pfcem,

"The FACT is that the 183 number DID NOT come from any study or analysis of USAF needs but simply from the number the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) was willing to fund through the FY2009 budget with no validity to it other than that the funds HAD to be allocated to other things. "

You are so naive to believe that. You have no experience whatsoever with the procurement process. That quote also contradicts other statements you made but I'll leave it to you to figure out. There is a reason why professionals and not bloggers make these decisions. But I guess since you think the reasoning behind every decision the DoD makes is public information you have all the answers...lol.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 12, 2008 03:52 PM

pfcem,

"Again the the BS about the F-35. THe F-35 IS NOT A F-15/F-22 replacement! We will be lucking to get enough of them fact enough not to run into an F-16 crisis like we are with the F-15 much less THINKING what F-35s we do get can replace F-15s/F-22s as well. We will be retiring aircraft faster than we produce F-35s. :)

We don't face a deficit in fighters TODAY, but we WILL if we do not continue to procure more F-22s."

Just to highlight your ignorance pfcem. The F-35 will be produced at 230 annually with spare capacity for up to 70 more annually. That is up to 300 F-35s a year. More than enough to cover our needs as we replace older fighters. Show how producing an additional ~200 F-22's would in anyway make up the difference? You can't, numbers don't support you. The truth is we will still have a vast advantage in quantity and quality over any opponent.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 12, 2008 03:40 PM

pfcem,

Just what I though. You don't know jack $hit. You are entitled to your opinion but I'm done with you. Just be careful who you share it with because I assure you no one in the defense establishment would take you seriously. You really need to learn how to back up your claims with numbers and data. That's how it's done by objective professionals. More Logic, less emotion. It's ok to love the F-22. But when you actually know how to access threats that fondness needs to be set aside so that objectivity is what drives an analysis. Our whole concept of warfighting is changing pfcem. As a warfighter I'm experiencing this once again. You I'm afraid are stuck on outdated concepts and threat models and data doesn't back anything you say up. I'm betting my life on this.

Again, if you want to have an intelligent debate, show for me one threat nation or likely combination of threat nations that can challenge the Air Force between now and 2025. If you can't do that then I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree.

With regard to Iraq, your silence on the issues I recently discussed I hopes indicates that you have seen the light regarding why we do not need the F-22 here. That's a start in the right direction. When you graduate to the realization that the current plans we have are more than adequate to successfully ensure this nations ability to control the skies anywhere in the world then you will really have learned something.

An you are no Billy Mitchell. He would have realized that the age of manned fighters has peaked and that the United States has such a lead in that form of warfare other nations are not interested in fighting in that manner. When you have an economy capable of investing billions into defense and intelligence the solution for a poorer nation with less technology and skilled workers is not a direct competition or arms race.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 12, 2008 03:32 PM

You said yourself that most of the studies aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I TOTALLY agree. It is only because you have nothing of value to back up your BS claim that the USAF only needs 183/187 F-22s as opposed to the 381 the only valid in depth study of what the USAF needs concluded that you even bring them up.

Yes, I have heard of the Joint Air Dominance (JAD) study. In fact it was the JAD which was used to convince many of the importance of the F-22 Multi-Year Procurement. :) It (like the QDR) actually SUPPORTS the need for F-22s but that it is not the end of the world if we don't have them RIGHT NOW because we still have a sizeable legacy force. Once the bulk of that legacy force is gone however...

The FACT is that the 183 number DID NOT come from any study or analysis of USAF needs but simply from the number the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) was willing to fund through the FY2009 budget with no validity to it other than that the funds HAD to be allocated to other things.

Delaying any future procurement decisions to the next administration IS NOT support for the F-22. It is passing the buck as a lame excuse for not supporing more F-22s.

Actually, I sound like Billy Mitchell & like him being ridiculed for it.

Nice try but the F-35s are for replacing F-16s & A-10s in the USAF, NOT F-15s - that is what the F-22 is for. Thanks for showing just how pathetic you are. All other aircraft in the inventory will have their own jobs to do - saying that they can do the F-15's/F-22's job in ADDITION to their own is just plain nonsense & equivalent to saying we never should have procured ANY F-15s in the 1st place since other assests could/would/should somehow find a way to do the F-15's job. Again, the USAF is not built around ONE threat scenarios!

The Saegheh is not a strawman it is a perfect example of how Iran's military capabilities are overhyped.

Again the the BS about the F-35. THe F-35 IS NOT A F-15/F-22 replacement! We will be lucking to get enough of them fact enough not to run into an F-16 crisis like we are with the F-15 much less THINKING what F-35s we do get can replace F-15s/F-22s as well. We will be retiring aircraft faster than we produce F-35s. :)

We don't face a deficit in fighters TODAY, but we WILL if we do not continue to procure more F-22s.

No there are notany serious F-22 or F-35 competitors flying around even as prototypes THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT BEHIND THE F-22 & F-35! But byt 2025, that WILL change & what you are so conveniently leaving out is how much of our legacy force will be GONE by 2025. The F-22 & F-35 are not ADDING to our currect force they are REPLACING it (& not on a 1-for-1 basis either). Other nations around the world are not sitting idly by either. Advanced advisarial fighter ARE & will CONTINUE to proliferate.

I am not making a fool of myself, YOU are.

I already told YOU, beware of what leaks to the public since YOU are the one who is fooled by THIS news even.

The USAF has already showbn why it needs AT LEAST 381 F-22. IT is up to anyone you say differntly to prove otherwise. NONE have with validity &/or the necessary scope.

Sorry, 187 isn't enough to provide a full squardon of 24 F-22s for each of the 10 AEF much less training, attrition, maintenance, et cetera/

YOU show how the USAF only needs 187 & how it fulfills our ability to accomplish our objectives.

Numbers, not your ate up biased opinions. Since we both know you can't. Since we both know you can't post ligidiment statements from F-22 opponents saying we can succeed with less F-22's, since you can't do an analysis showing no threat to air superiority beyond 2020.

