I think that the 381 number(For F22) is the correct number. 381 is a min.# The Navy also must order some next generation Super Hornets while decommissioning old legacy Hornets. The new Super Hornets will fill the void until JSF starts being delivered in numbers.

Posted by: D at August 12, 2008 02:15 PM

pfcem utters his normal refrain: DarthAmerica, are you (like Cole) completely unable to see reality?

1960 Price Reality:

House: $16,500
Car: $2,600
Gallon of gas: 31 cents
Gallon of milk: 49 cents
F-4 Phantom: $2 million

Multiply all of the above by a factor of 10 for today's median prices means we should be able to pick up a new fighter for about $20 million, correct there little buddy.

Apparently not.

Now lets look at other trends:
1380 B-47
744 B-52
100 B-1
21, oh wait, 20 B-2

Do you see a clear trend? Are we heading for negative balances in Air Force aircraft procurement?

Or could it be that in actuality, 20 B-2 are more than sufficient for the threat as are 200 or so F-22s?

Get with it dude. The USAF can't have its quality cake and large numbers too. Choosing outlandish pricepoints obligates you to live with fewer numbers. Otherwise the exponential budget bite starts to eat into other services.

I might add that many F-15Cs can easily last until 2025 and 12,000 hoursy then we will have ample F-22s and F-35...all that's required for the threat.

You can continue to question other's concept of reality or you and the USAF can do a little self-examination.

Posted by: Cole at February 26, 2008 09:32 PM

DarthAmerica, are you (like Cole) completely unable to see reality?

Between the USAF & the ANG we currently have over 500 F-15A-D (~440 + ~125 respectively). ALL of which are currently past their originally intended 4,000 flight hour life & MANY are quickly (more quickly than originally forcast) reaching 8,000 flight hour (IIRC estimates put most of the fleet over 8,000 around 2010). By some wet dream some HOPE we can keep 178 of them flying until they are/were ALL replaced by F-22 ~2025 by SOMEHOW extentending their life to 12,000 flight hours.

The 178 "Golden Eagles" are/were intended to extend the life of the F-15 (in order to maintain the required force numbers) until they could be COMPLETELY replaced by 381 F-22!

Without 381 F-22 you not only need to somehow keep F-15's flying longer (not just a little longer but 4 TIMES longer than they were built to & TWICE as long as most are even now intended to) but MORE of them flying.

In reality there are only 2 options. Either get 381 F-22 by ~2025 (@ 20/year we would get them ~2022) or start designing the NEXT GERERATION air superiority fighter (which will undoubtably be even more expensive than the F-22) NOW in the hope that it will be ready for full scale production by ~2025.

Who knows how long it will be until the ENTIRE F-15A-D fleet is grouned again, how many will then NEVER return to service & how expensive the "fix" (which will undoubtably be temparary until the NEXT problem to ground the fleet yet AGAIN) will be...

Posted by: pfcem at February 25, 2008 08:06 PM

DA
> Their Navy isn't nearly able to compete with ours over anything

I belive the Captian of the USS Kitty Hawk thought the same thing right before the Song class sub surfaced within the Battle Group.

NEVER EVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY>

> Our navy is already there and can be almost
> immediately reinforced by the USAF B-52s flying
> Sea Control Missions. So IF it was necessary to
> use violence our SSNs could almost immediately
> begin conducting those operations.

How many of our naval assets are currently in the South and East China Sea??? The Ships that arent already there will have to respond from Japan, Guam, Pearl and CONUS. Howlong will it take to get there? its 4500 NM from PEarl to China, at 30 knots the US forces will be there in a week. If they respond right away. How many forces will be able to respond right away?
But as the NAVY is crossing the Pacific as fast as they can CHina's sub can lay in wait for the hard chargeing US ships to comewithin range and take a few shots.

> That day, the Strategic Bombers would increase
> the capability. Within 1 to 4 days of that 1 to
> two CVNs would be present along an enourmous
> amount of ocean.

Then with 1 -2 CVN's and multiple subs sinking unarmed merchants, they wont be supporting the defense of Tiawan. Thats going to force more burden on the AF.

> China has almost no ability to defend these
> SLOC whatsoever to speak of. NONE. Not in the
> air, not on the Sea and not under.

Thats just not true. Yes, their forces are not as capable as ours, but they do have the ability to defend their intrests, and they are increasing their ability all the time. In the last year China has built 7 subs, in the same time the US has built 1!. In the nest 10 years the US will decommission 20 688 boats and replace them(hopefully) with 10 - 12 Virginia Class boats. While the newer boats are more capable, they will still be constrained by their speed, and thus area they can cover.

> However, if we did, we would certainly be able
> to get international support. China has no
> shortage of enemies and economic competitors.
> We have done this before against the USSR.

Yes, we could get folks on our side, and I would hope we work hard on this, but its hardly a given that it will happen.

> Those pipelines do not have the capacity to
> support the Chinese requirements alone.

True, but you said
"Of course the USN can stop the flow of oil to China."

I, am showing that in fact the Navy cant do as you said.

> pipelines are extremely vulnerable to
> interdiction from the air or SOF. Remember, you
> are talking about defending every cm of
> thousands of KM pipeline.

Yes, I understand the pipelines are long, but China undoubtablly knows that SO forces could attack the pipeline, and they have thus spent some time trying to deal with this. AS far as air attacks, isnt that putting more stress on the AF?

Posted by: NTV at February 25, 2008 03:47 PM

pfcem,

381 is not a minimum NEED. How is the USAF getting by now? It's a preference. They have alternatives.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 25, 2008 03:43 PM

pfcem,

381 is not a minimum NEED. How is the USAF getting by now? It's a preference. They have alternatives.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 25, 2008 03:39 PM

NTV,

"Yes, the US Navy is a mighty force, but China understands that a will plan accordingly. Will the US Navy be able to cut the amount of oil imported? Yes, Will that be able to cut imports enough? Thats a little harder to determine."

Bull crap. The pen is mightier than the sword, We don't need a navy to cut trade. Congress could do that overnight if so compelled.

"China is improving their Navy so as to better control their SLOC's ANd here again time and distance are our enemies. How long will it take the US to get enough naval forces to the region th implament a blockade?"

Their Navy isn't nearly able to compete with ours over anything. Our navy is already there and can be almost immediately reinforced by the USAF B-52s flying Sea Control Missions. So IF it was necessary to use violence our SSNs could almost immediately begin conducting those operations. That day, the Strategic Bombers would increase the capability. Within 1 to 4 days of that 1 to two CVNs would be present along an enourmous amount of ocean. China has almost no ability to defend these SLOC whatsoever to speak of. NONE. Not in the air, not on the Sea and not under.

"Further what international pressure will we face for sinking unarmed merchant ships?"

None because we would not have to do it. See the reference to Congress above. However, if we did, we would certainly be able to get international support. China has no shortage of enemies and economic competitors. We have done this before against the USSR.

"Lastly, what about the new oil pipelins into China, and also one that may be built from Russia. The US Navy will have a hard time getting at those."

Those pipelines do not have the capacity to support the Chinese requirements alone. Also, pipelines are extremely vulnerable to interdiction from the air or SOF. Remember, you are talking about defending every cm of thousands of KM pipeline. Good luck.

Regards
-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 25, 2008 03:06 PM

NTV

>>>Yes, the US Navy is a mighty force, but China understands that a will plan accordingly. Will the US Navy be able to cut the amount of oil imported? Yes, Will that be able to cut imports enough? Thats a little harder to determine.>>China is improving their Navy so as to better control their SLOC's ANd here again time and distance are our enemies. How long will it take the US to get enough naval forces to the region th implament a blockade?>>Further what international pressure will we face for sinking unarmed merchant ships?>>Lastly, what about the new oil pipelins into China, and also one that may be built from Russia. The US Navy will have a hard time getting at those.<<<

---Those pipelines do not have the capacity to support the Chinese requirements alone. Also, pipelines are extremely vulnerable to interdiction from the air or SOF. Remember, you are talking about defending every cm of thousands of KM pipeline. Good luck.

Regards
-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 25, 2008 03:03 PM

NTV,

>>>Yes, the US Navy is a mighty force, but China understands that a will plan accordingly. Will the US Navy be able to cut the amount of oil imported? Yes, Will that be able to cut imports enough? Thats a little harder to determine.>>China is improving their Navy so as to better control their SLOC's ANd here again time and distance are our enemies. How long will it take the US to get enough naval forces to the region th implament a blockade?>>Further what international pressure will we face for sinking unarmed merchant ships?>>Lastly, what about the new oil pipelins into China, and also one that may be built from Russia. The US Navy will have a hard time getting at those.<<<

---Those pipelines do not have the capacity to support the Chinese requirements alone. Also, pipelines are extremely vulnerable to interdiction from the air or SOF. Remember, you are talking about defending every cm of thousands of KM pipeline. Good luck.

Regards
-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 25, 2008 03:01 PM

DA

Yes, the US Navy is a mighty force, but China understands that a will plan accordingly. Will the US Navy be able to cut the amount of oil imported? Yes, Will that be able to cut imports enough? Thats a little harder to determine. China is improving their Navy so as to better control their SLOC's ANd here again time and distance are our enemies. How long will it take the US to get enough naval forces to the region th implament a blockade? Further what international pressure will we face for sinking unarmed merchant ships?
Lastly, what about the new oil pipelins into China, and also one that may be built from Russia. The US Navy will have a hard time getting at those.

