Defense links that even Taiwan has a graphite bomb designed to knock out Chinese electricity. The Navy is good at ECM and certainly works around high powered radars all the time, so hopefully their systems are well hardened against EMP.

The 241:2 cited loss exchange ratio was just an example that a 20:1 ratio is not at all unrealistic. So if you have 40 local F-22s from 3 squadrons, you can imagine them easily shooting up a combination of 800 fighters and air defense systems before they lose all their aircraft. Frankly, I doubt they would lose many at all, or lives even if aircraft are lost....yet the entire Chinese threat of any consequence could be killed by those few F-22s alone. That won't happen of course because they will have lots of help.

My point all along is that 183 F-22s does not hamper the air dominance mission. It DOES save the USAF and other services a lot of money for other projects. Don't think in terms of replacing old aircraft...they could get rid of all the F-15Cs if they want...diverting pilots to multi-role pilots like the F-35.

I still don't know why they don't just crank out 2 pilots per F-22. Seems like the best of both worlds, just as the new SMART rack for the B-2 bomber effectively creates more B-2 capability by transforming the aircraft from carrying just 16 500 lb JDAMs to 80 now!!

Posted by: Cole at February 4, 2008 01:47 AM

Vercingetorix,
If we're losing carrier battle groups to Chinese subs, if the Japanese are denying us basing rights and if the scenario you laid out - plays out exactly as you stated then the war is already lost. That is the main problem with "AIR FORCE CENTRIC THINKING!" Air power, no matter how sexy, how high tech etc...cannot win wars alone. It is and will always be a supporting force in wars in which domination of land is the goal. If humans move structures to aerial islands then those that think like you might have a leg to stand on. But that day is not today.

Posted by: Solomon at February 4, 2008 12:33 AM

Cole, what happens when Japan denies us use of their airspace to keep out of a regional war with China or N. Korea (Iwo Jima is now the site of a Japanese military base precisely because they pulled something similar during Korea, so we gave it back to them).

What happens when we lose a carrier (or battle group) to Chinese subs? What happens when cyber-attack shuts down half the West Coast, or just vital elements we need to mount a rapid strike, or siphons off data regarding our B-2 attack, so they can put interceptors on our strike forces?

Cole, it would be very...unwise...to think that any fighter can kill 250 aircraft on its own. It cannot. If an F-22 had eight kills with each mission, one kill to a missile, that would be 30 missions to kill those 241 aircraft. How realistic is that?

Not at all.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 3, 2008 11:43 PM

Greg and Vercingetorex,

See the Air Force Association article in the Bear bomber comments above this.

241 to 2 loss exchange ratio.

As I mentioned earlier in a Taiwan scenario, it is fully conceivable to have 3 Squadrons of F-22s in theater in very little time from forward based locations in Alaska, Japan/Okinawa, South Korea, Guam, and Hawaii...take your pick. That is 54 aircraft with spares. Allowing a 75% readiness rate, 40 or more F-22s are available...each with 6 AMRAAMs. At a 90% Pk, sounds like half the entire quality Su- Air Force of most threat nations goes down in the first pass to me.

But I contend that our B-2 fleet would take out most threat aircraft and their logistics/fuel on the ground. Then you go to work on the air defense systems and mobile surface to surface launchers.

Posted by: Cole at February 3, 2008 05:45 PM

Greg, no one is saying the whole fleet has to be mothballed - except for Roy during one of his, many, florid moments - as the F-15E is still serviceable and a few other derivatives are too.

But serious airframe failure cannot be repaired with a "$500K" bandaid.

So in addition to the compelling need to have survivable, maneuverable stealth aircraft, we also have the compelling need to replace legacy aircraft that are past their service life.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 3, 2008 04:11 PM

I'm going to start by saying I'm not an expert on any of this. I may work in a field very close to the military, but not the aviation side of it. But to all you people that say we need to mothball the whole fleet for F-22s, I disagree. As many have said, there is an average of 4 accidents a year, so why should 1 more than average cause such alarm. If all or even most of the failures this year were due to the structural problems with the F-15 airframe, then I would change my opinion, but as others have shown through actual data, that is not the case.