Posted by: pfcem at July 11, 2008 08:12 PM

The facts of this situation are these. Defense Tech posted a bog that says the following...

"The argument for deployment of the sophisticated fighter was that the US needed to take the lead in the air war in the region. Right now, the United Arab Emirates deploys the most sophisticated fighter in the region, using the F-16 Block 60 50. Sending the F-22 would have allowed the US to field the world’s top fighter and provide ISR and targeting capabilities that no US or allied plane in the region currently posseses." ---Colin Clark or DT Staff

The truth is this.

1. "The argument for deployment of the sophisticated fighter was that the US needed to take the lead in the air war in the region."-- DT Staff

The United Stated already has a substantial lead in the "air war" in the region. It's an air war that is primarily centered on ISR, CAS, Strike and Airlift. Not air to air combat. In all those fields, the United States has by far the most capable force in the region. Deploying F-22's because of that argument would make as much sense as deploying Space Shuttle Orbiters so that we could "take the lead in the regional Space Race" here.

2. "Right now, the United Arab Emirates deploys the most sophisticated fighter in the region, using the F-16 Block 60" --DT Staff

Bullcrap. The U.S. Navy's Super Hornet holds that title. Moreover, the UAE is an ally and not a threat Air Force. Also the Super Hornet is much more suited to the kind of fighting we are actually doing...

http://www.ndia.org/Content/ContentGroups/Divisions1/International/4202_Wallace.ppt

3. "Sending the F-22 would have allowed the US to field the world’s top fighter and provide ISR and targeting capabilities that no US or allied plane in the region currently posseses." --DT Staff

Again, since this is about deploying to Iraq, where the only fighters are flown by coalition personnel. Why is it necessary to deploy the worlds top "fighter" where there happens to be no fighter threat inside of Iraq coincidentally? How would the F-22's ISR capabilities exceed those of the UH-60, AH-64, AV-8B, AH-1W, MQ-1/9, RC-7, RC-135, EP-3, F/A-18E/F, F-16C against the insurgency?

If this is a regional concern, why is the article titled "Gates Opposed AF Plans to Deploy F-22 to Iraq?" Why didn't you write Gates opposed to deploying F-22's to the CENTCOM AOR? At least then the context would be correct.

Why no mention of the fact that the United States and Iran are locked into diplomatic negotiations over Iraq and the Nuclear Program and that the administration DOES NOT wish to rush into another war. Why no mention that a war would seriously hurt the global economy and severely tie up our military beyond what it already is and thus needs to be a measure of last resort for now. Why no mention of the physical security problem of deploying F-22s to the region ESPECIALLY inside of Iraq. If they went to Al Udeid, how come no mention of the strain that would place on the logistics system for any sustained presence longer than 90 days.

In other words, this article and analysis is woefully lacking on facts, context and incredibly bias and/or ignorant. No one familiar with the facts can deny this. Unless DoD Buzz simply wrote the article out of context and corrects it, then who could take it seriously. I challenge anybody to dispute this. With FACTS. Not with what you think SecDef Gates or the USAF personal feeling about the F-22 are. This article is outrageous.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 10, 2008 10:38 AM

Wrong again poseur. There are plenty of studies. The Anti-F-22 Lobby is just as big and diversified as the F-22 lobby and includes USAF and DoD personnel. Have you ever heard of the JAD. Probably not. There are other even more classified analysis and threat assessments you don't see or hear about at all for obvious reasons. You really sound stupid, naive and bias to a real military professional/analyst. Seriously, all you have is an opinion and you have zero back up other than you heard Gen Moseley say something...lol.

Also you idiot the Administration didn't say they don't want any more F-22's. They decided to delay any future procurement decisions and allow the following administration decide if it's appropriate to buy more based on the state of the art. You really sound like those fool Admirals telling Billy Mitchell that no aircraft would sink the BB.

Also, no one is saying 187 Raptors alone will replace the F-15s. It will be F-15C's, F-15E's, 187 Raptors and 1763 F-35As plus the USN and USMC aircraft. Meanwhile you can count on one hand the number of countries capable of putting up more than 50~100 aircraft at a time in opposition! You really don't get the fact that people really do know more about this than you and your Google surfing. I almost hate how open we are with the public because it breeds idiots like you who think you know everything based on very carefully sanitized data and press releases.

Nice strawman about the Saegheh. I never once mentioned that or conventional methods. I specifically told you about asymmetric tools Iran has and can use regionally with great effect. They have a lot of surprises and are very competent at asymmetric warfare as are others. Remember the USS Cole. Its my freakin job to know this and I am a subject matter expert. I'm not underestimating anything. I'm telling you what you won't hear in the main stream news because or on the internet because most don't even know what to look for.

When you get some experience in the military, analyst and/or do threat assessments for a living come talk to me. Otherwise you are a joke. You cut and paste the silliness you read on websites while I'm telling you about real world capabilities and events like when I witness hostile aircraft penetrate Iraqi airspace and obliterate targets on the ground. I tell you about the future of war and why it's stupid to get locked into obsolete paradigms and force structures. You are utterly clueless pfcem.

Also you are on crack if you think our lead is diminishing or the quality of our force is in decline. By 2013 the F-35 will be in series production. By 2016 that fighter will be coming off the line at 230 annually. EVERY YEAR MORON. With the extra production capacity to go to 300+. That's more fighters annually that most other nations entire airforces. A fighter that is dramatically superior to any current threat or any threat in production by 2025. We don't face a deficit in fighters. We face a deficit in thinking and you are a good example of that.

It's why SecDef Gates FIRES PEOPLE who don't get it that things change. Air power is here to stay but the dynamics of the way that power is applied changes pfcem. Nations around the world realize that there is no hope in the near term to catch up technologically to the United States Air Force. In fact they aren't even trying! Have you seen any serious F-22 or F-35 competitors flying around even as prototypes that would be in squadron service by 2025? NO. Do you know why that is? Because it would be a waste of time. They can't even compete with our legacy force.
Maybe you should read something from an F-22 proponent...

