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 vector non-stealthy aircraft to targets. Using your imagination, instead of the taxpayer checkbook, you could project a capability to maintain some F-22s on station using aerial refueling even once out of AMRAAMs, because they could continue to steer sortie after sorties of carrier and land based F-35s AMRAAM carriers to massed air targets.

Such TTP solves some of the problem of having to return many hours to Guam to rearm. Ever hear of DTLOMS? Services should attempt other doctrinal, training, leader, organization means of solving problems...prior to exercising the materiel solution. The USAF should try it some time. Other services do.

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2008 09:10 PM

I have to go back to Kosovo.This is a major deal for Russia.They are betting their prestige in backing Serbia over the Kosovo independence debate.They CANNOT,like it or not,allow their dicks to get stepped on over this,it's a matter of pride.It's a matter of pride for their weapons industries.Since they know that American technology is superior to theirs & that American forces are probably better,they have to plan a more asymmetric response.Russia,Putin cannot back down from this,no matter what the wags here say.I must quote a line from the movie "Jarhead" to the people saying that Russia & China will not sacrifice their economies in fighting the U.S. & the West in a war,conventional or otherwise.The line is this,"F**k that S**t!!!!"
I believe that you will see the long "predicted" Gog/Magog alliance forming over this U.S. & Western attempt to step on Russia's dick concerning Kosovo.
From Stratfor.com
"The decision to recognize Kosovo’s independence in the face of Russian opposition undermines Russian credibility. That is doubly the case because Russia can make a credible argument that the Western decision flies in the face of international law — and certainly of the conventions that have governed Europe for decades. Moscow also is asking for something that would not be difficult for the Americans and Europeans to give. The resources being devoted to Kosovo are not going to decline dramatically because of independence. Putting off independence until the last possible moment — which is to say forever, considering the utter inability of Kosovo to care for itself — thus certainly would have been something the West could have done with little effort.

But it didn’t. The reason for this is unclear. It does not appear that anyone was intent on challenging the Russians. The Kosovo situation was embedded in a process in which the endgame was going to be independence, and all of the military force and the bureaucratic inertia of the European Union was committed to this process. Russian displeasure was noted, but in the end, it was not taken seriously. This was simply because no one believed the Russians could or would do anything about Kosovar independence beyond issuing impotent protestations. Simply put, the nations that decided to recognize Kosovo were aware of Russian objections but viewed Moscow as they did in 1999: a weak power whose wishes are heard but discarded as irrelevant. Serbia was an ally of Russia. Russia intervened diplomatically on its behalf. Russia was ignored.

If Russia simply walks away from this, its growing reputation as a great power will be badly hurt in the one arena that matters to Moscow the most: the FSU. A Europe that dismisses Russian power is one that has little compunction about working with the Americans to whittle away at Russian power in Russia’s own backyard. Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko — who, in many ways, is more anti-Western than Russian President Vladimir Putin and is highly critical of Putin as well — has said it is too late to “sing songs” about Kosovo. He maintains that the time to stop the partition of Kosovo was in 1999, in effect arguing that Putin’s attempts to stop it were ineffective because it was a lost cause. Translation: Putin and Russia are not the powers they pretend to be."

Whether by backing increased terrorist attacks,& in fact arming the terrorists,against the west,or a preemptive nuclear strike,Russia CANNOT back down,whether the end result is Russia's suicide or not.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 20, 2008 08:00 PM

Cole, ha ha ha...

750 was the requirement at the beginning of the the program during the COLD WAR! With the end of the COLD WAR the requirement was reduced to 648 in 1991, then (after a Bottom Up Review) to 442 in 1993/94. ALL subsequent reductions down to 178 were PURELY budgetary by CONGRESS (not the USAF) & had NOTHING to do with USAF requirements. The USAF requrement was still for 442 until 2002 when a new USAF study concluded a need for 381 (not much difference from 442 by the way & most definitely related to a reduction in active squadrons from 12 in 1993 to 10 in 2002).

And yes the 1993 & 2002 reviews/studys did analysis (campaign & day-to-day operations based on USAF responsibilities) justifying the numbers.

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...

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.

Posted by: pfcem at February 20, 2008 06:30 PM

NTV,

Are we having the same discussion? What 100 J-12 are you talking about? The PLAAF doesn't have such a fighter. If you mean J-10, its nothing special. In fact they can barely steal the technology to make an engine for it. This is important. We are talking about a nation who's tech level is barely able to make a failed attempt at their own modern jet engine. They could not even attempt an unopposed landing of division size. Also, how are they coordinating these thousands of planes in the air? How would they avoid fratricide? 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.

I know they would not be able to do something like this. If they did, it would be lambs to the slaughter.

-DA

Posted by: darthAmerica at February 20, 2008 06:04 PM

ntv,

have you factored in ramp space, fuel and command and control for the numbers you listed? I assure you when you do, you will come away with a different view.

Those numbers in isolation, are meaningless in the context of a war with Taiwan. Also if you factor in thing like EW and ability to fire active radar guided missiles, you will see the vast majority of those PLAAF planes are cannon fodder. They would be in a worse position than Serbian Migs in 1999.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 20, 2008 05:37 PM

Cole @
> NTV, your analysis is exactly why we need F-35
> capabilities off of carriers and F-35 VTOL
> capabilities for limited shore-expedient sites.

I wholeheartedly support the F-35. It is however not an air superiority fighter like the F-22 and as such cant do what the F-22 can do. Besides the Navy will have enough to do, both in fleet defense and strike missions.

DA

I realize that the F-22 wont be theonly plane availible, and that its capabilities are unmatched, but if youlook at the numbers that China is able to bring to the fight, the outcome isnt a clear as you seem to think. 5-10 years from now China will have 700-800 SU-27/SU-30's, 400 - 500 indegiounus and slightly less capable aircraft, ~1000 Mig21 type aircraft, and ~100 of their new J-12 fighter, who knows how good that will be. Now, they obviously have the same issues as the US has with respect to readiness levels and regenration times, but they stll have a distinct numerical advantage, and they have a distance/logistical advantage over US forces. They can mass thier forces along 500 miles on the mainland to attack Tiawan from almost 180 degrees. This forces the US/Tiawan to defend a lot of airspace, and even at supercruise the Raptor will have trouble controlling the whole area.

> They know thats is a losing proposition.

Well, the question really is "What is China's version of victory?" While the PLAAF might not want to go toe to toe with the US, Its not their call. The broader goal of China's leaders may sacrifice a lot of the PLAAF for a successful outcome. The PLAAF may in fact get chewed up, but if an invasion is a success, or at the very least Tiawan cedes to China's leadership, they have accomplished their goal.

> You scenario does show why missile defense and
> long range bombers and SSGNs should have much
> more importance though.

The problem is we have only a limited number of long range bombers, and they would only be capable of a handfull of missions a day. And no alternative/Suplamental bombers will be ready for 15 years, thus increasing the need for more F-22's. ANd WHile SSGN's are good after they fire off their ~100 TLAM's they are out of the fight for a week or two until they have reloaded.
Unfortunatly, in a conflict with China the US is limited by logistics and thus we will be hard pressed to keep the persistant airpower necesary to deny China from achiveing thier goals.

Posted by: NTV at February 20, 2008 05:01 PM

"If you build more initial aircraft that won't help once they get into use and you start logging hours of stress on the airframe."

Precisely wrong. More aircraft means more parts.

If one aircraft goes down, you cannabilize the parts off of that to keep the other ones up and running. Having fewer aircraft reduces the total number of parts, reduces the total amount of opportunity.

Just supply and demand. Elementary stuff.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 20, 2008 04:56 PM

"just build more aircraft"

If you build more initial aircraft that won't help once they get into use and you start logging hours of stress on the airframe. You can't just throw them into storage either, it's better for machines to see use as not. Factor in shutting down the assembly line after a few years and you should see the problem I'm trying to address.

Posted by: steve at February 20, 2008 03:53 PM

NTV,

I agree with you if the only fighter in the inventory was the F-22. But it isn't. We have hundreds of very powerful fighters plus allies commited to that scenario in reality. The F-22 will not be the only platform in the air. Moreover, whenever it is in the air, it will greatly enhance the SA and lethality of other fighters fighting with it.

h*tp://www.afa.org/magazine/april2006/0406raptor.asp

ht*p://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw010807p1.xml

The USAF isn't going to use it's Raptors the way legacy fighters were used. Almost everything is different with this plane. You can look at the number 183 vs x amount of red air because it doesn't work that way.

I do salute you for at least thinking through what you posted rather than emotionally posting irrelevancies. Believe me, the PRC/PLAAF does not want a fight in the air with U.S. Fighters over the strait. They know thats is a losing proposition.

The PLAAF would have it's hands full just to get air superiority against the Taiwanese. Add in U.S. Raptors and other jets and you can just about forget it.

Also, in the stages of conflict you mention. The F-22 priority will be air to air. You scenario does show why missile defense and long range bombers and SSGNs should have much more importance though.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 20, 2008 03:43 PM

NTV, your analysis is exactly why we need F-35 capabilities off of carriers and F-35 VTOL capabilities for limited shore-expedient sites.

We cannot count on Japan or South Korea allowing us to conduct military operations in support of nearby conflicts that do not affect them. Even if they do give us permission, our/their bases are subject to missile attack. We CAN count on Guam, Alaska, and Hawaii but they are far away, as you point out. Aerial refueling fixes the fueling problem but not the arming one.

The sea-basing capability is an essential part of our overall air dominance effort.

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2008 03:31 PM

pfcem, I worked in combat developments for 5 years in the military and one year as a civilian and know exactly how the the "requirement" numbers game is played/manufactured. Check out this link at the bottom of the page and note how "requirements" have evolved over time....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-specs.htm

- 750 aircraft initial program objective (why was this number not the requirement instead of 381?)
- 648 aircraft as of 1991(why was this number not the requirement instead of 381?)
- 442 aircraft as of 1993(why was this number not the requirement instead of 381?)
- 339 aircraft as of 1997, between 1998 and 2013 (why was this number not the requirement instead of 381?)
- 275 aircraft as of 2003, under $37.3B budget cap
- 178 aircraft as of December 2004
- 183 aircraft as of December 2005
- 187 aircraft as of January 2008

Claimed need of 381 aircraft for 10 squadrons @ 24/squadron.