Posted by: NTV at February 25, 2008 11:07 AM

Cole,

The rotation is for 10 AEF & the requirement for 10 squadrons of F-22 is so than each AEF has one F-22 squadron. Like I said, if the AEF that is "up" on the schedule then you have NO F-22 as part of the AEF for two weeks.

The USAF originally wanted 750 F-22, 381 is the MINIMUM they require do to what they are asked to do on a day-to-day basis - they would LIKE to have at least 1.5 suardons per AEF.

The USAF has already been cut to the bone & you just want to make it smaller & work each airframe/squadron even harder.

Posted by: pfcem at February 24, 2008 12:15 AM

pfcem,

The rotation requirement is for 10 squadrons...not 10 F-22 squadrons. The Army originally wanted more than 15 FCS brigades but had to settle for fewer due to budget constraints. The Navy would prefer 11 Carrier groups but settles for 10 due to budget constraints. We all compromise, so all can share a limited budget amount.

I was trying to explain the flexibility and advantages offered by having a compromise of 8 F-22 squadrons and 5 F-15 Golden Eagle squadrons.

If you read the earlier link and others, and look at the 20 month cycle to see that two squadrons deploy or are on call during any 4-month cycle, you could deploy:

1) 8 F-22 squadrons paired up for 4 out 5 of the 4-month cycles with one cycle being 2 F-15 squadrons...say perhaps in the winter when an attack is less likely

2) A mix of one F-22 and one F-15 squadron every cycle like I mentioned earlier...giving you fewer F-22 squadron deployments and less hours on the F-22

Air Force guys are smart enough to make it work. One AEF deployment suits most world scenarios. China represents the worst case when multiple surged AEFs solve the problem.

Time to let this thread rest. Horse beaten severely.

Posted by: Cole at February 23, 2008 03:05 PM

Vercingetorix,

Why? Again, in the context of keeping the PRC out of Taiwan. Give it your best shot.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 23, 2008 10:51 AM

DA,
You're just wrong, chief. Of course, air superiority over China is necessary. Deal with it.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 23, 2008 10:45 AM

Roy,

I was responding to your Iraq comments but somehow my post was truncated in the last post. I'm curios to know what tactics you have a problem with?

I'm in Iraq now and there aren't any problems tactically IMHO. We also don't lack for troops here either. By that I mean at any given time we have the man power to do the mission. Now I would agree that the U.S. Army needs to be expanded so that we can ease the op tempo and also deploy in strength to other area in the world. That has much higher priority over more F-22s BTW. The only legitimate criticism of OIF is that the US Government has failed to properly explain the nature of this war to people back home.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 23, 2008 07:57 AM

NTV,

Of course the USN can stop the flow of oil to China. It can stop trade to and from China. No nation has a Navy that could stop the USN from blocking it's SLOC period. There is no maybe. Thats reality and if you look into what I posted you will see that yourself.

>>>I'm not against the war in Iraq as much as I'm against the tactics we used. Too few troops to control the insurgency,maybe we should have had forces built up to the highest levels that we had in Vietnam AND Desert Storm.>>"This is why I asked why getting airsuperiority [sic] over PRC proper would even be necessary. If you look at the situation, it isn't."

Really? Air superiority isn't necessary? Are you sure you want to go with that answer, chief?<<<

Vercingetorix,

Get stuffed loser. Don't ever put words into my mouth. I clearly said air superiority isn't necessary over PRC proper. That is in the context of defending Taiwan. If you don't understand then ask a question and stop twisting peoples statements.

Regards
-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 23, 2008 07:42 AM

Cole, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DETERRING CHINA!

In fact I said the USAF requirement for 381 has NOTHING TO DO WITH DETERRING CHINA. The only relevance China has to the 381 requirent is that it is ONE of the several hot-spots around the world where the USAF may be expected to obtain & maintain total air dominance. OBVIOUSLY with the size of China's air force & SAM network more than 1 AEF would be required to do that.

From the link you posted...

"In plain language, the Air Force has taken their combat wings (Active Duty, Reserves, and National Guard), and assigned them to one of ten AEFs. For example, AEF #1 might be composed of F-15 or F-16 flying squadrons and maintenance/support squadrons from multiple bases throughout the United States (both active and reserve). When it's time for that AEF to deploy, personnel from all of these different squadrons, located at different bases, will all deploy as one large organization. Everyone knows in advance when their particular AEF deployment "window" is, based on what AEF their Wing (base) has been assigned to be part of. If a deployment is required within that window, they know that the AEF they are assigned to are going to be the ones that go. This eliminates much of the "no-notice" deployments of the past."

It could hardly have been stated more clearly, the 10 AEF are on a rotating cycle. The idea is for all AEF to be as close to equal as possible with requard to overall capabilities so that it does not matter which AEF up "up" on the schedule when called on to deploy (whether that be part of "normal peacetime" deployments or a sudden "emergency").

The last quote from the second page of the link ALSO illustrates what I've been arguing all along. An AEF is able to deploy in 48 hours with ADDITIONAL AEF able to deploy in 15 days. So if the AEF "up" on the schedule is one of those without F-22s (or whose F-22 squadron is down for whatever reason), you won't have ANY F-22s in theater for ~2 weeks until ANOTHER AEF arrives.

Again, the requirement for 381 F-22 is based on the need for AT LEAST 1 squadron of F-22 for each AEF & NOTHING to do with the number of F-22 required for any ONE specific campaign.

Posted by: pfcem at February 23, 2008 01:28 AM

I'm not against the war in Iraq as much as I'm against the tactics we used. Too few troops to control the insurgency,maybe we should have had forces built up to the highest levels that we had in Vietnam AND Desert Storm.Of course to the argument that we do not have the man(&/or woman)power to achieve that,well isn't THAT convenient.Thank you former Sec.Def.(now VP) Cheney,former Sec.Def. Rumsfeld,& Former Pres. Clinton for THAT.
We have barely a fraction of the force that the old Soviet Union had in Afghanistan.Of course we're going to lose Afghanistan.Of course the Taliban is going to get Afghanistan back.We can blame the European NATO members all we want to,but WE didn't make a SERIOUS commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan either.WE told Afghans that they couldn't grow opium poppies.We didn't offer any viable alternative,neither did WE give them a viable(& legal) market for their poppies to be used by pharmaceutical companies.
We are proclaiming "victory" in Iraq now(Deja Vu,just like WE did in Vietnam) so we can bow out gracefully & then let the Iraqi government succumb to "al Qaeda" & Iran,again,just like we did with South Vietnam.
Just what the f**k were we fighting & sacrificing our young soldiers for,anyway? ANYBODY with open eyes can easily see this.
One less B-2 Stealth Bomber & nothing whatsoever to replace it.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 22, 2008 11:35 PM

I may have misunderstood anything said about Indonesia,but I do know that their armed forces is so disorganized,that they are not a threat at all to Australia,which has a population a fraction the size as Indonesia.
Anyway,we're 1 short a B-2 Stealth Bomber today,since one of the very few we have crashed in Guam today.Maybe,just maybe,it wasn't hurt enough that they can rebuild it,if we have the technology & industrial capability to do it.If however,it's reduced to powder,then never mind.
Anyway,Russia is threatening an armed response to the Kosovo argument.While they have their balls handed back to them if they do attack(who though,who?) militarily,the threat should still be taken seriously.We're aren't talking "scripted" sneak attacks like they do on WWE wrestling or in Hollywood movies,where we all start singing patriot songs,go on war bond drives,& "MIRACULOUSLY" gear up our industries to pull ourselves out of the "jaws of defeat" & drive the foes back(even though it DOES work in the movies AND for WWE Wrestling).
Kosovo,it's south of what's left of Serbia,north of Albania.It's in Europe.It's a small insignificant place in the world that can play its part in plunging us into World War III just like in Israel,the middle East(like around Basra),the Korean Peninsula,& Taiwan.
What are we supposed to do if the shit hits the fan in all of these hot spots all at once,at the same time? IT CAN HAPPEN. Don't forget the massive terrorist attacks happening all over the "free world" with weapons of mass destruction occuring also at the same time.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 22, 2008 11:13 PM

pfcem, perhaps you can clarify. I'm still not sure how 2 AEFs deploy or on call to multiple theaters. That suggests to me that someone chooses where they will visit:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforce/a/afaef.htm

This last quote from the second page of the link above illustrates what I've been arguing all along. Once you surge F-22 squadrons with multiple AEFs, you can handle the worst case Chinese threat...especially when considering the other fighters in the AEFs, the permanently based squadrons in the Pacific, and the permanently based carriers in the Pacific.

"An AEF will be able to deploy in 48 hours—fast enough to curb many crises before they escalate. According to Air Force Vision 2020, the Air Force will be able to rapidly deploy additional AEFs—up to 5 AEFs in 15 days— providing Joint Force commanders options to begin offensive operations and halt and win Major Theater Wars.

Posted by: Cole at February 22, 2008 08:46 PM

pfcem, my point was that a single AEF's 1 squadron (or 1.5 squadrons) of air superiority fighters is not sufficient for China, but is more than sufficient for most theaters. So when trying to make a "statement," send aircraft from one F-22 squadron and one F-15C Golden Eagle squadron. Five F-15C squadrons corresponds to five 4-month cycles totaling 20 months...the USAF requirement. Rotating one squadron of F-22s as well means deploying every 32 months if you had 8 small squadrons of 18+2 aircraft. That saves F-22 airframe hours.