Regarding future wars, Weiss maintained that “we’re not saying that legacy aircraft can’t do it.” -- Lockheed Vice President Rob Weiss

..they do say it would take fewer F-22 compared to legacy aircraft which I do not dispute! However, we do have other missions besides air superiority though. Among these competing requirements we have to balance. Fewer F-22's(187) with legacy aircraft that we already bought and paid for can do the mission of the F-22 heavy(381) force. Combine that with the appearance of new threats the F-22 CANNOT handle we have to prepare to fight the war we will fight and not the wars we want to fight.

SecDef Gates, FMR SecDef Rumsfeld and who ever the new SecDef will make decisions based on a lot more information that you have access to pfcem. A LOT MORE. What you know isn't even a tenth of a percent of the relevant data and yet you are making a fool out of yourself without even realizing it. I already told you, beware of what leaks to the public. It's done for a reason and not always legitimate.

Again, you show why the USAF needs 381 and how not having that number will stop our ability to accomplish our objectives and I'll listen to you. Show me with numbers why 187 isn't enough. Show me with numbers how F-22s deployed to Iraq make any difference. Numbers, not your ate up biased opinions. Since we both know you can't. Since we both know I can post statements from F-22 proponents saying we can succeed with less F-22's, since I can do an analysis showing no threat to air superiority at least through 2025, don't waste my time. And certainly never open your mouth to me about what Iran is capable of until you get some subject matter expertise and experience dealing with them.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 10, 2008 08:53 AM

DarthAmerica,

Reports pro and con are not in depth analysis of what the USAF NEEDS to fulfill ALL its responsibilities in the future. You are correct, however, that most of them aren't worth the paper they are printed on (which only demonstrates how pathetic it is to even mention them).

I HAVE seen the QDR, it does not in any way prove that the USAF could get by with just 183/187 F-22s beyond 2020 when most of our current F-15C fleet will have been retired. Again, remeber that the 178 F-15C Golden Eagles are/were needed to AUGMENT the 381 F-22s beyond 2025.

There have been NO studies that make a strong a case for halting the production at 183+4 & holding off any future decisions pending further review. There are "studies" which had ALTERIOR MOTIVES like seeking from the get go to conclude that 183/187 was the "right" number in order to "validate" the current administration's lack of support for further F-22s &/or to make a stonger case for the F-35 but they a wowfully inadiquite in scope & depth. Note again the the USAF does not say its needs 381 F-22s TODAY but that it does need to continue to aquire F-22s in order to have the number it needs WHEN it needs them.

It is patently absurd to believe that 183/187 F-22s can replace 442 F-15s in an INCREASING (both in size & capability) threat environment. It is also important to note that how ever many fighters you have ~1/3 will be unavailable for some reason or another which in-and-of-itself drops a 183/187 force down to just 122/124.

Was it Mosley or Wynne (or BOTH) which one day suddenly announced publicly (shortly after a closed-door meeting with Gates IIRC) their support of the current administration's plan for 183 F-22s only to a week later while testifying before Congress reverted BACK to position of the USAF needing a minimum of 381...

You are greatly overstating Iran's capabilities. remember in Sep 2007 when Iran unveiled its new “Saegheh” (Thunder) super-fighter (researched, designed and built with indigenous means) that was supposed to be similar to the USN's F/A-18 and could defeat the F/A-18 in dogfights, out maneuver the F-22, et cetera? It was nothing more than a refirbished/reworked F-5 with twin vertical stabilizer!

What are you smoking? The decline in the quality & quantity of our fighter force has already begun - that is without question, the question is when if/when the decline reached an unacceptable level. If F-22 production does not continue then by 2013, the USAF fighter force will drop below the 2,250 minimum needed for meeting national needs!

By the way, since you are appearanly too dense to realize it, I (& others) use CAPS to add emphasis to particular words/phrases since that is the easiest way to do so with the limited simple text only format here.

Posted by: pfcem at July 10, 2008 02:22 AM

pfcem,

"The details of the USAF study are classified but the results that the USAF NEEDS AT LEAST 381 F-22s to fulfill all its responsibilities in the coming decades is not.

You can site NO in depth study that says the USAF can get by with 187. But since you are so ignorant let me give a little (VERY TRUNCATED) history lesson on how it is we got to the 187 currently committed to being funded."

Bull$hit. I can site dozens of reports pro and con. Most of them aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I don't need the reports. I could write the reports myself. BUT GO AHEAD AND KEEP RECITING YOUR MANTRA IN CAPS BECAUSE THAT REALLY DOES CONVINCE ME YOU AREN'T AN IDOT. There are always two sides to an argument. You need to look at the QDR.

Gen. Mosley has stated that 183 F-22's is enough publicly. A "Baseline" to quote him. He has stated the desire for more. But the idea that financial constraints alone limited the F-22 to 183+4 are disingenuous. There have been several studies that make just as strong a case for halting the production at 183+4, enough for 7 squadrons, and holding off any future decisions pending further review.

"You don't have to have been to Iraq to be fully aware that Balad is NOT the only location in the region F-22s could operate from or that they would not likely operate from ANY location they would not be safe from attack. Think about it, we defeated Iraq TWICE operating our fighters from bases NOT IN IRAQ."

I told you all the locations from bad to worse. Balad is the location INSIDE IRAQ PROPER. I told you that. I then told you about Al Udeid. Then I told you about Ali Al Salem. It is from one of those locations that F-22s in support of OIF would be based. None of them are safe. Just less exposed to certain threats. Any other facility would REQUIRE negotiation with host nations who will not allow it in the current climate. Do you know how I know that? Take a guess.

All are vulnerable to Iranian counter attack methods and/or insurgents.

"Sorry but it is not 1991, US air defense systems are MUCH more capable today then they were in 1991. ;) ANY aircraft Iran sent to attack our F-22s would be shot down by our F-22s before Iran even knew what hit them. Don't believe the hipe of Iran's missile capabilities. Iran has NO ground attack missile system capable of reaching locations F-22s would operate from which the US could not shoot down.""