No campaign analysis explaining why we need one squadron per Air Expeditionary Force. Just a marriage of convenience.

No campaign analysis explaining why a squadron of F-22s must be the same size (24 aircraft) as a half-as-capable F-15 squadron and two-thirds as capable F-35 squadron (I can make up numbers too).

No explanation of the discrepancy between 240 and 381 in terms of actual numbers of each and why they are required. Again, part of it is unwillingness to clean up the USAF safety act and not write off pilot error as a cost of training.

I doubt any consideration was made of other air, sea, and land capabilities that achieve air dominance.

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2008 03:24 PM

DA-
This is what I posted on another thread.

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.

Posted by: NTV at February 20, 2008 03:16 PM

"no one has ever posted a credible scenario where the Taiwanese or allies including the USAF/USN lose due to numbers."

Exactly who are you to judge "credible"?

If you answered anything other than, 'shucks, no one,' you are wrong. If the Chinese do anything, they will have taken steps to neutralize our major assets. It could be sinking a carrier, it could be sinking a tanker at the entrance of its harbor, so it cannot get out, or it could be cyber-sabotage, etc.

The point is that nobody cares about your opinion in regards to the legitimacy of the scenarios. If the Chinese somehow want to do it for whatever reason, I am quite sure they can, to hell with your green army men and crayoned-in battle maps, Cmdr Doofy.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 20, 2008 03:12 PM

"I still believe there's got to be a better way to procure such long lived weapon systems than what we do now."

Yeah, build more aircraft. You get more parts. Simple.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 20, 2008 03:04 PM

NTV,

Your assessment is wrong. A conflict in Taiwan would hardly stress our military if we choose to intervene. I've debated this many times and no one has ever posted a credible scenario where the Taiwanese or allies including the USAF/USN lose due to numbers. Thats WITHOUT RAPTORS. With them it's much worse for the Chinese. Not that they would do anything as stupid as attempt to invade Taiwan. But if they did, they would be cut to pieces in the air.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 20, 2008 02:53 PM

Agreed. It also doesn't help that our military has to ask for huge numbers just to get anything or how congress has been shoving another engine design down the F35's throat.

I guess my main point on acquisition, is that with modern aircraft, it seems like we'll see any particular design for 30 to 40 years. It would just seem logical to prepare for that.

Posted by: steve at February 20, 2008 02:29 PM

Steve, the real problem with our procurement policies seems to be (to me, anyway) the constant changes pushed for by various interest groups and enabled by Congress.

Originally we were supposed to have 750+ Raptors. Those numbers were eventually cut to the 183 we see today. From Lockheed's perspective, any initial order placed by the US government is going to be viewed with some degree of skepticism. "Yeah, they're ordering 800 today. In a year, they'll only want 20." That plays havok with any real attempt to accurately price a piece of equipment. It's not the defense industry screwing the taxpayer (usually) -- its our can't-make-up-their-minds elected officials acting crazier than Britney Spears. What we need is a more stable approach from our government. We need Congress to act like they're not bipolar.

The costs on a fighter like the F-22 are always going to be high. It's got the best technology in the world. It's the Playstation 3 of jet fighters. And, like the PS3, its cost will go down if we keep producing it. It'll never be as cheap as one of the F-teen series, but that's because its got better stuff. If we were to have a real commitment from Congress, however, we could get the price really low, even affordable.

I don't wanna order 380 at $175M apiece. That's insane. I DO think, however, that ordering 380 (not that we'll get 380, but we can push for that as a goal) with an ever-decreasing price would be a good purchase. Like you, I don't want to see us having this same discussion in 20 years. "What will replace the aging F-22?"

Posted by: Brian at February 20, 2008 02:25 PM

Still waiting for ANYBODY to explain how they get any number other than the 381 the USAF requires...

By the way, the 381 requirement comes from a September 2002 Air Force study & that the DOD’s 183 total is not supported by any rigorous campaign-based analysis. ;)

Just because you fail to do ANY research as to &/or fail to understand the reasons for the 381 requiremnt does not mean it does not exist.

Posted by: pfcem at February 20, 2008 02:12 PM

You misunderstood my intention, I'm not trying to save money, I'm trying to see us not have an entire class of fighter being grounded with no real replacement options I also know it's foolish to think they could pump out modern combat craft quickly. I still believe there's got to be a better way to procure such long lived weapon systems than what we do now.

Posted by: steve at February 20, 2008 01:57 PM

> I still haven't heard much to dispute my
> original points, the chance of a China-Russia-
> US hoedown are remote,

Well, yes it is of course remote. But thats not really the issue. During the cold war we spent a lot of time, money and energy prepairing for the rather remote chance of full scale nuclear war. The reason for this was of course deterence. We made the Soviets undestand that wageing nuclear was was unwinable for them, furthermore nuclear war was a possible outcome of conventional war between the two superpowers. Now, I am not advocating nuclear saber ratteling with respect to China, but what I am saying is that conventional forces are a deterent as well. Thus it makes sense to spend money on high tech weapons to show the world that wageing conventional war against us is a loseing proposition. In the end a strong capable military is as usefull detereing war as it is for winning wars.

Posted by: NTV at February 20, 2008 01:52 PM

"Here's an idea, why not put clauses in military contracts of this magnatude {sic} that state the manufacter {sic} has to be able to keep producing the equipment x amount of years or decades after the initial purchase?"

Cannot get something for nothing, steve. What you'll do is then increase the cost of every contract. As a cost savings measure, that isn't what you wanted.

"This isn't to keep the assembly lines open per se, but, make the manufacterer {sic} keep all the required specialised {sic} tooling on hand for emergency use."

Great, so they have the tooling, but do they have the people? No, because those people are now working on another project, or laid off, or working somewhere else. As has the entire factory, which is now producing 787s or whatever. It is not just about keeping the dyes or casts or computer programs and CAD schematics. It is about keeping the expertise and the potential to restart the assembly process.

So by requiring the manufacturer to keep the aircraft production (potential) alive, you effectively require them to staff a factory for x number of years. Which means the per unit cost goes sky high. And you pay only for that insurance, without any extra aircraft.

Now, we've played similar games for almost 20 years with the F-22. That same type of magical something-for-nothing thinking has boosted the price high enough already.

And to your supposition that war with China and Russia are low probabilities, it is certain that we have not seen the end of war. There is an equally low probability that any country in the world will be attacked by Russia or China or India or the US or the EU. But any conflict can escalate.

You never addressed my scenario with Turkey. What if it's long regional rivalries bring it into conflict and that conflict brings in the great powers. That is just one actor in one hot-spot. Who could have predicted the Falklands? Who could have really predicted Afghanistan? What if Russia recovers economically like China? Will it be so forgiving of our presence in Central Asia or the Ukraine? We could face another protracted struggle supplied by a superpower's entire defense industry, if not their actual troops.

You cannot predict the future. BTW, it was Ike that coined the term "military-industrial complex"

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 20, 2008 01:52 PM

I would expect to pay a little more. However, I find it difficult to believe it takes that much training to take someone off the production line of one type of plane to another. A riveter, electrician, what have you should be able to work on another type of craft after bringing them up to speed.

But, I think we can agree, that the way we procure some things now is pretty messed up. When you factor in that a major system like this will be in service for a couple of decades at the very least, perhaps we should include some planning for replacement of units down the road. The only major problems with our current fleet isn't so much technological, but, the airframes themselves being old and tired. How much better shape would we be in right now if we factored in to replace F15s, 16s, and 18s one for one when they reached a certain number of hours. From where I sit, we''ll be having this same arguement about the F22 in 15 or 20 years when they start getting old and we're in limbo waiting for the next plane to finish the development/acquisition phase.

Posted by: steve at February 20, 2008 01:47 PM

> So in a highly unlikely worse case if a war
> were to break out in Iran tomorrow and then the
> Taiwan strait the next day. A force of 183
> Raptors would have enough assets to deploy in
> strength both places, suffer attrition and
> still achieve the objectives with enough
> Raptors left for a third scenario!

When you look at a scenario like you pose you have to consider things like distance from operating base, aircraft regen time, aircraft availibility rates, and how many aircraft are in depot. I did a quick run down of the number concerning Tiawan here recently, and in the end the Raptor force would be spread thin dealing with Soley with China. There would be little strategic reserve and thus little ability to deal with other emergencies. Capping the number at 187 while buying more F-35's makes little sense when the price difference between the two aircraft is 30 - 45 million.

Posted by: NTV at February 20, 2008 01:40 PM

Steve, that's a fine idea. Just be prepared to pay more for each piece of equipment. Sometimes a lot more.

Restarting production means retraining people. Sometimes companies that make individual parts will go out of business, etc. I'm not sure if its really feasible to do it like that.

Posted by: Brian at February 20, 2008 01:34 PM

Vercingetorix: The battalion analogy isn't quite right, that's a matter of organization and structure, it's more like deciding how many battalions of a certain type we need.

The squadron numbers based on the 183 plane figure seem pretty sound especially with it's limited role.

Here's an idea, why not put clauses in military contracts of this magnatude that state the manufacter has to be able to keep producing the equipment x amount of years or decades after the initial purchase? This isn't to keep the assembly lines open per se, but, make the manufacterer keep all the required specialised tooling on hand for emergency use. That way if something unforseen happens like with the F15, we can at least get some planes coming out instead of being caught between generations like we are now.

Posted by: steve at February 20, 2008 01:23 PM

Roy and DA,

The ARH is the real deal. Just talked to one of its test pilots the other day. Here's a picture:

http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/200827231631.aspx

The aircraft the ARH will replace, the OH-58D, performs yeoman's work every day in Iraq, just as it would in any conflict from insurgency to major theater war. Over this and any other long war, it supports ground troops up close and personal which is often the only way to fight for information.