Practice using the F-22 to vector F-15 AMRAAM carriers (8 per aircraft)to fire and retreat before getting in lethal range where lack of stealth is dangerous. That sounds exactly like what they did in Northern Edge where they achieved 241:2 loss exchange ratios using mixes of stealthy and non-stealthy aircraft.

While deployed, practice the same vectoring with Naval and Marine non-stealthy aircraft until the F-35 is fielded. Remember DTLOMS? That is a suggested doctrinal and organizational solution as a fix for a materiel shortfall caused by insufficient funds in the budget.

Posted by: Cole at February 22, 2008 08:32 PM

Where did I say that one squadron deployed and one on call is much of a deterrent to China?

China is not the only place in the world the USAF is expected to maintain total air dominance. Hell the requirement for 381 F-22s is NOT based on deterring China. It is based on the fact that at any given moment at any give hotspot around the world the USAF is EXPECTED to provide total air dominance & with the current structure of the USAF is set up with 10 AEFs which are rotated around to provide "constant coverage" when ever/where ever it may be needed. It doesn't matter how many F-22s you have if the AEF closest to the fight doesn't have any...

Posted by: pfcem at February 22, 2008 06:35 PM

pfcem, I doubt one squadron deployed and one on call is much of a deterrent to China.;)

Guess there will be a couple of squadrons in Alaska and Hawaii and visiting squadrons in Guam. Who knows. I know that after I googled "F-22 squadron locations" that I started having problems with Google so maybe they thought I was a spy.;)

My point is that the USAF world won't end if it deploys a mixed task force of F-22s and F-15s to Guam/elsewhere and leaves the remainder of the squadron aircraft on call. It would put fewer hours on the F-22s and 5 F-15 squadrons with elements deployed during each 4 month cycle would fit perfectly into the 20 month rotation.

The US Army world will end if it doesn't get some relief soon from repeated deployments. We need a bigger Army and Marine Corps.

Posted by: Cole at February 22, 2008 05:42 PM

Cole, 381 F-22 already IS a compromise. Actually, not it isn't it is the MINIMUM of that they need to do their job, a compromise would be something MORE than 381. The USAF has stated that it would PREFER to have 1.5 F-22 squardons per AEF (which would require 500+ total) but knows that isn't going to happen.

The USAF is not out of whack with the budget, the budget is out of whack with what the USAF (as well as the rest of the US armed forces) is asked to do.

Posted by: pfcem at February 22, 2008 04:48 PM

"This is why I asked why getting airsuperiority [sic] over PRC proper would even be necessary. If you look at the situation, it isn't."

Really? Air superiority isn't necessary? Are you sure you want to go with that answer, chief?

Granted, total air superiority over ALL China is not necessary, but we had better have it over Taiwan, and unless we want to supply 1000 Patriot batteries to Taiwan, we ought to have it over the Chinese coast.

It is those mind-blowing statements (F-22 came from planet Krypton, and due to our yellow sun, is superfantastic; air superiority is, eh, good, I guess, but I'd rather have a sammich), DA, that make polite conversation with you so difficult.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 22, 2008 03:06 PM

You could fight China over Taiwan, Korea, over Vietnam, over Indonesia, over the Straits of Malacca, over Central Asia, over India; we could fight China over Siberia, in fact. We could fight Russia over Manchuria, Central Asia, the Middle East, over Eastern Europe, maybe even the Artic.

We don't even have to postulate changes of governments or anything like that.

What if, instead of our sub surfacing and sinking a Japanese boat, it sank a Chinese boat during a crisis? What if, instead of one of our ELINT planes crashed by a Chinese fighter, one of our fighters crashed, or shot down, a Chinese plane?

What if Russian Bears stop probing Alaska, and start crawling down the Chinese coast, because China is rising, and we are far away, and if China is a hostile power, she won't be looking at us first, but at her neighbors?

What if Russia or China make a play for Mongolia? Or for the Central Asian republics? What if the Central Asian Republics go out to help from a very unfriendly Pakistan or nuclear Iran or nuclearizing, recently-Islamist Turkey? What if Pakistan delivers? What if India answers?

What if India and China discuss their border disputes with J-10s and Flankers? What if China makes moves and builds bases in Indochina? What if India flanks those bases with stronger relations with Indonesia? What if piracy increases in the Straits of Malacca, so the US Navy takes control, and then that threatens China, so China overthrows a government or two?

What if South Africa, the only African great power, fills the vaccuum of Zimbabwe after Mugabe? What if South Africa expands through Africa? What if it picks up a powerful champion in Russia or China, or India, or the EU?

What if a conventional restart of the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict brings in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia? What if Israel supports Ethiopia? What if we do?

What if Iran undermines Afghanistan to the level they tried to undermine Iraq? What if Iran collapses, and Baluchistan and Kurdistan declare independence, causing both Turkey and Pakistan to declare war on Iran, much as the European powers turned on France after her revolution? What if Iraq supports Iran, or undermines her? What if Saudi Arabia supports Iran? What if we do?

You see, the world has bloody borders drawn by European grandees who cared for nothing more than divide and conquer. There will be other wars in the coming century. Some of those wars will be in strategic locations. Any one of them could draw a superpower or a great power sponsor in.

China after all has sent troops to Central America to train. They support the Sudan. What if they fought on the Sudan's side against 'rebels' in the south? What if those rebels were based in a neighboring country, such as Ethiopia? What if the Chinese bombed Ethiopia, for revenge, or to stop the flow of equipment killing their troops? What if Ethiopia asked for our help? What if, say a national concern such as the resurgence Somalia Islamic Courts which allied with the Chinese (enemy of my enemy and all), and we were compelled to supply aid to Ethiopia? What if the Chinese do something stupid, like sink a civilian ship, or we blockade all Chinese resupply, and then we are back to war.

Taiwan doesn't concern me, really. You need a primer to detonate an explosive charge. A Mozambique to Yemen to Malaysia to Taiwan demolition does. And having 'just enough to get by' attitude as far as any piece of gear, but especially for the air campaign, which will make or break our success, is foolish. We could skimp on artillery, on mortars, on body armor and on tanks, on satellite coverage, on housing, on breast implants for shipmates and on pay, but you do not skimp out on airpower and you do not skimp out on bullets, in that order.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 22, 2008 02:55 PM

> if we stop the shipment of oil to China, how
> long does a country with 1.3 billion continue
> to fight and survive daily life?

The question is, do we have theability to stop the oil? Maybe we could, or maybe we couldnt. China is building its navy so that the oil makes it through. AT this point it is anyones guess as to how this would shake out in 10 years.

> Can't picture fighting China in any scenario
> other than saving Taiwan. Can you, and why?

Thats the thing with war,it often pops up where you least expect it. On February 22, 1998 did you think that in 10 years the US would be engaged in 2 COIN operations, and that those operation had been going on for % and 4 years?

The fact is China is a growing power, politically, militarilly, and economically. As China grows their influence and thirst for resources both natural, and human, will cause conflict with our intrests. When, and where, and IF this conflict erupts into war is up in the air right now. Hopefully, we can work together and avoid armed conflict, but that may not happen.
As I have said before, Conventional military forces are a deterent, and if China looks at out Air Order of Battle, along with our naval forces and sees a weakness, then they will exploit it. In that same vein, we will exploit their weaknesses.

> What specific event would cause war with China if the Taiwan issue disappears?

Sorry to disapoint you, but there is no way to point to a specific event and say that a certian action will result. There are reasons for conflict, how the events paly out, is a unknown at this time.

> The USAF has to learn to compromise like every other service.

I would suggest to you that the USAF has compromised like evey other service in the past, they do now, and they will in the future. If they didnt there would be more than 20 B-2's, The F-22 buy would be 600, they wouldnt be tied to the F-35 with the Navy and Marines, We would already have a new Tanker, etc, etc.

Posted by: NTV at February 22, 2008 02:48 PM

Cole is right and it's what I've been saying on this and other threads in addition to the technical comparisons. If anyone doubts this, the PRC's own leaders will confirm it as well. They refer to it as the "Malacca dilemma". Just google it to see what I mean. All the gadgets in the world can win a war if the logistics arent availible to sustain the fight.

This is why I asked why getting airsuperiority over PRC proper would even be necessary. If you look at the situation, it isn't.

-DA

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 22, 2008 02:45 PM

Man, way too many negative attacks on this thread that tend to destroy credibility of otherwise outstanding posters with differing opionions.

Please stop.

NTV, while the Chinese theoretically could launch a surprise attack with something up their sleeve, even if they have initial successes, if we stop the shipment of oil to China, how long does a country with 1.3 billion continue to fight and survive daily life?

Add our own mobilization and deployments and China could not stay on Taiwan for long. Of course, this may be academic with Taiwan elections in March. Hong Kong seems to have survived under Chinese rule, and Taiwan would as well...through peaceful elections.

Can't picture fighting China in any scenario other than saving Taiwan. Can you, and why? Please no obscure references to wanting to dominate the Pacific. What specific event would cause war with China if the Taiwan issue disappears? I can envision many more reasons for war between China and Russia that would not involve us....their best trading partner.

Even with the worst case China air threat, with our F-35 fleet soon to be growing annually, it's hard to picture anyone threatening us in the air for the indefinite future.

The USAF has to learn to compromise like every other service.