Really? Wow this is news to me. I must have been dreaming when I saw foreign aircraft penetrate Iraqi Airspace without authorization, avoiding interception and delivering ordinance. Mark my words, you will look like a fool when data is declassed from this conflict when it eventually settles down. Not that you don't already in professional circles.

pfcem, you have a very myopic and naive view of what combat is like. Son, I'm telling you what I've seen ok. I have no reason to lie to you. I don't give a damn personally how many F-22s we get. I'd be thrilled if somehow we had 381. But if not and our thousands of other fighters compliment the F-22s we have I know at least for the next 20 years we will be fine.

Regarding your classified study references. I'd simply advise you to be careful of those. I know the methodology and could do the analysis myself. Because of that, I know what gets made public is often accompanied by ulterior motives and motivations.

When a legitimate decline in the quality and quantity of our fighter force comes to be. I'll be the first to let you know. We aren't there yet nor will we be over the next 2 decades. The USAF needs to start focusing more on the types of threats we will be facing and not the threats it wishes we were facing. SecDef Gates re-started that process to our benefit.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 9, 2008 10:16 AM

DA-

I did read what you said, which is why I commented on it. And in my comment I mentioned that the US currently flys any number of Low Density/High Demand aircraft out of Al Udeid. Those LD/HD planes are very valuable in thier own right, and yet they are still based close to Iran. If Al Udeid is so vulnerable then why do we continue to base Rivet Joint, Combat Sent, JSTARS, AWACS, U-2's and B-1's there?

Posted by: NTV at July 9, 2008 08:41 AM

DarthAmerica,

The details of the USAF study are classified but the results that the USAF NEEDS AT LEAST 381 F-22s to fulfill all its responsibilities in the coming decades is not.

You can site NO in depth study that says the USAF can get by with 187. But since you are so ignorant let me give a little (VERY TRUNCATED) history lesson on how it is we got to the 187 currently committed to being funded. The current adminstration under its "long term" defense plans determined that it could commit to a multi-year agreement to fund 183 F-22s through the FY2009 budget (the last budget the current administration would be involved in). BUT that determination of any further F-22s would be passed off to the next administration. As part of the FY2009 war supplemental bill 4 additional F-22s are to be funded to replace a number of aircraft losses that have occured bringing the current total to 187. NO study/evaluation based on actual USAF requirements, commitments, responsibilities has been done to determine that 183 (or 187 OR ANY NUMBER OTHER THAN THE 381 THE USAF STUDY FOUND) is enough F-22s - 183 comes simply from the number that was determined would be funded through the FY2009 budget!

It is not USAF pilots who say the USAF needs 381 F-22s, it is the USAF. And the USAF did not just pull a number out of thin air but actually conducted an in depth study to determine how many it needed.

You don't have to have been to Iraq to be fully aware that Balad is NOT the only location in the region F-22s could operate from or that they would not likely operate from ANY location they would not be safe from attack. Think about it, we defeated Iraq TWICE operating our fighters from bases NOT IN IRAQ.

Sorry but it is not 1991, US air defense systems are MUCH more capable today then they were in 1991. ;) ANY aircraft Iran sent to attack our F-22s would be shot down by our F-22s before Iran even knew what hit them. Don't believe the hipe of Iran's missile capabilities. Iran has NO ground attack missile system capable of reaching locations F-22s would operate from which the US could not shoot down.

Posted by: pfcem at July 9, 2008 02:21 AM

"You have it backwords. It is the responsibility of ANYONE who disagrees with the USAF to make their case since the USAF has alrady made its case. The USAF has done the study to determine the MINIMUM number of F-22s it needs to fulfill its worldwide obligations in the future. It has ALSO determined that if it gets only the 381 F-22s it NEEDS that it will STILL need to maintain 178 F-15s beyond 2025 to augment its F-22s. The details of their analysis are CLASSIFIED and you know it. There is NO conventional wisdom that the USAF needs less than the 381 F-22 it says it needs."

No, YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. Also if the USAF study is classified, which I know it is, then how are you asserting with any certainty that the current fleet of 187 aren't enough? There is a difference between what the Old out of work USAF "fighter mafia" wanted, and what the DoD has determined the USAF can live with. For every study you cite that says they need 381, I can cite one that says they can get by with 187. For every USAF pilot who says, they need more F-22's. I can find 5 other USAF personnel including pilots who will tell you the USAF needs to address other priorities besides F-22's due to current superiority and neglected areas.

"I completely reject your BS assertion that if F-22s were send to Iraq that they would be stationed at Balad (not saying they wouldn't but you are asserting the would)"

pfcem, have you been to Iraq? Do you have any idea what support facilities are needed? I have ok, so I know what I'm talking about. I've seen every facility capable of operating fixed wing aircraft and Balad is the only place realistically. Accept that you do not have the subject matter expertise here and you might learn something.

"& even if they were I completely reject your BS assertion that Iran could sucessfully attack them there. My point was that we are not losing current air assest on the ground in Iraq"

LMAO, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I'm not about to provide the enemy free BDA but what you said is absolute bull$hit.

"so the likleyhood that we would lose F-22s is quite low. Not to mention the fact that the USAF would not be foolish enough to station them somewhere where they could not be adequitely secured."

You can't secure them anywhere in the region from Iran...

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45684

They have much more accurate and capable missiles and fighters than the Iraqis!!! Including SLCM capability. This is a major R&D priority for the USAF and USN. Avoiding anti-access threats.

They also have significant Intel and SpecFor capability seeded throughout the region.

"At least at the end of your post you make sense when you suggest Ali Al Salem."

There is a reason I suggested it. And even that base, would have it's hands full FOLLOWING any action against Iran.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 9, 2008 12:07 AM

NTV,

I already mentioned that several times. Did you read when I said,

"Even in Ali Al Salem or Al Udeid they would be highly vulnerable to the Iranians FYI."