I like Strategypage, and his observations here about the F-22:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20080220.aspx

And don't forget to read about Chinese weaknesses in his other article:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/articles/20080220.aspx

Hope everyone followed how helpless this multi-billion person nation became when they lost power during a recent snowstorm leaving millions stranded. You probably recall the internet lines being cut in the Mid East. Wonder how well the Chinese will hack into our computers, and communicate without electricity or the internet?? ;)

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2008 01:08 PM

Well, if I'm a tinfoil-hat wearing SOB, then I'm in good company, was it Truman or Ike who warned us of the military-industrial complex?

Yes, I must be paranoid to think big (okay, ginormous) business may not have our best defense needs at heart. Yes, I'm crazy to think that some congressman or senator might only be thinking about the factories in their areas as opposed to sound aquisition strategies.

You're right, no former general or admiral has ever gone onto big salaries in the defense industry right after they retire.

The fast that you say extreme things like "automatic flame war" if someone mentions it shows you are a poor debater. Which is sad since our system works better when we don't agree with each other all the time.

If you knew anything, a 5k toilet seat doesn't sound like waste, it sounds more like someone was fudging the books to fund a black program.

I still haven't heard much to dispute my original points, the chance of a China-Russia-US hoedown are remote, we'll be slogging it through the Third World for the forseeable future, we only need a relatively small number of Air Dominance fighters, and that general should have kept his piehole shut and not disagree with set policy in public.

Next time try taking half a Prozac at a time.

Posted by: steve at February 20, 2008 01:07 PM

"Its called compromise guy." It's called cowardice. If we need more, we need more. If not, then not. Make a point. Which you did...

"Fill us in, sport, on why the USAF thinks 381 is essential???"

This is rather silly. Why do battalions have around 400 soldiers? After all, we rarely ever encounter more than platoon strength in insurgencies...

But it isn't about the raw number. It is about attrition of the fleet, updating the fleet, having assets in place for rapid response and maintaining a strategic reserve.

Over and again, you miss the importance of having a strategic reserve. Many of the legacy airframes will be phased out.

But, if the possibility of fighting a big conventional war with a peer or near-peer, or even a competent adversary, is out of the question, Cole, then what is the justification for stealth aircraft at all?

Surely stealth aircraft are only used at the beginning of a conflict, and if war is impossible (MAD!!!) anyways, then let's throw off these stealth albatrosses, let's retire the F-117s, the B-2s, and go back to Jammer aircraft exclusively.

But I think you will find that ship has already sailed. Stealth is here, we need more F-22s to manage our responsibilities, intelligently.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 20, 2008 01:06 PM

pfcem said: "I have seen the number 250 thrown out a half dozen times now as the "right" number of F-22s..

SOMEBODY, ANYBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE HELL YOU COME UP WITH THAT AS THE RIGHT NUMBER!!!

The USAF has given the REASONS why it requires 381. NOBODY else have give ANY justification for ANY other number."

Its called compromise guy. I know that's somewhat of a foreign concept to you...founded in most folks concept of reality.

Fill us in, sport, on why the USAF thinks 381 is essential??? Incontrovertable? Why will the defense of the USA fail without those extra 200 F-22 aircraft when thousands of F-35s are waiting in the wings along with ground and sea integrated air defenses??

The current 187 F-22s supports 7 squadrons of F-22s at 18 + 2 extra floats (or whatever the Air Force calls them), plus an additional 47 for training and "overhead."

The USAF says they need 10 squadrons of 24 + 2 which is 260...presumably so they can rotate squadrons with parent Air Expeditionary Wings. Wouldn't want the USAF to endure longer than a 4 month overseas tour after all...like other services. But wait, most Wings that support current conflicts don't need F-22s at all because as has been pointed out repeatedly. The aircraft are essential in relatively few high threat scenarios for the limited amount of time required to gain air dominance. Then back to chasing airliners/Bears and wearing out the airframes by practicing dogfighting instead of more realistic long range AMRAAM shots without all the dramatic g-forces.

Why the USAF needs a 24 ship F-22 squadrons with an aircraft far superior to the current F-15 is a mystery. How they get from 260 to 381 is an added mystery. Guess they are telling us they plan to continue crashing 4 a year like they did the F-15. Let's see....$640 million annually lost to mistakes/overaggression during training for dogfighting scenarios that are out of date.

But wait. What about those 178 Golden Eagles that were to get AESA radar and other upgrades. Divided by 24 that probably yields about 5 or 6 squadrons plus training and "overhead."

So now we have, with current plans, 12-13 Air Superiority fighter squadrons, however many F-15E squadrons we still have, plus at least 50 or so USAF and USN/Marines squadrons of coming F-35s...and leftover F-16s and F/A-18s. Don't forget the B-2s, B-1s, cruise missiles, and ATACMS to bomb airfields. After all, facing thousands of enemy fighters means little when the enemy rapidly loses their airfields to land on, and gets bombed on the ground.

Who did the study that determined all these numbers were insufficient to dominate the air for the indefinite future against any realistic threat? Don't claim two simultaneous major theater wars. Aside from it being fantasy, it remains achievable by knocking out the threat in one theater, then the other, back to back. What are the odds that you MUST knock down thousands of fighters and destroy hundreds of SAMs simultaneously in two theaters over the same two week span. Otherwise you dispatch them one at a time.

Kind of sounds like a workaround that ensures the defense of our nation against any/all air/AMD threats, while freeing funds in the coming decade for other essential needs.

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2008 12:29 PM

Commanche Helo's were replaced by UAVs in that role. And it was a very good trade.

-DA

Posted by: darthamerica at February 20, 2008 12:03 PM

Steve,

We have a lot better weapons now than we did then.

I am not worried about some foreign country defeating our Air Force in the future. What I am worried about is us stretching our Air Force too thin. It's expensive to buy airplanes. Everyone can agree on that. It's only going to get more expensive in the future. I think that buying only 183 will be a decision we regret in 30 years. The more we buy now, the longer the Raptor can stay in service. If we buy 380, it can stay in service until the 2050s. If we buy 183, I think it will have to be replaced long before then. That means building a new aircraft, with new development costs, and a lot more spending than simply buying more F-22s.

If we buy 183 Raptors, and then close down production, we're counting on the same sort of low-intensity conflict that we've seen over the past few decades continue to be the norm. We're counting on no real combat losses. We're counting on the next few decades to be pretty much like the last few decades. I think that's a big risk to take when we can, for relatively little additional spending, provide our Air Force with a much higher degree of "insurance".

The Raptor has, to a certain degree, become a victim of its own success. As pilots determine just how good the F-22 is, critics have used this as an excuse to claim we need a smaller number. The expectation now is that a Raptor will never be shot down, that having a few Raptors in your Air Force is like having Superman on your side. Some think we only need 183 Raptors because they are so damn good that 183 will be more than enough. While I love the plane, I don't think they are invincible. We need spares.

Posted by: Brian at February 20, 2008 11:55 AM

Once agains Cole, you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge &/or understanding of reality...

Posted by: pfcem at February 20, 2008 11:36 AM

"I think this is the kind of thing we were warned about the military-industrial complex."

Next grassy-knoll third shooter conspiracy theorist that says "military-industrial complex", and the F-22 threads automatically become flame-wars from now on.

Maybe we should build our fighters from wicker baskets, you know, grow them from baby wittle seeds. Get out of the Military-Industrial Complex! Unconstitutional! Ron Paul!

Or maybe the civilian government, the Bridge-to-Nowhere, $5000 toilet seat crowd, maybe they are responsible for extravagance in government contracts. Couldn't be, could it? Government responsible for government waste? Has to be greedy capitalists in penguin-tails and top hats in cahoots with jackbooted generals, right?

Take off the tinfoil, read "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shales. Then come back to us. Christ, what morons.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 20, 2008 11:35 AM

Steve, your post was execellent in its accuracy, candor and brevity. People just don't understand how far ahead logistically and technologically the US Military is compared to any nation. While I agree we must be prepared to fight a contigency. We also have to prioritize and prepare for the most likely of those contigencies with limited resources and time. Not doing so is irresponsible.

The vast majority of conflicts we are likely to see ourselves in are low intensity warfare/peacekeeping in places like the Middle East, Africa, South America and of course South West Asia. No country in these regions could withstand even just a wing of Raptors and we could deploy two with more Raptors in reserve.

So in a highly unlikely worse case if a war were to break out in Iran tomorrow and then the Taiwan strait the next day. A force of 183 Raptors would have enough assets to deploy in strength both places, suffer attrition and still achieve the objectives with enough Raptors left for a third scenario! Lets say, Korea perhaps. And you would have to really stretch the imagination for all of that to happen by surprise and at the same time.

So lets be realistic when we discuss this please. 183 Raptors is a very practical number if you deal in reality. I can see a small increase in Raptors. But any more than 48-72 more is not worth it when we have so many other ways to spend the money.

In a lot of ways, the USAF is in the same position the USN is. Both organizations completely control their domains and almost absolutely.

-DA

Posted by: darthamerica at February 20, 2008 11:30 AM

Oh,since our Kiowas are being severely degraded & run down into the ground,& it doesn't look like the less expensive replacement COTS Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter is anywhere in sight,just how smart was it,& how much "money" did we save by canceling the Comanche anyway? How much money did we save by canceling the Crusader Howitzer? Will our forces ever see the M109A6 Paladin PIM,or is that also a "relic" that can be scrapped?

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 20, 2008 11:28 AM

Why won't Russia & China become allies? Why won't there be an attempt to bring down the economies & independent sovereignties of the "Old World Order" Nation-States? Why will there not be a large scale nuclear holocaust to reduce the world's human population to a more manageable level of 500 million souls? Why won't there rise out of this chaos a "New World Order" One World Government,either run by the UN or EU? Why won't any of this happen? Who's going to stop it from happening? The UN is only strong if independent nation-states are eliminated.
Oh,the argument that Comanche helicopters weren't needed anymore because the cold war threat was eliminated can also be made(& in fact is being made) for the LCS,FCS,F-35,F-22,& DDG-1000 Zumwalt.There has also been a lot of cancellations of cheaper/less expensive COTS aircraft,weapons,equipment,& vehicles

Oh,I read that Northrop Grumman is making a scalable Agile Beam Radar for that thorn in the flesh of more stealth aircraft,the F-16.Unfortunately,the article is not clear on whether this is technology just "pulled out of their ass" or has been around for a while & they are just now reporting it.Translation: is this the AN/APG-80 Block 60 F-16 Fire Control Radar,or is it an upgrade to the AN/APG-80?