Cole, as for your math, it needs some work. 384 F-22 not needed unless going up against 3000 other fighters. First, you only include the enemy fighter plane element, not the enemy ground defense. Until it is proven that these things can really get into enemy airspace without being seen, don't count it out. Plus to base your estimate off of an 8:1 advantage that has also never been tested in a real fight is ridiculous. wait..theres more. You also have to count training aircraft and reserves. Not saying that we need 384 F-22s but your argument lacks a bit.

Posted by: Greg at February 3, 2008 03:57 PM

"It is ludicrous overkill. It is inexcusable stubborn adherence to the past rather than realistic new friendly vs. threat capabilities."

In a word: Bullshit.

The mission isn't 384 Raptors versus 3000 enemy fighters. It is the first thirty aircraft versus an entire country, like North Korea, Iran, or China.

Or maybe you think that we should just write off defending Taiwan, South Korea, Japan. Maybe the Gulf, too.

We have assets - and interests - all over the world. We cannot rely on numbers - and never ever have - so we have to rely on quality.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 3, 2008 03:56 PM

Just want to say that the F-22, like all new systems, will always have some issues in the beginning that need to be ironed out. Whether or not the F-22 will develop problems like the F-15 in 20 years remains to be seen. Mechanical structures don't last forever although do take into account advances in manufacturing and design tech that the F-22 (and moreso the F-35) is able to take advantage of as opposed to the F-15 way back in the late 60s/early 70s.

Cole, while you do bring up a good point that F-22s can't carry much air-to-ground munitions, I would like to remind you that in a scenario of eliminated air threats, the F-22 can carry external stores. Raptors can carry 8 SDBs internally alone.

Posted by: FoxThree at February 3, 2008 03:16 PM

Guess the bird flu got the F-15 fleet.

Posted by: Vitor at February 3, 2008 02:47 PM

Vercingetorex:Two problems with that anaylsis: 1st, there was a catastrophic airframe failure, that came from fatigue. This means that the rest of the fleet could experience the same failure, and it will only get worse as time goes on.

Unlike replacing a malfunctioning alt-tac or hyd pump, you cannot just replace the whole chassis."
-------------------------------------------

Reply: Strengthen the chassis for $500K.

According to this link, one 2007 F-15 accident involved jammed flight control cables and one involved massive structural failure. Inspections/corrective repairs should fix the latter, while better routine maintenance may fix the former. Others appear related to pilot error.

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/f-15.htm

With a $500K fix avaiable to fix structural problems, isn't that a better alternative than spending 320 times as much to buy new replacement aircraft on a one for one basis?
-------------------------------------------

Vercingetorex: 2nd, we are not flying F-15s just to fly F-15s for the hell of it. This isn't some cheesedick urban renewal project here.

We fly F-15s to crush the enemy.

If we keep these F-15s, even rebuild them, we'll have to cripple them with restrictions (and are crippling them right now) so even if they were theoretically par with other advanced fighters (Su-35, -37, Eurofighter, Rafale, Grippen, etc), they will no longer be in practice. It would be better just to retire the fleet completely than keep paper airwings which cannot and will not deliver when we need them."
---------------------------------------
REPLY: If there was a genuine threat requiring 384 F-22s, a genuine case could be made for one-for-one aircraft replacement. However, looking at stated requirements for EITHER 183 F-22s + 178 F-15C Golden Eagles OR 384 F-22s makes it clear that the USAF attributes no additional value to F-22 capabilities that allows it to purchase fewer F-22s.

When F-22s are wargamed at anywhere between a 9:1 exchange ratio to 100:1 versus an F-15 or comparable top-of-the-line threat aircraft, you would think the USAF would be willing to exchange its 200 aircraft shortfall in F-22s for 25 additional F-22s since 1 F-22 is easily the equal of 8 F-15s or best threat aircraft. THAT would be an acceptable compromise.