Al Udeid is most likely. I'm intimately familiar with our operations regionally. But any basing scheme where F-22's are within unrefueled range of Iran is very risky. We call this anti-access strategy. It will also require negotiations for overflight rights as host will want to know how we intend to use the F-22. It's why we are looking into regional ranged weapons systems. The F-22 isn't designed to fight like that. Also, basing from Al Udeid is going to drive up cost considerably if the F-22 is intended to be used in Iraq. It will require dedicated tanking and CAP support. I do admit though, the supercruise would offset the transit time a bit but as significant cost.

F-22 in CENTCOM AOR insupport of OIF, a waste and serves no purpose. F-22 in CENTCOM AOR as prelude to strike on Iran or Syria, understandable. The logistics, OPSEC and geopolitics makes both of these options impractical for now.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 8, 2008 10:48 PM

NTV,

I already mentioned that several times. Did you read when I said,

"Even in Ali Al Salem or Al Udeid they would be highly vulnerable to the Iranians FYI."

Al Udeid is most likely. I'm intimately familiar with our operations regionally. But any basing scheme where F-22's are within unrefueled range of Iran is very risky. We call this anti-access strategy. It will also require negotiations for overflight rights as host will want to know how we intend to use the F-22. It's why we are looking into regional ranged weapons systems. The F-22 isn't designed to fight like that. Also, basing from Al Udeid is going to drive up cost considerably if the F-22 is intended to be used in Iraq. It will require dedicated tanking and CAP support. I do admit though, the supercruise would offset the transit time a bit.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 8, 2008 10:36 PM

DarthAmerica,

You have it backwords. It is the responsibility of ANYONE who disagrees with the USAF to make their case since the USAF has alrady made its case. The USAF has done the study to determine the MINIMUM number of F-22s it needs to fulfill its worldwide obligations in the future. It has ALSO determined that if it gets only the 381 F-22s it NEEDS that it will STILL need to maintain 178 F-15s beyond 2025 to augment its F-22s. The details of their analysis are CLASSIFIED and you know it. There is NO conventional wisdom that the USAF needs less than the 381 F-22 it says it needs.

I completely reject your BS assertion that if F-22s were send to Iraq that they would be stationed at Balad (not saying they wouldn't but you are asserting the would) & even if they were I completely reject your BS assertion that Iran could sucessfully attack them there. My point was that we are not losing current air assest on the ground in Iraq so the likleyhood that we would lose F-22s is quite low. Not to mention the fact that the USAF would not be foolish enough to station them somewhere where they could not be adequitely secured.

At least at the end of your post you make sense when you suggest Ali Al Salem.

Posted by: pfcem at July 8, 2008 01:05 PM

DA,

Yes, basing the F-22 in Iraq would be risky, but that was never really in the cards, We dont base RC's U-2's and B-1's there, why would we base F-22's there? The logical place to base them is Quatar, where we base Combat Sent, Rivet Joint, U-2, and any other low density high demand asset. Force protection is a concern, but its a concern with other assets as well, and those assets have been flying in the region for years.

Posted by: NTV at July 8, 2008 08:59 AM

pfcem,

"Oh yeah, US assests in Iraq are SOOO vulnerable that we should not even both having them there. LOL"

WOW. First of all, unless you have actually been to Iraq, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. If you have, you are an idiot. Also, I never said US assets. I was referring to a SPECIFIC ASSET.

Now, time for a lesson in IBP and military theory.
Take a look at this image/map...

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.935785,44.377712&z=18&t=h&hl=en

That base, Balad, is where the USAF F-22's would most likely be based if they were to be sent INTO Iraq proper. Their are a few alternatives like Talil for example. But Balad is the better candidate. Which ever base chosen though, it would not matter much in terms of force protection and vulnerability. Notice the bomb damage to the HAS at the rear. The hardened outer shell is intact except for the hole. But let me show you what happened inside...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR76kFMhMAY

Now, I know neither Turkey, Iran or Syria had SDB, but all have weapons capable of defeating HAS. My intent is to show that HAS are not reliable protection. Now, let me demonstrate the ability of the enemy to penetrate modern defenses...

THE BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/dodscud.htm

TURKISH THREAT(low but planned for anyway. I witnessed this personally):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzVac4l8wCE

CRUISE MISSILE THREAT:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/kuwait_03-28-03.html

Then of course there is always the Iranian Air Force itself which is in unrefueled range of any Iraqi base. None of these threats needs to actually destroy the HAS or fighters inside BTW. There are many different types of cluster munition warheads that could foul the taxiway, destroy F-22s on the ground or damage critical F-22 specific maintenance infrastructure. Also remember, an F-22 caught by an enemy fighter while taking off would be an easy target.

Now, for the asymmetric threats. Anyone who has spent anytime at Balad knows that it is affectionately known as "Mortaritaville". This is because the facility is almost always under constant indirect fire hit and run attacks. It's so common that when that Jaime Foxx movie "Kingdom" was showing in Balads movie theater. No one even got up to run for cover when we got bombed that night. This is a weird threat because most often it's terribly inaccurate. But there is always a chance of getting hit no matter how small. Take a view of Balad again...

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.938484,44.371504&z=13&t=h&hl=en

...what you should notice is that the area around Balad is populated by locals and there are multiple high speed ingress and egress routes surrounding the entire base. Insurgents have almost complete freedom to do recon of the base from well outside the perimeter. They can see and ID any jet flying from those runways. Why is that a big deal?

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185511.php
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003609.html

Because we could lose a 100 million dollar fighter to any number of insurgent groups. Just knowing the F-22 is in town is going to attract every covert warrior from the IRGC to AQ in an attempt to nail one. There would be a high degree of plausible deniability built in too. Even if an F-22 crashes accidentally. It could cause a war if the cause isn't immediately known and the wrong people are blamed. Remember, Stealth aircraft may be nothing new to the USAF. But they are highly politicized to the general public. Burning wreckage of a crashed or shot down F-22 would have geopolitical consequences. Especially if the pilot was captured by hostile Iraqis. We saw this in Serbia.