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 20, 2008 11:21 AM

This thread gets funnier and funnier. Yes, let's all throw out our history books and have China and Russia become allies. That is funny. I love how we dream up these doomsday fairytales to justify this kind of spending.

Yes, the F22 is a great Air Superiority fighter. It will keep us at the forefront of airpower for decades. However, we still desperately need new tankers, gunships, and attack aircraft. Nevermind trying to keep things working while fighting in two countries.

As far as keeping the production lines open, one would think in today's world of CAD/CAM design and manufacture, we could be able to build any parts as needed.

I sometimes find it hard to believe we once armed the world in WW2, but, now it's all we can do to build a couple of wing's worth of fighters. I think this is the kind of thing we were warned about the military-industrial complex.

Posted by: steve at February 20, 2008 10:21 AM

"Fighting surrogates or supporting the opposition does not constitute direct fighting."

Why not? Afghanistan and Vietnam would have been over far shorter if they were not continuously resupplied with advanced weaponry. We know that because South Vietnam collapsed when we stoppered our supply chain.

But what doesn't concern me is the events of the Cold War. MAD is dead. MAD is dead because we will not first strike and if we will not first strike, no one will second strike.

All of these arguments for quantity, Quantity, QUANTITY work precisely against us. We will not have the luxury of time for a build up against even Iran or North Korea. Quantity works for offense. If we will not attack, quantity works against us, because our expeditionary forces are very small. Our near-peers will have hundreds of planes to our dozens, plus integrated air defenses. Then there are the ground or naval forces which must be stopped, before they swallow our air bases or battle groups.

And about surrogates, yes, they are important, because they can start epochal wars, such as the Napoleonic wars, the World Wars, etc. With the death of MAD, why wouldn't they?

We're not losing the West Coast over the Senaku islands, nor Taiwan, nor the 1st Marine Division, sad to say. We're also not sandblasting SouthWest Asia if a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke glasses LA either. Being blase about a future big war puts you squarely in "The End of History" territory; nobody wants to be proven so disastrously wrong.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 20, 2008 09:37 AM

Vercingetorex,

I chose 50 years for a reason. The Korean War was long over by 1958. Neither the U.S., Russia, or China (?) had many nukes during the Korean War, and China fought because we got uncomfortably close to their border.

Fighting surrogates or supporting the opposition does not constitute direct fighting. Grenada? Come on.

I am somewhat concerned about Kosovo independence and its long term potential for conflict with Russia. At this point, however, Russia would have little capability to kick us out. During the Cold War, having ground troops in Europe served as a tripwire/deterrent preventing excessive aggression by the USSR. The same applies in Kosovo. Sounds like another one of those pesky insurgencies/standoffs/mid-intensity conflicts that predominate the last 50 years while the sky-is-falling conflicts never materialize....because of MAD.

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2008 08:34 AM

Just to give you an idea of how uninformed and emotional people are about these kind of discussions. I'll offer rebuttals to the following two post...

"DarthAmerica wrote, "You find and post for me a credible threat between now and 2025 that would require more than 183 Raptor."The idea of naming a threat 17 years in advance is beyond crazy.Gulf I was about 1990. Seventeen years before was 1973! We were still fighting a war on the other side of the planet, in Vietnam! WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED IN 1973 THAT WE WOULD BE IN A WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST 17 YEARS LATER?! Do I need to give the "grocery list" of all the changes in THE WORLD during those 17 years?!
Our military does not employ prophets, but they do employ planners.

DA: I am considering going back through some of the threads on the Iraq conflict to see your comments on our military's lack of preparedness. I already sence a lack of foresight on your part. The question is whether you are also a hypocrite" ---CTR1(SW)

I can show you as far back the 1960's where we knew that. President Kennedy created modern day special operations forces because he knew what war had evolved into.Military organizations are not very receptive to change. Especially when it makes their chosen discipline obsolete. I know this because it happened to me.

A lot of Admirals thought the Battleship was still the capital ship to beat well into WW II. The French lost their country to an INFERIOR force due to outdated strategy and tactics. I proved you are ignorant. Can you prove me a hypocrite?

"Since a few of you can't imagine a situation in which we might need all these F-22 Raptors, let me give you one. Lets just say that Putin and the current leader of China are once again highly friendly and out of nowhere they make an alliance (they pretty much already have one) and decide to mount a full force offensive against NATO and the US. Now to date I know of many different russian aircraft that could give us some worry, the Su-35 and the Mig 35 respectively. Thats not even touching the Chinese forces...So with our current force of F18, F15 and F16, you really believe that we could stand them off?

Ha I really dont think so. Granted we may not need the 400 or whatever they said but we at least need enough to give us the superiority in the skies that we have kept since WWII..."--- Kyle

Two things here. Well more but I'll just go for the obvious. SU-35 and Mig-35 aren't anything more than prototypes. They aren't in service or production! Moreover, Russians are unable to meet current demand for current Flankers to modernize their own airforce. Even if they could suddenly make these fighters appear. The current F-Teens outclass them. I tried to "suggest" this before. Compare the Radar in a Super Hornet to any radar in Russian service.

Also, the suggestion that China and Russia are going to unite militarily is hilarious. Do you know the Russians have shifted the vast majority of their advanced fighters to cover their border with China? Do you know China was key to the destruction of the Soviet Union? Do you realize the difference in the economic relationship between the USA and China vs China and Russia?My suggestion is that everybody take a breath and get familiar with this stuff before posting such completely inaccurate comments. Or ask questions.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 20, 2008 08:02 AM

Ask yourself a question: If the US had lost the conventional war in Iraq, suffered tens of thousands dead, would we have nuked Baghdad out of spite?

The answer is 'No.' For the same reason we never nuked North Vietnam even though we lost tens of thousands to their continuous infiltration, including their conventional invasions of Tet and the final one.

Get over nukes. Precision guided weapons have replaced them. Get with the times.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 20, 2008 02:41 AM

"U.S. and Soviets/Russians or Chinese"

You mean besides Korea, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Grenada? Those are just the big ones.

Um, let's see, more Pact on NATO violence.

Cole, gee, let's go ahead and disband the military! Seeing as how there will never be another conventional war ever again.

/Sarcasm

What are you kidding me? We will never nuke another country first. Never. Even if we get hit, we are not nuking another country. It isn't our policy right now, it isn't in the country's spine, at least of our political class. So throw MAD right out the window. Without Massive Retaliation, no MAD. That simple.

Which means we can fight a full conventional war with a conventional army and never go nuclear. We fought the Russians over Korea (their fighter pilots in their MiGs), we fought the Chinese in the Korean snow. And we fought them again in Vietnam, and we've clashed with them over and over again in Africa.

You are absolutely right. The Cold War is over. And MAD went with it. Deal with it.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 20, 2008 02:37 AM

Brian, I doubt we will see or need 1500 F-35s either. The USAF certainly does not need 1760 of its own. No countries air threat will grow that large and unmanned fighters/bombers are the future.

I don't buy that $105 million cost when fly-away costs most frequently vary between 140 and 160 million with the USAF citing the latter most frequently. When most stealth/radar R&D is completed via the F-22, why would the F-35 have more extreme problems? Will costs for F-35s climb? Yes...in 2020 average and beyond dollars. Do 200 extra F-22s replace even 400 F-35s? No way, given the latters multiple basing options, better air-to-ground capability, range, and lower operating costs.

NTV correctly points out that political and distance constraints hamper a land-based approach to fighter/bomber attacks and air dominance. Multiple basing options complicate threat targeting and enhance our own.

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2008 01:57 AM

Quick Vercingetorex. Name how many conflicts have occured between the U.S. and Soviets/Russians or Chinese in the past 50 years since both sides got nukes.....tick tick tick, I'm waiting.

During that time, how many more extremist leaders were in charge of the USSR and China...and how much more powerful was the then Soviet Union...yet they never attacked Europe/South Korea/Japan/Taiwan.

Again, the F-22 alone wins none, sero, zip of your extremely unlikely scenarios. A balance of capabilities equally conquers them all.

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2008 01:44 AM

Cole,

I like the F-22. I like the F-35. I like the FCS. I even like the DDX. The only one that is currently in any real stage of production is the F-22. The last price quote I have seen is that a new F-22 tomorrow will run us about $105 million. I think we can afford 380 at those prices. I think those 380 can get a real workout in the future--in multiple combat zones around the world.

I do not have faith that the Congresses of the future will fund the F-35, the FCS, the DDX, or any other program to the extent I would prefer. This is not a case of taking money away from Raptor procurement and putting it into some other system. It is more likely a case of Raptor procurement decreasing, and JSF procurement decreasing right alongside it. I don't think we'll ever see the 1500 F-35s.

This is really a case where we should buy Raptors NOW. Its flyaway cost is not that much over the F-35 projected cost. I would push for us to get as many as we can out of the next administration, because you cannot predict the future, and you never know when someone will say "okay, that's enough" and shut down production. As I see it, we can never have too many Raptors. Purchasing more than we need is a problem that I can deal with. Purchasing too few, so that they become the B2 part II, that is frightening. We have the best fighter in the world, RIGHT NOW. The production lines are open. The cost is dropping. I say we buy.

Posted by: Brian at February 20, 2008 01:32 AM

Ah Roy. Let's put this in perspective.

The Army canceled Comanche because it was going to cost $35 billion for 450 stealth aircraft...useful for any/all long wars. No problem, the threat driving the need for those Comanches is largely gone. The Army wisely committed much of that money to upgrading 3000+ Army aircraft instead...useful for any/all long wars across the spectrum of conflict from major theater war to insurgency.