What is not acceptable is to assume that we need 384 F-22s to combat an imagined threat with over 3000 (8:1 ratio) top notch aircraft...no such threat now or ever will exist in our lifetime. And that ridiculously pessimistic 8:1 exchange ratio assumes NO sea-based air missile defense, NO ground-based air missile defense, NO F-35s air-to-air or legacy aircraft air-to-air capability. It also assumes in error that threat fighter pilots have anywhere near our competence, maintenance, and avionics/missile capability, AESA radar, and standoff radar vectoring from systems like AWACS.

It is ludicrous overkill. It is inexcusable stubborn adherence to the past rather than realistic new friendly vs. threat capabilities.

In addition, half the air dominance mission involves stateside air defense against a Soviet prop bombers of ancient lineage and commercial airliners seized by terrorists. I'm unaware of any flight restriction that would prevent current F-15Cs from downing either of the above aircraft using more than 2 gs of air combat maneuvering.

In addition, if the requirement for F-22s is so essential, why are we wasting potential frontline assets on a F-22 demonstration team traveling nationwide to generate publicity...rather than forward-deployed deterrence.

How do 384 F-22s help you once the scarce enemy fighter threat is gone? Bombing? At two internal bombs per F-22, a B-2 bomber capable of dropping 80 500 lb bombs matches the F-22 bomb quantity with just 10 B-2 aircraft.

Double the number of F-22 pilots...not aircraft. That will give the USAF the same number of sorties for day and night operations that one pilot per aircraft cannot support.

Simulation can emulate some g-forces and safely replicate the observe and decide portion of the air-to-air process....rendered largely irrelevant by BVR engagements that will be the future norm and easily practiced in a simulator.

It is clear that the red scarf mentality in the USAF needs to change. Otherwise many billions of unnecessary monies will go to continued support of pilots serving 4-6 month tours in combat while their understrength ground counterparts continue sucking down year long tours...leave the service in disgust at misplaced priorities...experience suicide rates 5 times the pre-war average...and return to the U.S. with 30,000 war wounds that get underaddressed because the USAF wanted 200 too many dogfighting toys for a threat that barely exists except in the minds of fighter jocks living in the past...unwilling to acknowledge their radar AESA/AMRAAM savior that will make their dogfighting skills less relevant.

Posted by: Cole at February 3, 2008 12:04 PM

The same attitudes that allowed for the F-15s to go down hill,will also work against the F-22s.I want to say that in 20 years the F-22s will have the same maintenance problems that the F-15s are having today,but I really wonder if the problems won't be showing up much sooner than that? There's nothing wrong with the design of the F-22,there is something wrong with our government,who can print up money for their social problems without a care for the inflation that results from such actions,but they cannot "find the money" to support our national defense.They say "we can't afford it." We can "afford" to take care of the welfare moms(at the expense of others),but we cannot defend our borders because there is no money for it.
Everybody saw this disaster coming.Everybody knew it was coming.Both Bush,Sr. & Clinton pissed away our military advantages.Just because "nobody else" presents a credible threat to us does not justify our scrapping,sinking,& selling off of our weapons.It took almost 20 years for the F-22 to finally come on line.Expect it to take at least that long for the next big thing in aviation to arrive(who knows,maybe those fighter jets in Texas were chasing it).A strong independent USA prevents the forming of the U.S.,Canada,& Mexico into the North American Union Super State,& then into a "United Nations" one world government.Allowing our military to be stretched thin & its equipment to wear out & decay allows for the U.S. to just fade away & join the other "empires" that have faded away in history.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 3, 2008 11:00 AM

"Five in nearly a year with one that was a catastrophic failure with mass inspections to solve the problem for others, does not constitute an emergency."

Two problems with that anaylsis: 1st, there was a catastrophic airframe failure, that came from fatigue. This means that the rest of the fleet could experience the same failure, and it will only get worse as time goes on.