Posted by: Cole at February 22, 2008 01:54 PM

Vercingetorix,

Do you have to practice being this ate up? Or did you simply overlook what I said below?

"A properly flown Raptor is for all practicle purposes invincible against any current or near term air threat. " ---DA

I purposely qualified my statements to avoid having idiots say what you just did...sigh

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 22, 2008 01:25 PM

> In the later case, ideology, you are witness to
> it right here. NTV insist that the Chinese are
> just waiting for just the right moment to send
> hoards of fighters and missiles followed by
> invasion fleets into Taiwan. He is doing that
> most likely because it is a popular opinion
> most often suggested in the media. If thourough
> research into the matter is done. You will
> find out that such a scenario is highly unlikely.

WOW, Just F'n WOW. DO YOU HAVE A CLUE???? Seriously DO YOU?????

You Think I do this out of Idelogy?? You have now clue about about me, I suggest you turn off the computer, go out side and get a big ol dose of reality.

I dont suggest a massive air attck because some joker in the Media say so, I suggest it because its a possible way to defeat technologically superior, yet numerically deficiant forces. It has worked before, and it will work in the future. Is it a guarentee of success? No, but it can be done. Futher I also realize that the Chinese are not so stupid that they wont try to develop counters to our technological superiority.

What research would say that it highly unlikely??? Like I said the Nanjing Military Region,which is accross the straits from Taiwan has over 40 air bases, if each of those bases can hadle 25 fighters, you can base 1000 planes from that region alone. YES, YES YES, there are logistical and C2 issues for China, but remember, they dont operate under US type C2 so the lack of it doesnt degrade their fighting ability. They know their limitations and operate accordingly.
Now, thats not to say that they will mass 1000 fighters at once, but when they can bring so many into the region, they can pick and choose thier battles. They can wait for the right time, and then quickly assemble enough planes to try to overwhelm a weak point in our defenses. ANd make no mistake, there will from time to time be weak points. Assuming otherwise is arrogant.

Now, I originally stated that we would need 48 Raptors to keep contnious coverage of * over the strait, another 48 Raptors would give 8 stike missions. We would need another 24 - 36 Raptors as backups and such. Thats 120 - 130 airplanes leaving 50 - 60 planes in depot, lesser maintance, for training, etc. Those reserve numbers are dangerously low. If you dont think so, I would like to know why. And yes I do understand that the US will have other planes in the mix. But the Raptor brings the most to the fight and will be the one called on the most.

Lastly, I again caution you against assuming so much, not just why I think they way I do, because quite frankly you aint that smart. Of course I aint smart enough to know why you do what you do. And neither one of us is so smart that we know what China is going to do, and what tactics they will use, and what tricks they will have.
While wecan make some good estimates of their capabilities, strengths, and weakness, our assesment is just not 100% accurate, and we need to understand that we COULD BE WRONG.

Posted by: NTV at February 22, 2008 12:24 PM

DA, your ignorance is startling. Consider the number of armored divisions that we currently field, which is way and above more than what we would field against any third-world army that we might fight, such as Iran, Venezvuela, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc, in the next twenty years.

Our armored divisions are just about invincible (!!!) according to how you'd define them. So why couldn't we get by with half the armored divisions? Why couldn't we retire a 1000 tanks?

Because we need a strategic reserve and we need to cycle those units, we need them to guard hotspots and deploy on exercises, etc.

Your insistence on invincibility of the F-22 is risible. It isn't. Nothing is. Saying so makes you a titanic fool. Disdaining the force structure of the Air Force makes your arguments risible.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 22, 2008 12:06 PM

DA,

I am not worried about China today. I AM worried about China's capabilities in 2035. My worry is that the F-22 is going to be the spearhead of any US air operation for the next 40 to 50 years. There are currently no plans for a replacement for the F-22. There aren't even plans to create any plans for the replacement for the F-22. This aircraft may end up with a service life to rival that of the B-52. We're facing an enemy with a growing economy, with a large population, that has shown a large interest in upgrading its own military capabilities.

If we cease production on the Raptor, it will not restart. I would rather invest in the Raptor today (we already have a substantial investment--I'd like to take advantage of that by buying more) than be forced to spend much more in the future to counter a growing Chinese threat.

Posted by: Brian at February 22, 2008 11:58 AM

CTR1(SW),

When I call you ignorant, it is not meant as an insult. I simply mean you may not understand a particular subject matter. In this case, you don't seem to understand that military planners do draft technical requirements and strategy based on where they think the next fight will be. There are examples of this all around. All of our modern combat jets were designed specifically to fight a Soviet era threat over Europe. Everything about them was built around that. Why do you think when some systems get here in theater, we have to modify them to deal with the environment? Why do you think we procure in the numbers that we do or in this case, used to?

I never said the DoD had prophets. But you don't have to be a prophet to know where your national security interest are and what threats are against them.

We know we arent going to face a threat like the Soviet Union in the near term and probably long term as well. We know that massed formations of tanks ect. are no longer the problem. We know that individuals and non government organizations sponsored by governments in some cases will use asymmetric warfare to fight against us. We know that the vast majority of these threats are in the Middle East and South West Asia.

Of course that can always change and a lot of people make a lot of money interpreting when those changes occur. But for all kinds of reasons, people including high ranking military officers, refuse to acknowledge it. Sometimes its because of job security. Sometimes the motivation is financial. Other times it's ideology. The point is is happens.

In the later case, ideology, you are witness to it right here. NTV insist that the Chinese are just waiting for just the right moment to send hoards of fighters and missiles followed by invasion fleets into Taiwan. He is doing that most likely because it is a popular opinion most often suggested in the media. If thourough research into the matter is done. You will find out that such a scenario is highly unlikely.

I try to hint to things so that people look into the matter themselves. Also to fully discuss the issue, it would take a dedicated web page or book and alot of experience to to explain. In short it is beyond the scope of this web page to explain it all.

I try to focus on the issues people seem so concerned with to facilitate a discussion people would be interested in. One issue in particular, the thousands of fighters in the PLAAF, I keep telling people that the PLAAF doesn't have the logistics to support a number that large in the Taiwan AO. If you look at the support facilities the PRC has dedicated to the Taiwan AO and the types f platforms the facilitate. It's immediately obvious to a trained eye that those numbers are unrealistic. If in some nightmare scenario they pulled it off. They still dont have the C4ISR to take advantage of it. Nor are their platforms suitable to deal with the opposition. We may as well be talking about 100 Mig-15's vs 10 F-teens. Those aircraft no matter how numerous, are ineffective in that fight. Sure, they may get lucky in some situations. Like an arrogant pilot deciding to enter in a dogfight while outnumbered and in a position where the Migs can use their weapons effectively for example. That would be the exception and not the rule.

More often than not, the PLAAF fighters will go down in huge numbers. Shortly after, their numbers will dwindle as their ability to support such numbers it degraded with the obvious outcome. A smaller highly motivated well trained force using the best weapons will almost always triumph over a larger lesser force.

Imagine you are a PLAN Marine survivor in a Taiwanese landing zone. You are outnumbered many times over and being engaged by armored vehicles and entrenched infantry. Where will your support come from? How will you eat? How will you communicate? China doesn't have the kind of modern day precise and responsive airpower we are so spoiled with. I know for a fact, if I get in trouble anywhere in Iraq and I need help. It's minutes or less away. I know that to be fact. For a PRC soldier, marine, airman or whatever, They don't know that. They would be gambling with their best military resources. Thats not very likely.

The assets we have including F-22s in todays numbers are more than enough to ensure any adventure like this would end in failure. Would they hurt us? Yes. Would we lose F-22s? Probably. Would we win? Almost certainly.

If the USAF wants to make a case for more Raptors they better use another justification besides fictitious conflicts. Especially this one because it's so easy to see through. If they can produce an analysis to show that fatigue will become a problem or that an actual opponent has the means to stretch our current force too thin then they should do so. So far they haven't. Neither has NTV although I respect him/her for his estimate of how many Raptors would be on station even if it was rather simplistic and lacking in enough detail for justification.

Bottom line, you can predict with reasonable amounts of accuracy who you will fight and where. At 140 million a jet you have too. The DoD has rightly predicted that 187 Raptors is more than enough to deal with the fights we would be likely to get in. Again, if a compromise was made and the number grew to a number near 250, I wouldn't be opposed to that. But certainly no more under current conditions.

I'll stop here and give someone a chance to make a counter argument. I apologize for the length of this post...;)

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 22, 2008 05:28 AM

Steve, the USAF needs 381 F-22 just to ensure ONE squadron lurking in your airspace...

THAT is the whole point behind the requirement for a MINIMUM of 381!

Otherwise ALL the F-22s could be already assigned to lurking in sombeody else's airspace or not fully operational due to training, attrition, maintenance, et cetera...

Posted by: pfcem at February 22, 2008 01:18 AM

DA:
I have read your response (February 20, 2008 08:02 AM) to my post and wish to thank you for making my point.
You indicated that “President Kennedy created modern special forces because he knew what war had evolved into.” While he did plan for the future, you failed to show where he actually was able to prophesy the exact location of a future war 17 years in the future. This was my original point.

You then resort to Battleship Admirals and failed French tactics. Again, these are issues of planning. Neither of these situations involve specific knowledge of future battle locations or foes.

As I stated, the military employs planners, not prophets. Your initial challenge was to require the military to name a specific credible threat decades in advance in order to justify military purchases. I maintain that this is impossible . . . crazy.