The USAF, instead of 750 F-22s for twice the Comanche-cost $70 billion, got only 183...not 450 or 750 aircraft. They spent twice what the Army decided against spending...and will end up with less than half as many aircraft as the Army would have had. F-22s are great aircraft, but frankly, have limited usefulness against any but the most extreme threats....and certainly no essential use in insurgency or conflict against less than near peers. Plus, if you want nothing but the best at an exponential increase in cost, you must settle for fewer aircraft, ala the B-2 example. If you can afford 3 Corvettes at your income level, you can't suddenly decide you need 3 Ferraris instead, when 1 fits your budget and provides the required capability to kick booty against any opponents current and future Corvettes.

Having the best means far fewer aircraft suffice against the reduced post Cold War threat. You certainly don't need as many F-22s as you needed F-15s given the newer aircraft's far superior capabilities. Fortunately, some stealth R&D is easily transferred to the F-35 which we will produce in larger numbers for land and sea basing applications and sales to allied friends.

The USAF can also do what they originally planned and upgrade 178 F-15 Golden Eagles with AESA radars to increase their capability. After all, the longerons that failed on the Missouri aircraft had only 5000+ hours on what were thought to be 30,000 hour longerons, costing just $500K to fix. They are inspected now, and plenty of good aircraft remain. Problem solved in support of homeland defense against those extremely agile airliners and Bear bombers.;) Real world capability is enhanced given that Northern Edge saw 241:2 kill ratios employing teamed F-22s and F-15s...with the latter NOT having its AESA radars yet.

A compromise 207 F-22 silver bullets are an insurance policy against extremely unlikely scenarios involving near peers. You also have thousands of F-35s split amongst joint-basing venues and friends, that are better able to support more likely wars, and long wars...not just the first two weeks required to take out threat fighters and air defenses.

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2008 01:29 AM

Christ. Scenarios.

Turkey flips Islamist. Tensions flare with Armenia and they escalate the war. Russia backs Armenia. Turkey invokes the mutual defense clause of NATO.

Or Kazakhstan is embroiled in the Chechen conflict that now roils most of Central Asia. Rebels deprived of basing in Afghanistan/Pakistan go to China. Kazakhstan engages the rebels over the border, escalating into a fight between Kazakhstan and China. Russia intervenes against China. War in Central Asia.

Or another Sino-India, Sino-Vietnamese, or Paki-India war would suffice. Or Australia and Indonesia mix it up. Or a hundred thousand other examples.

Just because you lack the imagination to see danger, doesn't mean danger isn't close. Who would have predicted the exact cause of any war in history, from the Persian Wars to the Gulf Wars?

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 20, 2008 01:03 AM

DarthAmerica wrote, "You find and post for me a credible threat between now and 2025 that would require more than 183 Raptor."

The idea of naming a threat 17 years in advance is beyond crazy.

Gulf I was about 1990. Seventeen years before was 1973! We were still fighting a war on the other side of the planet, in Vietnam! WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED IN 1973 THAT WE WOULD BE IN A WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST 17 YEARS LATER?! Do I need to give the "grocery list" of all the changes in THE WORLD during those 17 years?!
Our military does not employ prophets, but they do employ planners.

DA: I am considering going back through some of the threads on the Iraq conflict to see your comments on our military's lack of preparedness. I already sence a lack of foresight on your part. The question is whether you are also a hypocrite.

Posted by: CTR1(SW) at February 20, 2008 12:49 AM

This version is more realistic Brian.

1) In 2030 we have 600 F-35A, and an equal number of mixed F-35B/C with 50 USAF and 50 USN/Marine aircraft being cranked out each year. Because we did not have to fund another 9 years of F-22 production, an additional $3 billion a year was able to be spent on F-35 fixes and accelerated production and improvements on the existing 207 F-22s that allowed fielded of 8 squadrons of 20 aircraft plus training/development aircraft. A new unmanned fighter/bomber capable of teaming with both the F-22 and F-35 is on the drawing board nearing production.

2)In 2020 no nuke goes off in Jerusalem because it is sacred to Muslims as well as Jews/Christians. A contemplated nuking of Tel Aviv was thwarted a year earlier when Israel successfully employed its F-35s and other aircraft to preemptively attack Iranian and Syrian nuclear development sites. Both countries attempted hidden nuclear launches against Israel but its advanced SAMs shot them down.

Iranian tanks had attempted to invade Iraq and Kuwait but U.S. land and sea based F-35s along with F-22s/B-2s annihilated them with help from FCS brigade equipment prepositioned in Kuwait and flown into country via C-17. The DoD had wisely opted to use some monies otherwise spent on too many F-22s to purchase another 100 C-17s to lift the FCS forces.

If stupid enough to rain artillery on South Korea, the far more advanced and less hungry democracy crushes the North and its weak air force...while the U.S. rushes FCS brigades and Marines to Korea from bases in Hawaii, Guam, and Alaska.

China threatens Taiwan? The U.S. blockades the Straits preventing supertankers from reaching China while unmanned undersea vehicles tail/threaten all Chinese subs. Numerous U.S. F-22 and F-35 squadrons that are both land and sea based deter air attack and threaten Chinese land and surface-sea power, while U.S. and Taiwan AMD assets preclude missile attack. Marines and FCS brigades rapidly deploy to east and west Taiwan to protect Taiwan military and airbases and cities.

3)Its 2020 and Putin is threatening Europe as you state....but it took him an extra few years since the Russian ground military had deteriorated so badly. Fortunately, our allies now own hundreds of F-35 fighters and any excessive seizure of NATO partner countries is met by annihilation of Russian armor by ALL NATO partners while FCS armor is rushed to Europe to reinforce weak European ground forces.

The F-22 is not the savior of the world. Many diverse capabilities...land, sea, air...all contribute to deterrence, and failing that, allied victory.

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2008 12:32 AM

> Those damn 1500+ F-35s don't exist yet.

neither do your 268 extra raptors

at 20 raptors/year that's over 13 years away

by which time the F-35 will have swiftly passed it by in terms of quantity

Posted by: irtusk at February 20, 2008 12:04 AM

I just checked to be sure...the F-35 is chubby indeed. The B and C versions weights more than the larger F-22.

Posted by: Vitor at February 20, 2008 12:02 AM

I know that I'm comparing apples & oranges here,but it's the same government in charge of all of them.
A government that can screw up the Comanche helicopter(because it's too expensive),the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter(it's commercial off the shelf for God's sake),the Lakota Helicopter,The LCS project,& the list goes on,can suddenly be trusted to get the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter right? Think of all of the projects already screwed up,the aerial refueler,airlift aircraft,the Air Force CSAR-X,Marine 1,& the JSF will all work out just fine?

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 19, 2008 11:51 PM

irtusk,
"are you forgetting about 1500+ F-35s?"

Those damn 1500+ F-35s don't exist yet.They haven't been built yet.Damn,I doubt that the molds have been built yet.Is this what easy credit has reduced us to,counting our chickens BEFORE THEY'RE HATCHED? Maybe 1500+ F-35s exist on a "credit card" somewhere,but they don't exist in the "REAL WORLD" yet.

morpheus
"Why doesn't Europe have their own nukes?"

Let me be the first one to tell you that the United Kingdom(alias Great Britain & England,although calling the U.K. "England" is like calling the U.S. "Texas") & France have nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 19, 2008 11:35 PM

> Let ME give you some examples when we'll need 380 F-22s.
>
> 1) The year is 2030. The F-35 program is a failure

if the F-35 is a failure, another 100 F-22s isn't going to make a difference

currently the US alone is scheduled to buy 1,763 of them

the F-35 is so critically important (and make no mistake, it is the most critical aircraft program of the next 30 years) that it will not be allowed to fail

1. the design and prototypes are far enough along that we know there aren't any showstopper problems
2. they think they've fixed the engine problem
3. if they can't fix it (and there's no reason to think that), there is the alternate engine
4. if that also fails, it only affects the B variant, the A and C are unaffected

Posted by: irtusk at February 19, 2008 11:34 PM

Russia and China attack NATO? Why does the US need to defend Europe? Why are our soldiers' butts on the front line? Why doesn't Europe have their own nukes?

If Russia and China attacks then Europe should nuke them. Russia may nuke Europe back but at least it is not us. The US meanwhile stays out of it and has a missile shield to knock any incoming missiles down. It may be a terrible time for the world but at least the US comes out okay.

If all the friendly countries have nukes, who is going to attack them? And if our enemies have nukes, do you think we would attack them? I don't think so.

When countries have nukes, the only strategy that works against them is guerilla warfare. Otherwise they will lash out and strike back.

The US only uses conventional war to defend another allied country because we will not use nukes first if our country is not attacked. However, every country that has nukes will use them in self-defense. You can bet on that. Thus why do we need conventional forces to defend our allies? I say give them nukes and bring our boys home.

The biggest threat is no longer conventional warfare. It is asymetrical NBC terrorism. Why would one country conventionally attack another when they can organize and fund a terrorist cell in their enemy's country and then have that group fight by proxy.

Is that not what the Muslims are doing? What if Iraq and Afghanistan had nukes? Think we would have invaded? I don't think so. Why do you think the terrorists hide in Pakistan? Why don''t we invade Pakistan? They have nukes.

Posted by: morpheus at February 19, 2008 10:59 PM

Let ME give you some examples when we'll need 380 F-22s.

1) The year is 2030. The F-35 program is a failure, as Congress cuts funding in 2013 after significant delays, and most foreign buyers pull out to purchase significantly cheaper European designs. The major purchase of F-35 planes is never made. F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s are all either sitting in the boneyard or on their last legs. There is no replacement on the drawing board. The Raptor is nearing 25 years of service. Spare parts and supplies are going to be determined by how many we buy today. Think this scenario is not feasible? Think again.

The point is simple. We are talking aquisitions for a fighter that will still be a mainstay of the US Air Force when my grandkids are learning to drive (note: I don't have any kids today). We need to stock up so that it can remain in service as long as possible.