Unlike replacing a malfunctioning alt-tac or hyd pump, you cannot just replace the whole chassis.

2nd, we are not flying F-15s just to fly F-15s for the hell of it. This isn't some cheesedick urban renewal project here.

We fly F-15s to crush the enemy.

If we keep these F-15s, even rebuild them, we'll have to cripple them with restrictions (and are crippling them right now) so even if they were theoretically par with other advanced fighters (Su-35, -37, Eurofighter, Rafale, Grippen, etc), they will no longer be in practice. It would be better just to retire the fleet completely than keep paper airwings which cannot and will not deliver when we need them.

Oh, and since we are talking about replacing the F-15 with the F-22, we are talking about the next twenty years here in aviation, during which the F-15 will be exceedingly less able to cope.

Which goes back to your suggestion that we use simulators to train our pilots - essentially video games - and so, Cole, you neglect the only substantial advantage our air forces have: the quality of our pilots. If they do not get real life training, what happens to their skill? Does it go up, or down?

It goes down. We're not going to have our Navy SEALs play Call of Duty instead of hitting the range or the hot houses, right? Cause they need to train in the skills, feel the weapons, or in the case of the pilots, the G-forces.

So, your solution would give us fighters that are incapable of performing their job PLUS the added bonus of pilots that are increasingly mediocre at theirs, all for the sake of saving a dollar at tax time. Swell.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 3, 2008 09:54 AM

"That is a fact. The remaining fleet will be hobbled with flight restrictions."

Actually, portions of the F-15 non-E fleet had a variety of flight restrictions before the famous break-up crash.

Posted by: ELP at February 3, 2008 03:24 AM

Just an idea about the F14 parts scandal. What if the US air force "wanted" Iran to get a whole lot of F-14 parts they needed just before a potential conflict with them in exchange for millions of dollars? Why would we do this?

Unknown to the Iranians, we modified the parts so an electronic signal sent out by out armed services causes all the Iranian jets to blow up, fall out of the sky, or something like that. So in other words, the Iranians just paid us millions to sabotage their planes. We go public with the story that Iran got good parts to make Iran think they pulled a fast one on us. Instead we pulled a fast one on them.

I have no insider info but just showing there may be more to the story. So be careful before you tar and feather someone. I hope we did something clever like this. If not, we should have.

Posted by: morpheus at February 3, 2008 12:09 AM

roy smith is absolutely right.i would like to add that the increasing number of contractors who work for these companies performing maintenace on the eagles may not be doing such a good job.you know the saying once you get a govt job it is next to impossible to get fired from it.

Posted by: b huckaby at February 2, 2008 11:50 PM

In 20 to 30 years time(& I'm being generous with my prediction) the F-22 will be suffering the same problems that the F-15s are today.That will be because of a government unwilling to pay to keep them upgraded & air worthy,an assembly line closed down & the equipment scrapped to prevent further building of more F-22s,well,just about everything that is wrong with the F-15 today.IF.....F-22 assembly lines are still open in at least 20 years,it will only be because we're building them for foreign governments,just like our F-15Es & F-16s today.
Mark my words,in at least 20 years,it'll be deja vu all over again with the F-22.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 2, 2008 07:40 PM

Nice try USAF. Think maybe we should learn what cause it first. Bird strike?

Looks like the average Class A mishap rate for F-15s is about 4 per year since the aircraft was created. Five in nearly a year with one that was a catastrophic failure with mass inspections to solve the problem for others, does not constitute an emergency.

Check out the bottom of the page on this link for the F-15 mishap rate:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_1-2_51/ai_n13794867/pg_3

123 lost F-15s from 1972 through 2004. Maybe we should have scrapped them all back in the first few years of 4 lost aircraft a year....

Near as I can tell that means we now have nearly 260 F-15s to choose the best 178 Golden Eagles the USAF always intended to keep in addition to its F-15Es....and lots of F-22s/F-35s.