Now, let me ask why should the DoD take these risk? Why when if the F-22 was needed to deal with legitimate threats, it could ferry into a more secure airbase, Ali Al Salem is my suggestion, and begin combat operations within a day or less.

Surely you can see the logic here.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 8, 2008 08:30 AM

pfcem,

OH, my bad. I missed this one...

"YOU are the one not supporting your arguments. What have I not supported?" --pfcem

...I'm not the one arguing for more Raptors. The burden isn't on me to support anything. If I do nothing, things are going my way. YOU however, are the one arguing different from the conventional wisdom. YOU need to prove why your point of view is valid. YOU need to support that with objective data. ALL of your points are nothing more than your opinion which is shaped by your limited view and understanding of the situation. Anyway, if you respond, do so with some support. Support is not "The USAF said they need 381 Raptors." DUUUH No $hit and it isn't the Air Force. It's a few specific individuals who made those claims. Be specific and show the details of their analysis since you are going off of what they say. Then, demonstrate that you understand the parameters of the analysis. Short of that, You have nothing except a lot of text in CAPs supporting you. Other than that you are just another internet poster with an ate up opinion you don't even have the competence to support.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 8, 2008 07:19 AM

pfcem,

Yawn...

No need to even respond to those comments as I've already corrected them. The vast majority of us in the defense establishment, industry and our civilian bosses agree with my assessment. In fact I just finished discussing this to someone here in a casual conversation and we reached general consensus. Seems like you and the pro more F-22 crowd will have to do a bit better with your argument...

Try writing your congress person. It sometimes helps but not often...lol. If you do you better come with a lot more supporting evidence than you have here.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 8, 2008 07:09 AM

DarthAmerica,

YOU are the one not supporting your arguments. What have I not supported?

I never said it is BS to discuss situations where a particular platform is necessary. I said Gates 'current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight' policy is BS. We are WINNING the 'current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight' & our losses in the 'current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight' are & have been DRAMATICALLY LOW so there is no need to sarifice our ability to win future wars in order to win (or even do significantly better in) the 'current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight'.

The USAF HAS made a strong & valid case for it NEED for at least 381 F-22 but F-22 detractors don't care and NOBODY has made ANY valid case whatsoever for the USAF not getting the 381 F-22s it NEEDS.

It is NOT about more F-22s over other needs. Getting more F-22s would not effect ANY other needs (more urgent or not). The amount of money needed to get 381 F-22s is a DROP IN THE BUCKET @ ~$3 billion a year (constant dollars of course & likely do DROP with a multi-year full commitment) if the rate of 20 aircraft per year were to continue until the USAF had the 381 it NEEDS. To put that into perspective ~$3 billion is ~0.097% of the $3.1 trillion FY2009 US budget, ~0.58% of the $515.4 billion FY2009 US defense budget & ~2.1% of the $143.8 billion FY2009 USAF budget.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT! IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT BENFIT THE F-22 WILL BRING TO THE WAR IN IRAQ BUT THAT THE REASON THE USAF HAS EVEN SUGGESTED SENDING THE F-22 TO IRAQ IS BECAUSE OF GATES' BS 'current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight' POLICY & THAT THE PRIMARY REASON GATES NIXED THE PLAN IS BECAUSE OF HIS OPPOSITION TO (as apossed to support of) THE USAF GETTING ALL THE F-22s IT NEEDS!

I never said F-22s SHOULD be deployed to Iraq. I never said F-22s were NEEDED in Iraq either. I have even said that F-22s in Iraq is not the most efficient use of the F-22s or the most efficent way to do the things that F-22s would do in Iraq. If it were not for Gates' BS 'current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight' &/or Gates opposition to the USAF getting the 381 F-22s it NEEDS, the USAF would not likely have even suggested sending F-22s to Iraq except for as part of a consigency plan for conflict with Iran.

Oh yeah, US assests in Iraq are SOOO vulnerable that we should not even both having them there. LOL

Posted by: pfcem at July 7, 2008 01:52 PM

Brad,

I disagree with you about consequences of the military-market link in an expansion of this conflict. It will be more than just starving Africans dying n greater numbers. Half the worlds over one third of the worlds populations live in developing industrial nations both nuclear armed and both heavily tied to the USA's economy. It's a matter that requires careful consideration. I agree with you though that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable under any circumstances though. But I know at this point we have many options short of war to prevent that and we must pursue those courses of actions first.

With regard to SecDef Gates, I am still evaluating him. So far he has done two very very historic things. His replacing the USAF brass and reprioritizing of the DoD more toward the wars we actually fight are very highly regarded. He is a keeper.

pfcem,

I appreciate your passion but you are still not supporting your argument. You are just expressing an opinion. Also, it isn't BS to discuss situations where a particular platform is necessary. We do that all the time as a part of the MDMP and in procurement. Whether it's buying more MRAPS or F-22s it's necessary to actually spend funding wisely and determine the necessity.

So far the people in the USAF who are arguing for more F-22's have failed to make compelling arguments just as you are here to support the need for more. Our airforce is as strong as ever and enjoys even more of a technological lead and that lead is increasing daily.

Like I said, you are strong on passion, weak on logic. You will hve to forgive me for not getting excited over "NEWS STORIES" but I have access to much better information than that.

Again, until someone makes a legitimate case for more F-22's over other much more urgent needs then I'll simply chuckle to myself anytime I hear that argument made and smile each time a see an MQ-1/9 take off from Balad.

Oh and you are welcome to explain what benefit the F-22 will bring to the war here in Iraq. I'd like to see what you think it can do exactly that would justify deploying it here. NO POLITICS PLEASE. I just want to see what you think it can do.

Just pretend by some miracle I replace Gates as SecDef. I already know you think somehow it will make Iran know we are serious...lol. No need to repeat that. Convince me why I should authorize an F-22 deployment. Also, let me ask you this. Are you aware that Iran could destroy F-22's based in Iraq with ease and have you though about force protection issues? Even in Ali Al Salem or Al Udied they would be highly vulnerable to the Iranians FYI. How are you going to protect this asset?