2) The year is 2020. A small nuclear weapon detonates in Jerusalem. Iranian tanks roll into Iraq, while Syrian jets attack a stunned Israel. 5 days later, artillery rains down upon Seoul as North Korea launches into action. Later that month, China takes advantage of US involvement elsewhere and moves warships around Taiwan. No shots are fired, but China declares its sovereignty over the area and puts massive economic pressures on nations in the UN to recognize China as the legitimate government.

The point is, there are hotspots all over the world. Who says they only flare up one at a time? It doesn't have to be Iran, North Korea, and China. It could be lots of places. Any of them could flare up. And while our attention is distracted to one place, that leaves us unable to act in other.

3) It is 2014. Bush's adventure in Iraq is a success. Peace is achieved, and Iraq restarts massive oil production. The price of oil drops to $15 a barrel. The Russian economy crashes and burns. Putin, still pulling the strings of the Russian government, cracks down on civil protests as what passes for a middle class grows angry. Some poor nearby country criticizes the Russian strongman. Putin decides to show his strength and rally his people in the best way he knows how: old style Soviet power. Tanks roll into the former Soviet vassal-state, and the USSR is reborn in all but name.

The point is, you never know that "friends" will stay friends. We can't predict the economy in 6 months, we certainly can't predict it in 6 years. This argument holds true with China, as well. People say "they are too economically intertwined to risk war with us". I say, they are too economically intertwined *today*.

Posted by: Brian at February 19, 2008 10:49 PM

> Lets just say that Putin and the current leader of China . . . decide to mount a full force offensive against NATO and the US

even Putin isn't that MAD

> So with our current force of F18, F15 and F16, you really believe that we could stand them off?

are you forgetting about 1500+ F-35s?

Posted by: irtusk at February 19, 2008 10:29 PM

Since a few of you can't imagine a situation in which we might need all these F-22 Raptors, let me give you one. Lets just say that Putin and the current leader of China are once again highly friendly and out of nowhere they make an alliance (they pretty much already have one) and decide to mount a full force offensive against NATO and the US. Now to date I know of many different russian aircraft that could give us some worry, the Su-35 and the Mig 35 respectively. Thats not even touching the Chinese forces...

So with our current force of F18, F15 and F16, you really believe that we could stand them off? Ha I really dont think so. Granted we may not need the 400 or whatever they said but we at least need enough to give us the superiority in the skies that we have kept since WWII...

Posted by: Kyle at February 19, 2008 08:46 PM

irtusk,
Amen & well said!!!!

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 19, 2008 07:57 PM

> why hand over more resources to a fighter we aren't sure will be ready soon?

so we can hand them over to a fighter that we are even less sure about and is even further away?

lol

> Why would we waste money on this fighter when the next generation of aircraft is being designed and developed now

you mean Boeing's "6th gen" (harhar) powerpoint concept that is less a real design and more a desperate attempt to sell more superhornets?

and by the time that plane is ready (assuming it ever is), there will be even newer planes on the drawing board, so we might as well wait for them

if you always wait for the next generation, you'll never have anything

we have needs now, our allies have needs now, we can't afford to wait for some mythical nextgen plane that won't even be available for 20 years

Posted by: irtusk at February 19, 2008 06:01 PM

It's not "your" money.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 19, 2008 05:55 PM

Talk about a "sting." Paul Newman & Robert Redford would be proud of the con job that the military industrial complex is playing on all of us.

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 19, 2008 05:53 PM

Mike V,
The next generation of Fighters are ALWAYS being designed & developed.If the automobile industry produced automobiles like our military-industrial complex "plans(& robs us of our tax money)" the building(& canceling) of new aircraft,then we'd be getting around today on horse & buggy.the "design & development" of new aircraft is the biggest scam & con of our time perpetrated on us the tax payers.Talk the "Sting." How much non-refundable tax money was sunk into the F-35? How much non-refundable tax money has been sunk into the F-22? You can add the Comanche,Crusader,ADATS,DIVAD,the list goes on. We'll never see any of THAT money ever again.
So everybody willy-nilly saying "cancel this program" or "cancel that one," I ask you,will we get our money back? Nobody is arguing about whether the F-35 & F-22 works or not.Nobody is saying that either aircraft are "flying Edsel or'Yugos'." No,they're saying(after personally pocketing the billions of dollars) that we don't need them because "there is no 'viable' threat."

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 19, 2008 05:50 PM

The F-35 isn't being rolled-out just yet and with all its delays and propeller problems it doesn't look like it will be anytime soon. Why would we waste money on this fighter when the next generation of aircraft is being designed and developed now, why hand over more resources to a fighter we aren't sure will be ready soon? It just doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: Mike V at February 19, 2008 04:49 PM

> IR has severe limitations
> - not nearly the range of radar
> - no volume search capability like radar
> - can be severely limited by atmospheric phenomena
> - ineffective in clouds

These points seem to be forgotten/disregarded when IR "stealth" is discussed. Its a shame really.

Posted by: NTV at February 19, 2008 03:25 PM

> The F-35 is very heavy for its size, its a "chubby" fighter, its not very agile

you can't judge agility from looks, aerodynamics have advanced significantly

according to the designers and pilots, it's at least as agile as an F-16

> but its IR signature with that big single engine doesnt seem to much "stealthy", and we all know that IR detection is what the russian stuff does better.

1. the F-35 was designed with IR stealth in mind
2. IR has severe limitations
- not nearly the range of radar
- no volume search capability like radar
- can be severely limited by atmospheric phenomena
- ineffective in clouds

Posted by: irtusk at February 19, 2008 02:50 PM

Three things people should know before posting further about the F-35...

-Swirling dogfights dominated by IR guided missiles and cannon have been vastly overtaken by BVR radar guided missile kills over the last 20 years. A LO platform with a long range AAM and AESA will have a huge advantage over a non LO opponent with inferior missiles.

-The USAF has stated that the F-35 is at least as manuverable as an F-16. In addition is has a HMS which essentially negates any of the past advantages manuverability had.

-The F-35 has very comprehensive IR stealth features. Look up LOAN.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 19, 2008 02:43 PM

I can't see any real reason we would need more than 183 of these birds. The F-35, FA-18 and existing aircraft would be more than sufficient for any scenario. The day of hundreds of planes filling the skies in dogfights are long gone. As for any threat aircraft, does anyone actually beleive any of our opponents would still have working airfields after 72 hours after we go to war? We would shut them down with cruise missiles etc. That would quickly nullify their numbers.

"A-51s were great, but, didn't help the air war"

Well, duh, what gave it away? Was it the A for Attack?

We're falling into another Cold War quagmire. Spending billions on "what-ifs" instead of acknowleging the two wars we're in right now.

Posted by: steve at February 19, 2008 02:10 PM

Vitor get your facts right about the F-35.

While it is no F-22 it will dogfight quite well - F-15, F-16 & F/A-18 pilots will be in for a nasty suprise if they underestimate the F-35 when they start mock dogfights...

Posted by: pfcem at February 19, 2008 02:01 PM

The F-35 is very heavy for its size, its a "chubby" fighter, its not very agile, any recent russian aircraft can pwn it in a dogfight. Ah, ok, I know the F-35 wasnt designed for dogfight.

And about its "stealthness", the radar cross section of it maybe be stealth enough, but its IR signature with that big single engine doesnt seem to much "stealthy", and we all know that IR detection is what the russian stuff does better.

Lets not forget its a big software mess, with zillions of code lines, and this means, by the law of probabilities, that it will have tons of bugs to be found, and they will be usually found during the most innapropiate, delicate moments.

Frankly, its an aircraft without any merits, that relies on its low RCS and good radar devired from the F-22.But without those 2 things, its quite a lame duck.

Posted by: Vitor at February 19, 2008 01:48 PM

The USAF is trying to secure funds. It WANTS more F-22s. Different from needs. No air threat exist today that requires 381 Raptors. Our current Raptor force can handle any challenge.

The problem is that the DoD has to balance the needs of all the services within a budget and right now, wars we are actually fighting and wars we would be likely to fight in the future have priority over preparing for a war we are not likely to fight.

You find and post for me a credible threat between now and 2025 that would require more than 183 Raptors. The 250 number is to add about one wing worth of fighters which would allow the USAF more flexibility with its force mix and also keeps the production lines open if there is a need for more withing the next 3 to 5 years.

Not everybody in the USAF says that we need more than 183 Raptors either. If you spend a little time up in Ballad with F-16 pilots they may say we need better air to ground capabilities. KC-135 pilots might want KC-10s or something newer. The USAF is a big organization and everybody thinks they have the most important job.

Thats why CIVILIAN MANAGEMENT ultimately decides what is more in need.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 19, 2008 01:07 PM

irtusk,

You are correct. Let me add that the results of various DACT exercises are also no indication of how actual combat would be since they are scripted scenarios with a built in learning objective. People who use DACT or air shows as a measure of real combat are simply not familiar with the subject matter.

In air to air combat an F-35 would be likely to enjoy huge advantages over any possible opponent except the F-22. In the multirole strike fighter mission the F-35 is going to be king. I'd say the Super Hornet and AESA equipped F-15s are next in the food chain but. All other fighters fall far short of what these planes are capable of.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 19, 2008 12:58 PM

I have seen the number 250 thrown out a half dozen times now as the "right" number of F-22s..

SOMEBODY, ANYBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE HELL YOU COME UP WITH THAT AS THE RIGHT NUMBER!!!

The USAF has given the REASONS why it requires 381. NOBODY else have give ANY justification for ANY other number.

Posted by: pfcem at February 19, 2008 12:51 PM

> Or even watched a video of what an SU30 can do? A Raptor would have a difficult time handling one of these aircraft within visual range; a Lightning II, F16 and maybe an Eagle would be litter on the ground.

1. an airshow has basically no relationship to aircombat

2. an F-35 will eat 6 flankers for breakfast, burp, and then inquire about dessert

Posted by: irtusk at February 19, 2008 12:04 PM

I don't feel competent to discuss the general's or the DDS's comments, either regarding whether he should have spoken up, his accuracy, or what the DDS was possibly thinking when he said he thought the F-35 could replace the F-15 in the air-intercept mission.