How many of you would let your son go out and buy a new Corvette everytime he crashed his Mustang GT? How much is going to cost taxpayers when the USAF starts crashing 4 F-22s a year? Start flying more simulator time. No bird strikes in those.

Posted by: Cole at February 2, 2008 07:20 PM

I'm all for getting new F-22s online & in the squadrons needed.After George Bush,Sr. & Bill Clinton neutered our military(& NOBODY can dispute that fact) with reckless drawdowns,AND with former Sec.Def. Rumsfeld refusal to replace old worn out weapons & put online weapons like the Crusader Howitzer & the Comanche Helicopter,its no wonder our aircraft are literally falling out of the skies.For those who wonder what the Crusader & the Comanche have to do with the F-15 crisis? It has everything to do with it,because it shows an unwillingness of our government to keep our armed forces fresh & ready with a sufficient reserve of troops & equipment ready for combat.I remember in the 90s when people were complaining that we were stretching our forces thin with deployments to Somalia,Haiti,Bosnia,& Kosovo.Things have only gotten worse,not better.I know people on these blogs only want the best for our military & those who serve in it.I have the same concern. Our military is not even properly prepared to defend our borders for Homeland Security.
P.S. I know that there is a damn big difference between an F-15 & an F-14,it was just the only chance I had to bitch about congress' legislation to scrap as fast as possible all of our few remaining F-14s because they are so "afraid" of them falling into Iranian hands.Unless Iran has forces mobilized on the Mexican border ready to invade & raid the boneyard,the whole "emergency" scrap plan is total B.S.(or do I need to spell it out,"bull...."),I think that our "NWO" congress,president,& pentagon is more afraid that those F-14s will fall into "American" hands & not Iranian.Why? As them for once.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 2, 2008 07:15 PM

Roy, so it's F-14 airframes and parts. Extraordinary.

Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force F-14A Tomcats shot down over 150 enemy fighters, completely dominating the Iran-Iraq air war. They did so while enduring critical shortages of parts and technical personnel, while at times performing 12 hour CAP (Combat Air Patrol) missions.

The action to scrap and destroy US F-14s serves to demonstrate US high regard for the fighting capability of IRIAF air crews and their Tomcats.

There are an estimated 57 Tomcats remaining in IRIAF inventory.

Posted by: Mark Pyruz at February 2, 2008 07:04 PM

Roy, do you even understand the issue of F-14 parts, and why there is nothing even remotely similar in regard to the F-15?

I don't think you do....

Posted by: Nessuno at February 2, 2008 06:48 PM

Its time to replace the older birds with new F-22s. if this is the 5th one since may, I think its time to replace the old airframes. Keep the newer ones but at least replace the older ones with F-22s.

Posted by: 22lr at February 2, 2008 06:30 PM

Roy, how about a moratorium on shrill commentary for a thread or two?

We've lost 5 F-15s in a less than a year. That is a fact. The remaining fleet will be hobbled with flight restrictions.

At this point, continuing with the current (old, dated) fleet is actually dangerous to the lives of our pilots. Upgrading them, repairing them, will be a significant portion of just buying a new (ready) fighter.

The course is clear.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 2, 2008 05:56 PM

I guess we need to retire these planes immediately & scrap their dead carcasses like we are doing with the F-14 Tomcat(which,by the way are all supposed to be safely tucked away & guarded at the boneyard,so I do not understand one damn bit how safely guarded planes could fall into "enemy" Iranian hands to upgrade their F-14s.I'm sorry,I had to say it,whoever thinks that we need to scrap EVERY safely guarded & secure F-14 & F-14 spare parts is totally full of shit.What about our highly qualified Air Force Security Police & their ability to guard the boneyard?),well,back to the F-15....I'm sure that there are some really bad people out there who'd love to take spare parts from our F-15s too,omigod,scrap them,scrap them now!!!!! Its a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY(& people,again,totally full of shit who actually believe that).

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 2, 2008 05:46 PM