You may feel free to continue to consider me ignorant, but I nevertheless thank you for making my point.

As for my suggestion that you may be a hypocrite: I will recant it, but only to remove it as a talking point in future posts.

As for all of the posts discussing the expense of maintaining the military. Need I remind everyone that the billions spent on the military are dwarfed by the billions spent on the numerous government hand-outs and entitlements. Congress complains about military expenses only because it takes money away from their pet hand-outs.

Posted by: CTR1(SW) at February 21, 2008 10:54 PM

> You keep saying China has ways to neutralize
> our advantages without providing a shred of
> support for that suggestion.

What I meant to respond here was this.

I expect China to keep the couter measuers secret and not tell me. But it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that they are working on them. Our weapons systems are not invincible, they are good, but weaknesses exist.

> Also, the ABM force will buy time for offensive measures to finish off what they start.

But what happens when the when China gets thier missile attacks in before our Ageis ships in place, yes Taiwan has has Patriots, but they can be overwhelmed.

Also, remeber China's sub that got within torpedo range of The Kittyhawk. Are you sure that they cant do that again? I would suspect that China might have a few subs sitting quiet, waiting for US ships to sail to the rescue. They wont get them all, but they miht get enough to weaken our response, and what would 2-3 ships on the bottom do for Homefront support for the war? Two tings here, The lose ships will force the Navy into a more cautious operating pattern, and reduce the support that they provide, and if China is able to get the US public to be against the war then they will only have to worry about Taiwan.
China doesnt have to defeat our military, they just need to achive their goal(s).

> That 600 to 1000 fighter force of their would be savaged.

Maybe, Maybe not. They can attack from 180 degrees on the compass, and since they are so close and many of our forces will have limited time on station, they have the ability to time their attacks when our forces are at their weakest. Yes they may suffer great loses, but they may very well be prepared to handle thoose loses. They have done it before.

> advanced SAMs Taiwan and the USN send up will also take a huge toll.

China has some SAM's as well, and the S-300 and S-400 sites based on the mainland cover the entire Taiwan Strait. While obviuosly the US would spen a lot of effort to defeat the SAM's, there is no gaurantee that they would be destoyed. Thus most US planes would be unable to operate in the range of the SAM's, although Raptors would be in good shape.

> They aren't as capable as people make them out to be NTV.

Maybe, but they sure arent aas dumb as you think they are, And the US has a number of issues that you continue to ignore. But no good commander underestimates his foe.

> How many aircraft of theirs do you think can fire active radar homing weapons?

Few, if any, This is something that I have not disputed, but it would be foolhardy to think China wont do something to try and minimize our advantage in this area. Thier efforts may or may not be successful, but its ignorant to assume that China wont have anything up their sleeve.

Their C2 is of course limited, but thats how they roll. They will be at a disadvantage here, but I would bet their tactics take this into account.

> assuming we make no further advances and deploy
> no new fighters they still would need decades
> to make this feasible

Thats the issue here, I am talking about a scenario 10 years from now. In those 10 years their military will grow rapidly, probably moreso than in the last 10 years.

As Vercingetorix says, you need to learn to have more respect for your advisary.

Posted by: NTV at February 21, 2008 08:55 PM

Problem with that, steve, is that the entire airframe is part of a complicated system. The factories that put the F-22 into production are among the most advanced in the world and so to keep them ready even in a backup mode would require a vast expenditure of money.

Composites have been in use with us for a long time, such as the fiberglass of rotor blades, and can be repaired relatively easily (but these are stealth aircraft, so there are limits to quick fixes). Also, one-off re-manufactures of certain parts will certainly be possible.

But if the goal is easy support, you need to build more aircraft.

What is easier to maintain? A 1980's Lamborghini Countach? Or a 1980's Cadillac? There are lots of reasons the Caddy is easier, but one is that there are just more Caddies. More means more parts in more depots, more parts stockpiled in more shops, more parts to be raped from hangar queens, and more expertise with their maintainers.

More aircraft also mean less wear on the aircraft while maintaining that offensive capability, prolonging their lives, and reducing the cost both of acquisition and support.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 21, 2008 08:23 PM

I would never refer to it as a boogeyman or as some deep-seated conspiracy type of thing. It's just I think it's just as bad as any other big business or interest group that gets in bed with our legislative branch(and sometimes the military). It creates an unhealthy relationship at times and sometimes clouds our spending habits.

That being said, I still insist I never thought it would be cheap, I want us prepared. The tech edge we maintain means these types of systems take long times to develop and actually field. Today's manufacturing techniques are more due to CAM machinery as opposed to specialized tooling.

I don't think it would unreasonable in acquiring a system like this to basically plan on replacing X% after a decade or so. We always run into this problem, by the time we realise we need a replacement, then design, build and field it. We will have some very old(in air hours) planes indeed.

Posted by: steve at February 21, 2008 07:22 PM

DA, China has 5000 anti-aircraft guns and , they have jammers capable of neutralizing JDAMs, they have hundreds of ballistic missiles aimed at civilian targets, including some that could be armed with chemical or nuclear warheads.

They do not have to fire a single missile. What they can do is hold them in place, take the country hostage and keep us from launching deep strikes into China to shut down their airfields or harbors. They could foment a rebellion on Taiwan among their supporters and with their special operators, come to their "rescue" and as China considers Taiwan their territory, they can seriously run us for the money.

DA, you have extraordinarily little respect for your enemy, even in potential. THe F-22 is not invincible, that is the most embarrassingly foolish thing I have ever heard. And if you think that any of our enemies is just going to run at us and chin out, so we can knock their blocks off, that is the second most embarrassingly foolish thing I have ever heard.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 21, 2008 06:46 PM

Whatever the numbers end up being, it will be the stuff of nightmares that a couple of squadrons of these things could be lurking in your airspace without you really knowing it. The best clue would probably be the blackhole where your planes keep disappearing.Then there'll be that nagging problem of all those other types of planes you do know are flying around.

Posted by: steve at February 21, 2008 06:46 PM

Steve, not trying to be a jerk. But it is exhausting to continuously state the obvious. There is no third way. What you want can be accomplished for less money by buying more planes. Keeping factories tooled and warm for refurbishment costs more money, decreases the aircraft available which increases their wear, and serves no purpose. Just bite the $20 billion now to double the fleet instead of spending $40 billion over thirty years for an insurance policy.

And the cost of these airplanes is a function of capability (of course they cost more than F-15s, just as F-15s cost more than Phantoms and Starfighters) and also bureaucracy. The government extended the buy for almost twenty years. Did you think that would bring the price down?

In the link I provided before, Ike goes on about the military industrial complex that you are so in love with as a boogie man. I don't think you really have a firm grasp of what exactly he is talking about. Read it. Think about it. Get back to me.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 21, 2008 06:28 PM

> You keep saying China has ways to neutralize our advantages without providing a shred of support for that suggestion.

Well You also falsely assert that only LO aircraft
> would penetrate into PRC airspace.

Well then strap on the F-18 sport. And let us know where to send the death benefit. Non-LO planes will penetrate, but they will pay a high price, espically early on. (On that note, will a high US death toll be an issue for the US? That might be tactic China uses. maybe make the fight to bloody for America, Like you say outfox your opponent.

> Setting aside that falsehood, so what? Why is
> it in the USA interest to fly over PRC proper?

Uhh, I dont know, Maybe because it make sense to attack the enemies Command and Control, logistics, airfields and what not. Hasnt such stratagey been part of US doctrine forover 70 years? Didnt you say that the us would hit China's airfields with hunderds and thousnds of PGM's and CM's. Unless all those are CM's, penetrating the PRC's mainland is pretty much in the US's intrest. And by the way, you seem to ignore the logistical issues that I have raised concerining large numbers of cruise missiles.

> The primary task will be stopping a landing attempt or blockade of Taiwan.

Uhh yeah, I know that. But one way of winning that battle is interdiction.

Whats funny is you accuse me of not provideing evidence of my claim, but then you have a almost a whole paragraph telling what would happen to Chinas forces, and not a shred of evidence to back it up.

> Moreover, you are failing to accurately
> access the amount of air assets they could mass
> for this. It's 600-1000 fighters and bombers
> at most. Most of those are primitive. More than
> 2/3rds.

More than 2/3 are primative???

According to GlobalSecurity in the 2015 time frame the PLAAF will have the following mix of fighters abd attack aircraft.
200 JH-7
400 SU-30MKK
50 - 100 J-12
300 J-11
100 J-10
200 J-9

While those of course will be hard pressed to match and exceed the US planes they are hardly primative.
Besides thoose, they have another 1000 primative J-7 and J-8's.
And yes they will suffer loses, and they have bad command and control, but they most likely will accept those losses.

I have to run now, and maybe I will come back to this.

Posted by: NTV at February 21, 2008 06:17 PM

NTV,

You keep saying China has ways to neutralize our advantages without providing a shred of support for that suggestion. You also falsely assert that only LO aircraft would penetrate into PRC airspace. Setting aside that falsehood, so what? Why is it in the USA interest to fly over PRC proper? If we are defending Taiwan, that isn't a particularly beneficial task. The primary task will be stopping a landing attempt or blockade of Taiwan. We have plenty of aircraft in range enough to do that. Moreover, the Taiwanese airforce has systems to inflict real pain on the PRC. Let me put it to you this way. What ever initial success they enjoy, the retaliation will be beyond their means to resist with TODAYS force. They can only move 15K to 30K troops at most. That force will be utterly mauled to the point of combat ineffectiveness. They have no means to protect it. They have no ability to coordinate a force as large as you seem to think they have. Moreover, you are failing to accurately access the amount of air assets they could mass for this. It's 600-1000 fighters and bombers at most. Most of those are primitive. More than 2/3rds. They will lose the bulk of their Navy within a week or two. Any success they have will be negated logistically because they cant follow it up or SUSTAIN it.