However, there are a couple of factual errors in the original article. 31 July 2007 LockMart was awarded a $5.049B contract for 60 Raptors. That's 20 per year in '08, '09, and '10, with final delivery stretching into '11. Pratt & Whitney got a $1.28B contract simultaneously for engines. The multi-year buy dropped the unit price for the Raptors by $6.85M. For those of you playing along at home, that means the current fly-away unit cost for one Raptor is $105.5M, not $175M. That's a slight discrepancy.

By comparison, on 27 July 2007 US Naval Air Systems Command awarded a contract for 12 Lot 2 LRIP F-35s, 6 'A' variants, and 6'B' variants. These are the two least expensive and most common variants currently planned. The contact was for $2.44B, for a unit price of just over $203M, to be completed in 2011.

Low-rate production is expensive, and the $200M and $175M price tags thrown around as belonging to the Raptor date back to it's LRIP period. The price it's at now is something else entirely. The current price tag for the Lightning II is equally prohibitive. I've no doubt that price will drop like a stone when they're making 30+ per year. But it is still far too early to make rosy predictions about how cheap the F-35 is. It isn't even close. It's just that it's built and scheduled to be able to be built for far less money.

Posted by: AhzeeDahak at February 19, 2008 11:35 AM

F-22s should never, ever be sold to anyone else other than the United states. Even a 4 star Army general has been quoted as making this his first point in discussing future war.

Posted by: FoxThree at February 19, 2008 09:45 AM

Paul, I like your idea of 250 airframes (although I think we shouldn't sell abroad, just to keep the tech at home.) 381 is still better though.

Posted by: Benjamin Fan at February 19, 2008 09:30 AM

In my last post I argued against additional f-22's. I actually think the 250 number is around a good amount, and after that number, keep the lines open by selling to Japan, Australia and possibly Israel. Would that make a good compromise? (seriously asking, not rhetoric.)

Posted by: paul at February 19, 2008 08:38 AM

This is crazy, only building 183 F-22s. This is throwing away much of the F-22s development costs. This is going to cost, rather than save, money.

With such limited numbers of F-22s, the Air Force is eventually going to feel the need to develop a version of the F-35 with air-to-air capabilities rivalling the F-22 - which would probably wind up more expensive than an F-22. And if the F-35 is cancelled, then another next generation fighter will have to be designed and produced, and reasonably quickly.

Posted by: CSS at February 19, 2008 08:04 AM

Speaking of which where is this american EMPIRE the ppls keep telling me about and if its a american empire........WHERE ARE MY HOT SLAVE GIRLS!!!!!!

i feel cheated :(

Posted by: James at February 19, 2008 07:08 AM

The plan is to tear down the old world order,along with its economies,& replace it all with a "New World Order" with a one world government rising out of the ashes of all the fallen nation-states

the UN you mean? stupid fasist UN

dont think we need 380 f22s though maybe its time to refurbish the iowa's and roll out the thunderwagons muhahahaha

Posted by: James at February 19, 2008 07:00 AM

arent the kosovar buddy buddy with al quiada?
is this another freakin TALIBAN!

of course even funds its army with heroin

Posted by: James at February 19, 2008 06:56 AM

Well,now that Kosovo has declared independence,& nobody has said whether the idea of a "Greater 'Islamic' Albania" is a good thing or bad thing,it is now one more log to add to the fire of the Iranian threat,the Hezbollah-Hamas-Syrian threat against Israel,the North Korean threat(who decided to buy fuel for their army equipment,rather than feed their starving people,with the "aid" they received),& China's threat against Taiwan.All of these "hot spots" have Russia in the mix.Russia is also threatening The Ukraine if they should decide to join NATO.
It would be wise for us to "arm" ourselves with more F-22s AND F-35s,but we need to refurbish our F-15s AND F-16s also.
I'm afraid that we'll learn soon enough how destructive former Sec.Def.'s Cheney & Rumsfeld were on our armed forces with their reckless downsizing of our military & the retiring,scrapping,sinking,& canceling of very needed weapon systems.Former president Clinton & current president Bush also destroyed our military capabilities with their reckless foreign policies.Actually,I should add Bush,Sr. to this list also.They totally pissed away all of the military advantages that we had under Reagan.
Anybody who strongly feels that it would be economic suicide for both Russia & China to attack us miserably fails to understand that THAT IS THE PLAN.The plan is to tear down the old world order,along with its economies,& replace it all with a "New World Order" with a one world government rising out of the ashes of all the fallen nation-states.
Meanwhile,I'm waiting for the Amero to replace our falling dollar,the Peso(which is worth more than our dollar right now),& the Canadian dollar(ditto).

Posted by: Roy Smith at February 19, 2008 05:17 AM

I had the opportunity to make the opening comment on this thread, and I have now read all of the following comments. All are interesting. Many focus on mission vs. mission, capability vs. capability (F-22 vs. F-35), or quality vs. quantity.

When I stated, "This country is capable of providing the Af with thousands of these aircraft" I was making a point. I do not want quality vs. quantity. I want QUALITY AND QUANTITY.

Within 10-15 years most of the F-15s will be in the bone yard. Those not there will be overdue.

The F-35 has yet to enter production, and as others have stated, the production "winds" may blow contrary.

My opening comment remains: It is insane to have only 183 frontline fighters to protect this nation and those nations with which we have treaties. I can only conclude that our politicians do not take the defense of our country seriously.

By the way, after a war begins and you have lost half of your fighters, is the wrong time to restart the production line.

I find it interesting, as well as hypocritical, that politicians love to talk about smaller, more efficient, and more professional military forces, while the rest of government grows exponentially.

Posted by: CTR1(SW) at February 19, 2008 01:33 AM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, most of the other airframe types in USAF are getting pretty thrashed.

Posted by: ELP at February 18, 2008 06:14 PM

Keep the production line open.

People can argue about costs and quantities of front line fighters all day long, but can anyone seriously argue that it is wise to close the production line very soon on a fighter we will be counting on for the next 35 years?

That's just flat out insane.

The cost of the F-35 is creeping up closer to the F-22 level, and the F-22 is cheaper with each one you buy. If we buy more 22s and fewer 35s we can keep the lines open without materially affecting the 35's viability. The F-35 is made to be an export fighter, like the F-16. We can pressure countries to buy more to make up for our reductions. And some countries are looking at the Eurofighter and others because they won't be able to get deliveries of F-35s for a decade. If we reduce our buy, others will get theirs sooner and be more likely to buy.

There are some sane ways out of this predicament, I just don't see how letting the lines close can even be on the table.

Posted by: Nessuno at February 18, 2008 05:57 PM

Lot's of good points here (some questionable spelling though)but we need not only the F22 but the F35 as well. When the F16 was being developed we didn't have message boards such as this to post on but many of my friends were making similar statements. "I'ts not as good as the F15", "the F15 costs too much", "we should upgrade the Phantom or F105", "we should not buy either and wait for the next best thing", etc, etc.

The original plan for these aircraft was to present a mix similar to Eagles and Vipers. The F16 was never really supposed to go in the first day of the war and tangle with frontling Soviet fighters. The Eagle was to do this and the F16 was to engage them only in emergency. This is much the same for the Raptor and Lightning II. Have you ever really studied the flight performance of the advanced flanker family? Or even watched a video of what an SU30 can do? A Raptor would have a difficult time handling one of these aircraft within visual range; a Lightning II, F16 and maybe an Eagle would be litter on the ground. We must have enough Raptors to keep the air clear for the JSF, Strike Eagles, Vipers, Hornets and Warthogs to do their job. Have you not paid attention to the volume of Advanced Flanker variants being exported and built under license. Do you not know about the nasty suprise we and the other NATO members got when Vipers, Hornets, etc went against the 1st generation Mig 29 in mock combat (surely you know that these former East German aircraft were able to consistantly turn inside Hornets or Tornado and usually inside Vipers)when we found that if it came to a knife fight they owned us.

The Flanker family now has longer range missiles than we do. They can turn tight enough to stay out of a sidewinders aqusition cone (with the exception of the AIM 9X)and they can just flat out run the JSF, Hornet, Super Hornet and Viper. Not to mention the range advantage they have. If you go to Air Power Australia there is an interesting article citing a study by a retired Russian AF Colonel laying out their plans for beating Aussie or USN Super Hornets, Lightning II and AWACS. It is very interesting and informative to hear how they see it. They have a plan, they believe in it and it sounds like it would work.

We must have more F22 volume if we are to keep our commitments to the Aussies, Japan, Taiwan, etc plus build the JSF.

And while the A51 comments are great what about the A1 Skyraider? That is the beast we should bring back for COIN operations. It can fly on the deck, launch from a carrier, turn on a dime, punish anyone stupid enough to stick their head out of a hole and take punishment better than anything short of the A10. I'm sure it would cost a lot less to build a modern rendition of the Skyraider than a JSF. Just a thought, Steve.

Posted by: smc at February 18, 2008 05:53 PM

The F-35 is very much a frontline fighter. Stop making platform comparisons and measure platform vs requirements. The only requirement the F-22 the F-22 meets that the F-35 does not is the task of challenging hundreds of migs and sukhois over Europe. Oh yeah, we no longer face that threat. And if we did, the F-22's we have(100+) working with our other assets would be more than capable of dealing with any concievable challenge.

Most people dont even realize that most non western nations fighters can't even fire active air to air missiles. Nor are they augmented by AWACS or the kind of dedicated EW that NATO countries have access to.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 18, 2008 05:43 PM

One thing that is often over looked in these comparisons between the F-22 and F-35 is the avionics and even stealth features. The F-35 actually uses more advanced technologies in some areas and has stealth features that cost less than the the F-22. The F-35 is also more versitile and adaptable to a wider range of missions. The F-35 is likely to enjoy advantages over any fighter(other than F-22) it would encounter for at least a decade and possibly more.

Similarly but for different reasons, a late model F-15 with an AESA or F/A-18E will also have major advantages against opponents. In terms of our ability to control the skies, the USAF has never been in a more dominating position relative to potential opponents.