-DA

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 6, 2008 11:18 PM

DarthAmerica,

YOU are the one content to read the internet and believe the rhetoric & YOU are being naive. YOU are the ono who needs to open your mind to what is REALLY going on.

The whole point of what I have been saying is that if all you do is read/listen to the "news" without BOTH checking to see if what the "news" is saying is even accurate AND "connecting the dots" from multiple "news events" in order to obtain a MUCH BETTER (more accurate) understanding of what is REALLY going on then you DON'T have a clue what is REALLY going on. Gates nixing USAF plans to send F-22's to Iraq (which is itself MORE about Gates' BS current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight at the expense future wars than anything else) is MORE about Gates not wanting to support the USAF getting more F-22s than ANYTHING to do with Iran. Unfortunately you have to have been paying attention a while before THIS "news even" to realize that. Iran is the rhetoric in this case.

Yes F-22's in Iraq would signal only one thing & that one thing is that the US is SERIOUS about Iran NOT obtaining nuclear weapons & that it IS prepared to do what is necessary to prevent it.

What you are missing in your F-15s, F-16s & F/A-18s argument is that our F-15s, F-16s & F/A-18s are in need of replacement (not only because of more capable threats then when the F-15s, F-16s & F/A-18s were procured but because, even though they can be upgraded, they CAN NOT FLY FOREVER). The F-22 is the replacement for the F-15 & the F-35 is the replacement for the F-16s and F/A-18s. Note that the USAF plan to keep 178 F-15C Golden Eagle beyong 2025 ASSUMES the USAF getting 381 F-22 - the 178 F-15C Golden Eagles are to AUGMENT the 381 F-22s NOT make up for the USAF not getting 381 F-22s.

More F-22s ARE needed. More than 381 would be desirable. The USAF would love to have more than 381 of them. And it WILL eventually need more than 381 unless an even newer fighter is introduced to replace the 178 F-15C Golden Eagles (don't give anyone the BS that the F-35 is that new fighter because IT ISN'T - we will have a hard enough time getting enough F-35s to replace the aircraft it is slated to replace much less to replace any F-15s). Anyone who says one has to produce a single example of a realistic conflict scenario where they would be necessary and where assets we already have would be inadequate is full OF SHIT because the US military is not built on single conflict scenarios.

2001 Quadrennial Defense Review
"
The force-sizing construct – 1-4-2-1 – takes into account the number, scope and simultaneity of tasks assigned the military: it sizes the force for defense of the U.S. homeland (1), forward deterrence in four critical regions (4), the conduct of simultaneous warfighting missions in two regions (2) – while preserving the President’s option to call for decisive victory in one of those conflicts (1) – and participation in multiple, smaller contingency operations.
"

The NEED for 381 F-22 IS NOT based on meeting ALL the USAF's responsibilities under the 1-4-2-1 force-sizing construct even WITH 178 F-15C Golden Eagles. Nobody is saying we need 381 F-22s TODAY but we WILL eventually. Under the current USAF roadmap (note this is the USAF roadmap NOT the DOD roadmap) calls for continuing F-22 production @ 20/year & retiring 20 F-15C per year until 2018 then retiring 2-10 F-15C per year through 2025. Thus resulting in 381 (or more) F-22 & 178 F-15C Golden Eagle in 2025/2026.

Deploying the F-22 to Iraq has NOTHING to do with any need for the F-22 in Iraq but rather the USAF NEEDING 381 when thus far only 187 (including 4 in FY2009 war supplemental request to replace combat losses) have been committed to be funded & Sec Gates IS NOT supporting the USAF getting any more AND is using his 'current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight' policy as an excuse for not doing so. Send the F-22 to Iraq & prove that it is useful in the 'current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight' & Gates has to admit that the F-22 is & can no longer use that as an excuse...

Posted by: pfcem at July 6, 2008 03:31 PM

DA, like I said, I do not disagree with you on many specific points in regards to defense appropriations: we do need EW and BMD, and more, a new assault rifle (the M-16 is nearly as old as my father now), and the restoration of several more divisions, etc, etc.

I do disagree with the general notion that Gates is the second coming of some cigar-chomping, kickass Christ in the Defense Department. He is an average SecDef. He doesn't have Rumsfeld's faults. Maybe that is enough. But the success on his watch is almost singlehandedly Petraeus's. Again, see above (Gates is not = Rumsfeld).

I'm honestly too bored with the F-22 arguments, pro and con. My take is simply: we have the goddamn thing, let's buy enough of them to have a deep bench. I like the F-22. It is valuable. It replaces the F-117 and now the F-15. We need more, buy more. Cut pork - the hippy musuems, the bridges to nowhere - to pay for 'em. I respect you have an opinion; but save it. :) Again, no desire to re-argue what I have almost neglible impact on.

On the other hand, third world countries can absorb a severe increase in the cost of food/fuel (both are, after all, linked) without mass starvation. It will hurt and I am sure some will die, but then again, third world countries are almost by definition shitholes. We would stand 34th in line in blame behind every corrupt dictator than ruined their country and their secret police, their already self-inflicted tragedy, etc, etc. That's where the hardship is most severe, where people are most vulnerable, and where we have the least influence.

The worldwide hardship line falls flat for me. But then again, in my cold heart, I chuckle every time some pockfaced freshman waives a Chomsky pamphlet claiming that bombing Al Shifa (the, um, drug factory/NBC facility) killed 100,000 magical people. I do the same whenever I hear 3 Trillion Dollar War (!!!) and that the US killed 1 million people in Iraq (!!!).

Life is already tough for those folks. Nobody wants to make it worse. But a nuclear-armed Iran is completely unacceptable.

* I use my personal, military experience all the time; it is a major component of my life, very valuable, and, sometimes, a very convenient club to whack the ignorant and the plain moronic.