You also completely blow off the BVR advantage. That 600 to 1000 fighter force of their would be savaged. If your point is that they could harm Taiwan and shoot down a few of our jets, I agree 100%. But they would suffer greatly for it and lose rather quickly after. The PRC isn't likely to do something like that. Its foolish and they know it.

Also, the ABM force will buy time for offensive measures to finish off what they start. If you wont do the work up on what they are up against compared to what they have to offer then you aren't going to get it. They do though and it's why they accept it.

Those 4 to 8 Raptors working with the Taiwanese, Japanese and USN would shoot down dozens of jets they can't replace each time they sortie an air raid. The advanced SAMs Taiwan and the USN send up will also take a huge toll. They dont even have adequate EW protection away from the mainland. They would be fighting deaf dumb and blind suffering unprecedented attrition.

Look into the way NATO manages air wars and what kind of comms and situational awareness that requires. Look at all the overlapping ways we have to degrade their far inferior C4ISR. We should hope they are stupid enough to try something like this.

The kind of operations they need to run require unhindered progress. half a dozen AMRAAMS suddenly diving into their formations would wreak havoc on them. We'd mission kill lots of them right then and there.

They aren't as capable as people make them out to be NTV. You really need to look at what there objective would be. I'll tell you that if they did anything. It's not going to be directed at Taiwan proper. assuming we make no further advances and deploy no new fighters they still would need decades to make this feasible.

If you are still unconvinced of your errors. Lets start with BVR weapons. How many aircraft of theirs do you think can fire active radar homing weapons? Actually, you should start with command and control. What do you think they could actually put up? Think about it.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 21, 2008 05:45 PM

Bonghits? I'd call you reactions knee-jerk, but, I think it would be more effecient to leave the knee part out.

No I haven't maintained aircraft, but, I know people who've had to refurbish them. I also have worked on enough elderly crap to know when it needs replacement as opposed to repair.

Refurbishment is always more expensive than manufacture. I'm so sorry for trying to see further down the road than 10 to 15 years.

BTW, Ollie Stone is a wacko who has done a great disservice to the truth about many subjects (actually, I've refused to even watch JFK, it was Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, in a book depository, deal with it). I don't think having concerns about a handful of big businesses having so much to do with our decision making is all that crazy. I think it's far crazier to assume they have our best defense interests at heart as opposed to their profit margin and cementing their future as a supplier.

Posted by: steve at February 21, 2008 05:20 PM

> But if you want more airframes, build more
> planes. Once you stop building aircraft, you
> don't get any more.

Yep, This leads to somethingthat hasnt been talked about, or I suppose I could have missed it.
If you buy fewer airframes, they will be flown more often,and thus they will need more repair and need to be replaced sooner. So while it might appear to be a good idea to rotate planes so that fewer planes can be used to do the same work as more planes, in the end you have more wear and tear on the airframes and quicker retirement due to overuse.

Posted by: NTV at February 21, 2008 05:13 PM

The scenario is hardly a strawman. I understand that there are other US assets that will be used. I have never said otherwise. Since this article was about the Raptor, I chose to look at the problems caused by a limited number of them. That in no way indicates that I think the Raptor is the sole weapon the US would bring to bear.

> Do you realise the differences in BVR
> capabilities between an F-15C or F/A-18E and
> potential threats?

Yes, these fighters are good, but its not hard to see that China can find ways to neutralize their capabilities, Not totally, but to at least decrease the US's advantages.

> it's inconcievable that we would lose an air battle to anyone.

" Inconceivable!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "

But again its not about the US "losing" the air battle. Its about China achieving its goal(s), which couldhappen even if they win the air battle.

> To get an idea look at how the Iraqis or Serbs > did against AMRAAM armed coalition combat jets

Again, I understand the advantage in technology the US has, but the PLAAF is more advanced than the Serbs or Iraqis, not to mention more numerous, add to that the US will be restricted due to the distances involved.

> Before the Eagles, Raptors or Super Hornets
> even move in, hundreds or even thousands of
> cruise missiles and other PGMs will smash
> opponents in their HAS or out on the tarmac.

Gee, Ya suppose China might be prepared for this?? They might have thies IADS up and running and maybe shoot at some of those CM's and bombers. Besides the only aircraft that will be penetrating CHina's Airspace will be LO. ANd some of them are going to be Raptors. Its not like we will have a whole lot of other options for the next 8 - 10 years, although we should have a fair number of F-35's by then. Also I suppose China might put some of their airplanes in civilian airports thus lessoning the impact of CM's.

> Factor in these things and your logic changes dramatically.

Not really, China has the ability to neutralize and/or reduce some of our advantages.

> the USN just told the PLA 2nd Artillery very
> loudly that it has the means to defend our regional bases.

Again, the same problem applies here as with TLAM's. After we have fired all of our ABM missiles the ships need to head back to Paerl or Guam to resupply. How long will that take them. When we fire off our hundreds or thousands of TLAM's how long will it take for the NAvy to get back to Guam and or Pearl and load? Besides if we are fighting China its likely that the Navy is going to want most of the VLS tubes to be filled with SAM's not TLAM's.

> But to be accurate you have to sample all of
> the data. That include the DoD and allied
> forces in their entirety. Not just F-22 vs
> whatever because thats not how it works in reality.

Uhh, I am aware of reality, AGAIN, I fully understand the full forces that the US can use, I was originally illustraing the limitations brought on due to a limited number of Raptors.

> Our F-22 pilots would be just as bored as our F-15 and F-14 pilots after the first week or so.

Do you suppose maybe that China might get the first punch in? Whether they gain complete strategic suprise or not, its likely that we will have to spend time getting forces into position, and as such their numeric advantages will be even greater, and our command and control will not be at its full effectiveness. In the aerky part of the war we will be playing catch up, and And if CHina plays their crads right the F-15 and F-14 piolts will be bored because China has already acheived its objectives. OTOH maybe they wont be able to. But IMO your bravado here is based on the enemy being very stupid. Which aint the case.

> This is why the most dangerous opponents we face wear towels and flip flops.

before Towels and flip flops, there was a low tech, large army that outfoxed and an arrogent and overconfident MacArthur. I belive that he thought it was inconcievable for that army to attack and beat his strong advanced army.

Posted by: NTV at February 21, 2008 05:07 PM

"We have F15s falling out of the sky because of metal fatigue in the AIRFRAME, you don't scavenge an airframe. At that point you usually are better off with a new aircraft. Also, where would you scavenge from?"

You have never maintained an aircraft, have you?

You do not scavenge airframes, you scavenge parts. Your previous post was about parts, keeping production lines open to produce parts. Those are subcontracted out, not a big deal at all, really.

But if you want more airframes, build more planes. Once you stop building aircraft, you don't get any more. That is the way it is, it is the way it SHOULD be, because it is the most efficient way to do it. Buy more planes up front, and it is easier to keep X number of planes flying, rather than half-assing the procurement process, which costs billions, and for no good benefit.

You need to tell Ollie Stone that you pass the next bong hit; the Military-Industrial complex got you down, man. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 21, 2008 04:59 PM

Vercingetorix: You obviously haven't been paying attention. We tend to keep planes in the inventory far far longer than planned. In case you missed reading the front page recently I'll speak slowly. We have F15s falling out of the sky because of metal fatigue in the AIRFRAME, you don't scavenge an airframe. At that point you usually are better off with a new aircraft. Also, where would you scavenge from? After a point you would have nothing left in the inventory that hasn't been bolted together like Frankenstein's monster.

You also have to factor in the high use of composite materials that we simply haven't had fielded long enough to know the effects of time,sun, stress, etc. We simply don't know how these planes will age, but, we do know they'll be in service for decades. To suggest that by just simply pumping out more during the initial production does not address these issues. That's why I'm suggesting it might not be such a bad idea to plan on having to make more than one production run on an aircraft series.

I love a good debate, but, you need to apply more logic to your arguements.

Have a nice day

Posted by: steve at February 21, 2008 04:37 PM

Roy,

Kosovo's independence is a massive victory for GWB and "The West" in general. Its a huge slap in the face to Russia and Putin and if unchecked, seriously undermines Russias assertion of great power status. The other scenarios you mentioned can be checked by NATO and U.S. Military power while Russia has none of those options with Kosovo. I do understand how it makes some governements uncomfortable though. But its within our means to control. As is Iraq where we are hugely successful in our goals. If you dont support the war I respect that position but we are succeeding over here and it in our interest to remain here for some time.