I could probably see the logic in up to 72 additional Raptors for a total greater than 250 even if they arent absolutely necessary. Anything beyond that and I think we could be wasting money that would be better spent on more relevant R&D and procurement.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 18, 2008 05:33 PM

Good god the idiocy!

The F-16 & the F-35 are not front line fighters. They are second line fighters (used MUCH more as "bomb trucks" than as actual fighters). That is what the who high-low mix is all about.

Air forces by their very nature are more expensive than ground forces. Planes & pilots are more expensive to develope, produce, operate & maintain than tanks & infantry.

How the hell did the Europeans beat stealth technology? Don't guive me that BS about the F-117 that was shot down because the F-117's stealth was not beaten.

The F-22 is not & was never intended to be a COIN aircraft. What it is is a AIR DOMINANCE fighter. Some potential future threat DO have capable air forces & capable air defences. Without AIR DOMINANCE, COIN is next to impossible!

For much of the last century we have prepared to fight the next war as if it were going to be essentialy the same as the last war. There is NO guarantee that the next war will be against an insurgency (& don't forget that the reason why the current war in Iraq is an insurgency is because we won the "conventional" war there).

It is not that the F-15's cant be fixed but that it is not wise to do so. How long will it be before something else is found wrong with the 20+ year old airframes that grounds the ENTIRE F-15 fleet while they try to figure out what is wrong & how/if it can be fixed. You can't "replace" older airframes with "younger more structurally sound F-15s" because ALL the youngest F-15s are in service - in fact THOSE are the ones with the problems, all the "older" F-15's have already been taken out of service (many of which have been cannibalize to keep the "newer" ones flying).

No "F-22 fan" has said the F-35 is a POS but the F-35 is no F-22. Just as the F-16 was no F-15.

Posted by: pfcem at February 18, 2008 05:24 PM

DA, amen.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 18, 2008 05:10 PM

Anyone familiar with combat aircraft knows that the F-35 is an awesome jet.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 18, 2008 04:00 PM

If, as the F-22 advocates claim, the F-35 is a piece of junk, why are we buying thousands?

Posted by: rix at February 18, 2008 03:52 PM

A-51s were awesome. Didn't help the air war, however.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 18, 2008 03:43 PM

The F-15 fleet isn't in as bad a shape as is claimed. The USAF is skillfully using the issue to push for more F-22s.

Older airframes beyond repair can be phased out and replaced while younger more structurally sound F-15s continue to fly.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 18, 2008 02:49 PM

Are there any reports as to why the F-15 cannot be fixed?
.
Is there any word on what other nations are planning to do with there F-15s, that cannot fly?
.
Just curious...

Posted by: Camp at February 18, 2008 02:34 PM

Heh , P-51's. Funny you mention it. Remember about fifty-someodd years ago when we predicted the next war? We wound up in an on the ground slugfest. We had to rush P-51's to the front because F-86's were useless for the ground support task at hand.

In Vietnam one of the most feared planes was the A-51d. Why? Because it was built like a truck, carried plenty of bang and could loiter longer than the average teenager at the mall. I would think a modern version with a turboprop would be a fine thing to have flying over convoys and such. It would probably be a lot cheaper to operate than a rotary aircraft doing the same job.

History has shown us over the past half-century we keep preparing for a clash of the titans and always seem to wind up in limited engagements.

Yes, we'll always need a shiny new air superiority fighter. We also need lots of slower uglier stuff for our little jaunts across the globe. We might also want to rethink some of our combat use of UAVs and other unmanned platforms. I think it might not send the right message to people that we care enough to kill, but, not enough to actually send someone to do it.

Posted by: steve at February 18, 2008 02:28 PM

As good as the F-22 is, The DoD has much higher priorities now. There are a multitude of different platforms that will still be viable for air superiority roles and the F-35 is coming very soon and in large numbers. I do think the F-22 production line should be kept open a little longer. Perhaps an increase of 72(a wing) more Raptors built over a 3 year interval followed by an reevaluation of the requirement. That would give the USAF 250+ Raptors in addition to the remaining F-15s, F-16s followed by the F-35. More than enough to deal with any concievable threat.

The bottom line is we are much more likely to face threats from asymmetric opponents using anti-access strategies, terror tactics and hiding in urban jungles than we are from high tech swarms of enemy fighters.

I think most people just don't understand how much of an advantage the USAF and USN have over any opponent or likely combination of opponents in air to air combat. In a since, they are victims of their own success. That is not a bad thing. There are just many other higher priorities right now.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at February 18, 2008 02:15 PM

My bad...line 5, delete F-35 and insert F-22. Sorry for the typo.

Posted by: crazy at February 18, 2008 01:56 PM

Lost in the battle for bucks is the answer to the question of how do we want to fight the next conflict with a peer or near-peer competitor? It's easy to say buy more of this or less of that or even buy more for this service and less for that one, the problem is what will it take to accomplish the tasks we plan to assign to each of the services for the next war. Missiles, unmanned systems, and other aircraft may be a cheaper replacement for systems like the F-35, B-2, or future bomber but are they more effective? Isn't the real problem that our future needs are being determined by arbitrary budget restrictions rather than military necessity? If the top line were different would we still be debating this?

Posted by: crazy at February 18, 2008 01:53 PM

To add to LKW2's comment, the things that soldiers and Marines do just don't take up that much money. It costs about $18K to make a Marine through 13 weeks of training. It costs millions of dollars to make a pilot, because there is college (or a ring-knocker academy), then candidate school, then basic school, then flight training, then specific model training, then you go to your squadron and then get qualified in a syllabus which you have to keep current, and then you go to specific courses such as Tog Gun or WTI etc, each of which costs half-million on up to train the crew.

Marines? Put your boots on, we're going for a hike.

Now, being a Marine, I think the Air Force are a bunch of pansy-ass sissies. BUT I respect the fact that their entire service is geared around the flight-line, whereas mine is in the sandbags. You don't need much money to be miserable in the mud or sand. You need alot to be miserable at 40K feet, strapped into a jet, when the Taco Bell you ate in Laredo six hours ago is bubbling your guts over New Guinea, with another six hours to go.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 18, 2008 01:51 PM

Jeff,

A large part of the air force getting so much money is the fact that they're the space force and now it looks like the cyber warfare force. Without GPS, communication, and reconnaissance satellites, the army and marines capabilities will be greatly diminished. As long as the Air Force is in charge of operations in space, they'll always have a substantially higher budget. Satellites have never been cheap, and neither is putting them into space. And yes, they have these expensive airframes, such as the F22, that can be argued from now until the apocalypse on whether they're necessary, but as long as the Air Force has controls space and now the new cyber command, they're going to need money for vital support roles.

Posted by: LKW2 at February 18, 2008 01:35 PM

i think any aircraft in these 2 wars are considered stealth. the enemey doesn't have radar so it makes it pretty easy. heck i say bring back the p51 to fight insurgents. they must be cheaper to operate than 155 million dollar supercraft. i love the f22 but i just don't see us using them anytime soon.

Posted by: cam at February 18, 2008 01:20 PM

The F-16s are thirty years old. Should we have fought Vietnam with Mustangs?

Oh, super-duper Mustangs with chrome spinners and napalm. Have to update things, you know.

Those airframes are old. Airframes fatigue. They crack. They are capable in some duties. Others? They are rapidly waning.

The threat environment is actually more dangerous than it was during some theatres of the Cold War. Flankers in the right hands - a threat out there right now - are comparable to our best fighters. In twenty years, the threats will overmatch our Eagles and Hornets and our Falcons.

It almost seems that some people are arguing for a Soviet era approach to defense: Quantity, not Quality.

Anyone remember how the Soviet approach worked out?

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 18, 2008 01:17 PM

In the world of military procurement, never take anything for granted. I'm hoping that the pro-Raptor advocates manage to claw through for more fighters somehow, someway. Maybe just "20-plane" extensions every year, and each year after that, until we have 300+?

Don't count on the JSF either. Again, nothing is for granted, the whole thing could be axed. JSF is no substitute for F-22 because you don't even know if JSF will go ahead. At least F-22 is in full swing, thank God for that.

Posted by: Benjamin Fan at February 18, 2008 12:55 PM

183, 380, i don't really care. Just keep the production lines open somehow. It seems foolish and awfully short-sighted to invest so much money and more importantly time into such a hugely expensive (and hugely capable) aircraft and then destroy the means of making more of them should the need arise later. A few hundred million here and there honestly isn't all that much anymore these days.

Posted by: elijah at February 18, 2008 12:51 PM

175 million wtf look if we knew these things could radar for the next 25 to 40 yrs id say ok but realy the europeans already figured out how to beat stealth tech so realy cant say we nee 380

think maybe its time we invested in something and keept to generals away from it like say i dont know like we did the a-10 warthog?

Posted by: James at February 18, 2008 12:44 PM

Only 183 front line fighters?

Do we not have anymore F-16s?

Does nobody else think it's funny that the Army is using Cold War era rotary airframes with success while the Air Force bitches for more $$$$ to get ultra cool stealth fighters which aren't likely to be used in anger?

I'm all for preparing for the future wars etc. but why is the Air Force getting so much money compared to the Army and Marines when the most likely threat to the US is not from the air?

Posted by: jeff at February 18, 2008 12:32 PM

Calm down, read the post. That would never be our total number of fighters, they are going to have quite a number of F-35s. The 183 is only referring to the F-22.

Posted by: steve at February 18, 2008 11:52 AM

Perhaps the most tragic observation that I can make is this: At some point in the next two decades our Air Force may be called upon to protect this country with only 183 front-line fighters. Given the volitile nature of world politics it is impossible to firmly state who that foe will be, therefore IT IS FOOLISH IN THE EXTREME to declare that we do not need more. Our politicians are ensureing that all future "sabre-rattling" on are part consists of a "dagger-waving." Our foes will hardly be frightened or deterred.

This country is capable of providing the AF with thousands of these aircraft.

For our politicians to provide so few aircraft is a form of Dereliction of Duty. It is a failure to protect and defend. It is a form of slow treason. They are guaranteeing that our country will not have a future.

Posted by: CTR1(SW) at February 18, 2008 11:48 AM