You do correctly mention though that F-22s have nothing to do with these real world threats that continuously appear and are conspicuously absent hoards of Su-27s and Mig-29s.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 21, 2008 04:26 PM

Oh,I completely forgot about Kurdistan declaring independence & claiming Kirkuk,which should totally drive Turkey over to the dark side.Well,I guess Turkey won't be getting any F-35 JSFs then,huh? But that also means that we'll lose our bases in Turkey AND Turkish airspace. It also means that Turkey controls the entering into & exiting from the Black Sea.If the Ukraine & Moldova joins Turkey,Russia,& Iran on the darkside,then that leaves Romania & Bulgaria on our side.But I think that they also have separatist problems & Kosovo doesn't help them any at all.
These are ALL very real world situations that should influence our military re-build up.More F-22s,F-35s,FCS,LCS,this list goes on & on.We need more troops.If we want to cut unemployment & reduce the welfare roles,we can enlist the "unemployed" into the military.This will also solve the "'socialized' medicine" problem.We need a stronger Air & Army National Guard,Coast Guard,& Border Patrol to protect our southern states & borders from the very real threat from "Aztlan" separatists.Those are the real "terrorists" infiltrating our borders from Mexico.
Off-topic,if the Serbs had been busy making more babies & not letting the Albanians out-breed them in Kosovo,there wouldn't be a Kosovo problem today.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 21, 2008 04:19 PM

Personally,I think that we will see the Aztlan Separatist movement become more militant & emboldened because of "Kosovo Independence" & it doesn't matter how many F-22s or F-35s we have,because either will make a difference for or against a domestic insurgency that crosses back & forth from Mexican safe havens(which naturally we cannot touch) like the Taliban & Al Qaeda does Pakistan or how Hamas does from the Egyptian Sinai.
Thank you George W. Bush for the Kosovo debacle.This will stick out as being the worse decision you could have ever made,worse than invading Iraq,if that is possible.
Today Kosovo,tomorrow,the Basque "Republic",Chechnya,Taiwan,& "Aztlan(made up of Texas,California,New Mexico,Arizona,& maybe Oregon,Nevada,Utah,&/or Colorado)".I didn't add Puerto Rico to this list because their independence wouldn't hurt as bad as losing upwards of 8 states to Hispanic separatists of Mexican descent.Good one George W.,good one indeed.
Now,back to how many F-22s do we really need.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 21, 2008 03:39 PM

NTV,

Your scenario was a strawman. You did not factor in ALL THE OTHER ASSETS the USAF and DoD would bring to bear. We won't just send in Raptors. Do you realise the differences in BVR capabilities between an F-15C or F/A-18E and potential threats?

I assure you if you review the threat matrix and look at which aircraft could even fire active BVR weapons and also have AWACS support it's inconcievable that we would lose an air battle to anyone. Even most Russian front line fighters lack the ability to fire R-77s.

What that means is we would be fighting airforces whos fighters are roughly equivilent to Sparrow AIM-7M technology of the 1980's! Are you familiar with AAM and radar technologies and how these missiles go about killing targets? If you aren't then please look into it. Our Airforce overwhelmingly dominate in terms of capability. To get an idea look at how the Iraqis or Serbs did against AMRAAM armed coalition combat jets.

Also, you need to look at all the ways that the DoD uses to take threats out of the air. Before the Eagles, Raptors or Super Hornets even move in, hundreds or even thousands of cruise missiles and other PGMs will smash opponents in their HAS or out on the tarmac. No opponent could withstand the types of bombardments we send. The few aircraft that do survive would in all likelihood be outnumbered and outclassed.

Factor in these things and your logic changes dramatically. Oh, and as you know by now, the USN just told the PLA 2nd Artillery very loudly that it has the means to defend our regional bases. Again, I am happy to see the way you went about drawing your conclusions because it is a good start. But to be accurate you have to sample all of the data. That include the DoD and allied forces in their entirety. Not just F-22 vs whatever because thats not how it works in reality.

Our F-22 pilots would be just as bored as our F-15 and F-14 pilots after the first week or so. Most people just don't understand how far ahead the technology gap has become across the full spectrum. If we lose a future conflict, it won't be because we don't have the technical means or numbers. It will be because we were out foxed.

This is why the most dangerous opponents we face wear towels and flip flops rather than flight suits and uniforms. The enemy knows not to challenge us in that domain.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 21, 2008 03:12 PM

Even the "duds & scumbags(our worse men & women serving)" taking up space & uniform in the U.S. military during the 80s(before drawdown) were still stronger than what our potential enemies could scrape up for themselves.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 21, 2008 03:09 PM

With world events screaming that we need a bigger & much,much,stronger military(I was in the army in the 80s & I remember what a "strong" military looked like),it seems like we are ALL suffering from Pre-911(& pre-Reagan) syndrome.In a case of "deja vu all over again," Serbian rioters broke into the,& thank God a vacant,U.S. Embassy & set it on fire.While I guess that means that Serbia won't be joining the EU anytime soon,please remember that World War I was started on smaller situations than this(although I guess some would question assassinating the Arch Duke & his wife as a "small" incident).While maybe our Armed Forces doesn't need to be increased to Cold War levels,the total size of our military during Desert Storm(including stateside,European,& Asian levels),before Cheney took a knife to it & Clinton slaughtered it,would be nice. For those who say we just cannot afford a military build up,BUT we CAN afford our government printing up money for their ridiculous social programs then,huh? Oh my God,when the cost of more F-22s cuts into welfare & socialized medicine,then you know what gets cut.
Well,its back to more bread & circuses.Baseball's starting up soon,& its such a shame that they can't find a way for football to last longer huh(Arena Football just doesn't do it for me)?

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 21, 2008 03:05 PM

Cole,

Thats right the USAF requirement for 381 F-22s IS NOT BASED ON ANY WORST CASE PROJECTED THREAT! It is the MINIMUM the USAF requires just to ensure it has JUST ONE fully operational F-22 squadron for each AEF (which is the MINIMUM it requires to do what it is asked to do on a day-to-day basis). At any moment ANY AEF could be on the front lines of a conflict that could break out ANYWHERE at ANYTIME!

And yes the neglect of USAF procurement since the end of the cold war has put it is a position that it NEEDS to replace a lot of aircraft that have rreached (or are quickly reaching) the end of their useful lives or it will be unable to do what it is asked to do on a day-to-day basis much less win a possible major conflict in the future. Unfortunatly the situation only become worse & MORE EXPENSIVE as time goes on.

No, upgraded AESA Golden Eagles coupled with F-35 and other service air dominance capabilities, to include sea and ground air defenses, are NOT sufficient for any foreseeable air and SAM threat!

Posted by: pfcem at February 21, 2008 02:57 PM

Just thought I'd add a little fuel to the fire. A properly flown Raptor is for all practicle purposes invincible against any current or near term air threat. The window of vulnerability to other fighters for a Raptor is so small that attemting to beat it in the air is futile. It flies at nearly M2.0 while cruising. Its cruise altitude is almost twice that of it's nearest competitor. Its Radar is unprecidented and also acts as an offensive EW weapon. All of this in addition to it's LO features.

Even a squadron of these planes involved in an air campaign would make huge differences.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 21, 2008 02:53 PM

Cole, in a compromise situation, you don't ask for how many you really need. :)

I don't think the Air Force will end up with 380. But it certainly makes sense to push for as many as possible. If the Air Force asks for 207, people will say "oh, can't you just make due with 183?" So you ask for 380 to get Congress to fund you up to some in-between point.

The Air Force will take as many Raptors as they can get. They'll push for the FB-22 as the 2018 bomber to keep parts production going, and they'll use that to argue that we need to buy more Raptors so that commonality of systems will make the price cheaper on the new bomber. They want as many as they can get -- that much is obvious. Will the get 380? Doubtful. But they'll try every trick in the book to get more. You don't get more by simply asking for small increases -- that makes the need look small. "We only need 24 more" translates to Congress as "please overlook us because we've got 95% of what we need". Saying "we need another 200" means "the sky is falling unless we get more, please pay attention to this desperate need". They'll get more with the latter than they would with the former.

Posted by: Brian at February 21, 2008 02:27 PM

NTV,

Why can't the USAF seek a compromise. Ask for 8 squadrons of 18 + 2 floats which would equal 160 aircraft plus the other 47 or so for overhead (same as the 7 squadron overhead figure), they could probably make a good case to Congress and DoD for ONE final year's build of 24 instead of the current 4.

Nobody would raise an eyebrow concerning the budget pressures of 207 aircraft, and the USAF would be 1 squadron closer to its 10 AEF total...and would have lots of Golden Eagles for Homeland Defense.

Posted by: Cole at February 21, 2008 01:57 PM

> gain, look at the threats. We can get by just fine with 187 Raptors.

I have, and I showed a situation where 187 Raptors would be streteched thin.

I agree that the F-35 is important. I also understand the political side here, but in the end there will ~2500 F-35's built. With the R&D cost spread amongst the whole build. If the AF cuts its buy by 200 it will have minimal effect on the unit cost.

> Just accept the fact that we don't need as many F-22's

Sorry, I am not going to "Just accept" something that isnt true.

Posted by: NTV at February 21, 2008 01:27 PM

>>>DO you really expect tghe Army to Operate at that tempo for the next 10-12 years? In all likelyhood the Army wil return to "peace time" operating tempo in ~3 years.>>As I have said before the Funding for the F-22 can come from reduceing the F-35 purchase by 150 -200 planes and giving that money to the F-22 program. The AF would get another 125 - 150 more Raptors. I belive that the AF would GLADLY trade F-35's for F-22's.<<<

Well we have never had a shortage of air superiority platforms. Again, look at the threats. We can get by just fine with 187 Raptors. The F-35 on the other hand is crucial because it is a true multirole striker of all services except the Army as well as foriegn governments. Cutting F-35s would increase the cost beyond what some allies would be willing to spend. That could have a domino effect and cause them to buy out. That would leave only a few buyers with an overpriced jet and would open the door to Sukhoi, Mig, EADs and Dassault. Definately not in our interest.

Just accept the fact that we don't need as many F-22's

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 21, 2008 12:09 PM

> But compare that to Soldiers spending 12 months
> home and 12 months deployed IN THE MUD AND
> GETTING SHOT AT and your nice-to-have need cuts
> into monies available to field and modernize a
> larger Army whose deployment and casualty
> nightmare is far more critical.

DO you really expect tghe Army to Operate at that tempo for the next 10-12 years? In all likelyhood the Army wil return to "peace time" operating tempo in ~3 years.

As I have said before the Funding for the F-22 can come from reduceing the F-35 purchase by 150 -200 planes and giving that money to the F-22 program. The AF would get another 125 - 150 more Raptors. I belive that the AF would GLADLY trade F-35's for F-22's.

Posted by: NTv at February 21, 2008 10:05 AM

pfcem:"Get a clue, the 183 (possibly up to 187 if the 4 "attrition replacement" make it into the final FY09 budget) IS NOT BASED IN ANY WAY ON USAF REQUIREMENTS, it is simlpy the number the Bush administation & congress has/had agreed to fund through the FY09 budget!"
------------------------------------

Obviously, it IS a money constraint because, as usual, USAF requirements for the very best aircraft conflict with realistic capabilities to field large numbers of aircraft.

From the following link, the 2002 author compares the F-22 to the B-2 buy...thinking he is arguing that the DoD is dumb, when in fact it illustrates that the USAF does not learn from past mistakes where it tries to cram large procurements into real-world budgetary constraints:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/july2002/07edit02.asp

"Even 339 F-22s won't be sufficient to meet USAF's needs. The Air Force would not be able to fully equip all 10 of the service's Aerospace Expeditionary Forces, according to Maj. Gen. Daniel P. Leaf, director of operational requirements. In remarks to the newsletter Inside the Air Force, Leaf noted that just providing a "bare bone" minimum of one squadron per AEF would take 381 F-22s. The preferred level of 1.5 squadrons would take 572 Raptors."

The above quote makes it clear that the USAF is not basing its "F-22 requirement" on any worst case projected threat. Rather it is based on aligning one squadron per air expeditionary force...and then piling on as many extra overhead aircraft as it can get away with.

When the overall budget will be extremely tight between 2010 and 2020 due to a Clinton decade of neglect, that the "nice-to-have" need for one 24-aircraft squadron per AEF cannot be funded during that decade without stealing from some other DoD program to the tune of another $3+ billion annually. When the overall procurement budget is $80 billion a year and the F-35 and F-22 are two of the largest quantities (a combined $10 billion currently)in that amount, not to mention upcoming needs for aerial refuelers,CSAR-X, and C-5 upgrades/additional C-17 buys...you gotta draw the line somewhere which the DoD has attempted to do.

If you end up with 7 smaller F-22 squadrons instead of 10...you upgrade 5 or so squadrons of 178 Golden Eagles with AESA radar and drive on to make up the 3 AEF squadron shortfall.

Seven F-22 squadrons and upgraded AESA Golden Eagles coupled with F-35 and other service air dominance capabilities, to include sea and ground air defenses, are more than sufficient for any foreseeable air and SAM threat. It would be nice to have one F-22 squadron per AEF so that you can continue your 20 month cycles with just 4 months of that overseas. You can still do that by sending F-15C squadrons with an AEF. But compare that to Soldiers spending 12 months home and 12 months deployed IN THE MUD AND GETTING SHOT AT and your nice-to-have need cuts into monies available to field and modernize a larger Army whose deployment and casualty nightmare is far more critical.

Posted by: Cole at February 21, 2008 09:50 AM

Roy,

That isn't an argument for more F-22's. Thats an argument for a bigger U.S. Army and more BMD capability.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 21, 2008 02:39 AM

We need to get our F-22s AND our F-35s online NOW.
Allowing for Kosovo to become independent has opened up such a large can of worms.now based on Kosovo's example,the Basque region can declare independence from Spain,Chechnya ANS Ossetia can declare independence from Russia,& Xinjiang(Chinese Turkestan AND the big tamale,TAIWAN can declare independence from China.Riddle me this brilliant minds,how do we put the genie back in the bottle? If its a choice between Walmart & Taiwan,which do you think China will choose?
I can't wait for someone to question why Russia would make such a big deal about Kosovo becoming independent.Then there will also be the "who cares" response.Well,obviously Russia,China,Spain,& Romania cares.Of course,our arrogance would cause us to ignore & pooh pooh("Can you say F-22 & F-35? We got them you don't,psssssst.") their concerns right?

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 21, 2008 01:14 AM

DA-

Yes, China has logistical issues, but I see ~35 airbases in the Nanjing military region. The region accross from Tiawan. OTOH, the US has logistical lssues itself. How much ramp space do we have on Anderson AFB? Yes, some of our teen series fighters could be flying from Tiawan, but the heavy bombers and F-22's and most likely F-35's will most likely be flying from Guam.
And yes the US has tremendous C and C advantages, as well as sigint and EW, but we are still on the bad side of Time and distance.

The J-12 is a new fighter that China is developing, I belive that they plan to have ~100 of them by the middle of the next decade. But like I said we dont really know how capable it will be and if it will be in service by then, Much like the F-35.

> How would they defend against hundreds of US
> and Taiwanese cruise missiles with all those
> jets sitting in the open unprotected on the
> limited amount of airfields they have in the
> Taiwan area.

Well I would expect that China might have some sort of air defense so they if know cruise missiles are comming. Also one would think that China might be able to get some sort of sneek attack in before the cruise missile's are launched. Next whats the US going to do after the massive cruise missile attack whan the US ships head back to Guam to get reloaded?

I am not saying that the US is going to "lose" in a conflict with China, but there are real challenges in such a conflict.

Posted by: NTV at February 20, 2008 11:58 PM

Cole are you incapable of even making a statement based in reality or is it just your anit-F-22/anti-USAF agenda have you so blinded you are unable to even see that your BS has no semblance of reality?

Yes (some of us) had a clue how good the F-22 was supposed to be in 1993. The 1993 & 2002 reviews/studys were NOT based on "then" scenarios but FUTURE scenarios.

What "lessons" about air dominance were learned from OIF? There was NEVER any threat to out air dominance in OIF (at least none in any way related to the F-22).

Get a clue, the 183 (possibly up to 187 if the 4 "attrition replacement" make it into the final FY09 budget) IS NOT BASED IN ANY WAY ON USAF REQUIREMENTS, it is simlpy the number the Bush administation & congress has/had agreed to fund through the FY09 budget!

Posted by: pfcem at February 20, 2008 11:52 PM

pfcem: "And yes the 1993 & 2002 reviews/studys did analysis (campaign & day-to-day operations based on USAF responsibilities) justifying the numbers."
---------------------------------------------
Reply: Using 1993 scenarios? Give me a break. Are you putting stock in 1993 studies that had no clue what the 2008 threat and friendly capabilities would look like? Did we have much clue how good the F-22 was going to be then..thus negating the need for as many systems? What kind of loss exchange ratios were modeled? What AMRAAM ranges were used since they are obviously longer now. Were F-35 capabilities included in the studies? Did the 2002 study include OIF lessons learned? Obviously not. I'm sure it was flush with belief that airpower beat up on Serbian infrastructure and thought airpower solved everything. OIF kind of altered that, and budget priorities, didn't it. Time to share and play nice with others.
-----------------------------------------------

pfcem: "There is no discrepancy between 240 & 381 you just haven't done the research (or are capable of understanding) why the number is 381 even when 10 active squadrons of 24 totals "just" 240. But here are some hints & examples...There are "only" 5 players on the floor per team in basketball yet both teams have more than 5 players on the roster/at the game. There are "only" 9 players on the field (at least on defence) in baseball yet both teams have more than 9 players on the roster/at the game. There are "only" 11 players on the field per team in football yet both teams have more than 11 players on the roster/at the game. The 141 "additional" aircraft are for things such as training, attrition, periodic aircraft depot maintenance, et cetera..."
-------------------------------------
Reply: The difference between 7 squadrons of 20 yielding 140, and 187 F-22s the DoD is currently allowing is just 47....not the 121 difference between 260 and 381. So why is the DoD able to figure out a more reasonable level of overhead while the USAF exaggerates the stated requirement?
---------------------------------------

pfcem:"The USAF could give a rats ass as to land & sea capabilities that supposendly achieve air dominance, their requirent is based on what THEIR responsibilities for air dominance are."
----------------------------------------
Reply: Pretty obvious that attitude predominates some in your service. I'm gonna get mine...screw the rest. Other services ask for $9 billion on top of current budgeted amounts. The USAF insists it needs $19 billion...for the next 5 years on top of normal requirements.

I read the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. It's considerably more current than requirements generated back in 1993 and 2002. It talked about funding the F-22 through 2010...not longer. It also talked extensively about the long war...something the F-22 does not contribute to much.

Also read that the USAF pooh-poohed the 2006 OSD Joint Air Dominance Study that actually tried to point out that air dominance isn't just a one service effort. All service aircraft contribute to requirements to defeat the air threat, but that doesn't help the USAF cause does it?

If you read the link about Northern Edge that someone supplied, it points out how the F-22 was able to