Posted by: Brad at July 6, 2008 12:17 PM

Brad,

That's fine. I'm not asking you to just believe me. I could be anybody playing pretend on the net. I'm not of course, but you have no way to verify that for sure. And that's fine with me. That is why I input sources and logic so that you do not have to simply take my word. You can verify the things I say with your own research to see if I'm making it up. Or alternatively, you can wait long enough to see things happen exactly as I say they will mostly because I see it long before it shows up online. Again, the choice is entirely up to you. Frankly, I don't care if anyone believes what I say. When I post things, 90% of the time I learn just a little bit more than I knew prior or I get a chance to see it from another perspective. That is why I am here and not to convince anybody.

Now, when I refer to things like my experiences or something I witness. Thats just the way it's going to be when I post. Sorry, but those experiences are just too important and a part of me to ignore and not reference.

Enough about me...;) Back to this F-22 stuff, Iran War and $10.00 gasoline. It's more serious than that. In an optimistic scenario, gas prices will spike and that may be a temporary inconvenience to Americans. But that because even our most poor have the money to pay for it. But in other parts of the world that is not the case. You mentioned that you served before. Great, if you remember that service and if it happened to be in a third world country. You will remember that life in those nations hangs by perilously thin threads. Even a slight increase in the cost of oil due to a supply disruption could kill thousands in a poor country and maybe more by an order of magnitude. It could also cause unrest as the rulers of those nations struggle to maintain power over desperate dying people.

If we are lucky, this will only result in a Rwanda. Emphasis on IF WE ARE LUCKY. Because we always have the option to leave those people to die which is quite selfish but a reality. In the worse case, such governments will collapse and civil war will break out. In place of a government, you will get the most radical leadership like the Taliban, Al Qaeda or worse. If there are nuclear weapons or important natural resources at stake. Well then it's easy to see how this could quickly get wildly out of control. Remember, WW I, a human disaster, was started over much less. Thankfully there weren't nuclear weapons back then. The rest of the world knows this and it is why war is an option to stop Iran from getting nukes. Because if they get nukes war will be the only option.

Now the F-22. There are people in these forums and blogs saying the most rediculous things about SecDef Gates. When he said future procurement needed to be relevant to the kinds of wars we fight now. He didn't mean that as a nation we didn't need to be prepared to fight other nation states and possibly very powerful ones. What he meant was that due to the post Cold War environment, we are far more likely to find ourselves in places like Mogadishu or Kabul rather than over the Fermosa Strait.

We are already overwhelmingly prepared to fight those large conventional battles. So much so that no one even tries it. If the PRC(everybodies boogyman) stupidly tried an invasion there, their entire expeditionary armed forces would be obliterated. they would be taking 2,000 to 4,000 precision air strikes a day on their soil and against their invasion fleet. They don't have a means to stop that. Even if the conflict were to go nuclear, they are at a huge disadvantage. The PRC could cause damage to the United Stated similar to what Hiroshima and Nagasaki did to Japan while in return the Chinese nation would be obliterated completely into a wasteland. Why would they do this to themselves? Does that make any sense?

As far as an airwar goes. Our F-22s, F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s number into the thousands. No nation could ever hope to win a direct fight against such odds. The 183 F-22s we have are more than twice what all other air forces have for total fighters except for the largest G-8 nations and we have more numbers of advanced fighters than they do when you include the other platforms. Soon, the F-35 will be pouring off the assembly lines. By 2016 that will be more than 230 a year for many years. In essence we will be making F-35s in more numbers each year than threat air forces have in total with the exception of Russia and China. But in three years of production we will vastly outnumber their advanced fighters JUST COUNTING F-35s. We already do when we add our other planes. We do not want for anything when it comes to air combat.

But we do lack for things like a proper tactical vehicle. Body Armor, ISR and EW assets. BMD and TSAT and other space based assets. Possibly a new assault rifle. UCAVs and Tankers. An Army organized to quickly deploy and operate for a month at a time anywhere on earth not encumbered by Cold War era logistics. Sea Lift, Air Lift. More modern nuclear warheads. Attack Submarines. Proper Anti-Submarine warfare training and equipment. We are about 2 divisions short of soldiers in the Army and maybe more. A drastic pay increase throughout the entire department of defense. These are areas that need attention RIGHT NOW. Otherwise we will suffer consequences.

More F-22s are not needed. They may be desirable. The USAF would love to have them. But it does not need them. Anyone who says otherwise cannot produce a single example of a realistic conflict scenario where they would be necessary and where assets we already have would be inadequate.

Deploying F-22s to the region to demonstrate usefulness would be a waste of time and a potential provocation to the Iranians. The F-22 is a high value limited availability asset. It's deployments need to be well thought out so that it is available when actually needed. Also, I agree with you. Why base the F-22 in Iraq where a $2 lucky mortar or MANPAD round could destroy one of the few we have.

Also, other than fly really fast without afterburners. The F-22 cannot do anything in Iraq that F/A-18E/F can't do for example. The F-22 ESM suite is not going to bring something that an RC aircraft or other EW asset can't do better. People who say different really don't understand the capabilities or limits of the systems they are cheering for.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 6, 2008 06:42 AM

DA,
While I respect your opinions on many things, mostly on bashing the free-for-all anti-American Eurotrash Pinko trolls that plague this site, an appeal to authority on the internet under a pseudonym just simply does not have that ring of authenticity that you might like.

I hardly think deploying F-22s to Iraq makes much sense; let's not rush $180 million dollar Ferraris, as someone else said, to the sandbox, especially as they are so new and the squadrons are still learning how to use them, maintain them. In Iraq, within range of a lucky mortar shell? Um, no thank you. Now, to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, maybe.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, back channel communications, war is the last and final option, etc, etc. War is and should be the last and final option.

But at the end of the day, if the choice is between a nuclear-armed Iran and war, and $10/gallon gas among other things, then I choose war.

IGM, I Got Mine, I served, and I'm a citizen. That's my say-so. That's all I need. The reverse Chicken-hawk thing, drop that BS. Unless you want to drop name, rank and serial number, post your decorations and awards, your tours, etc - and if anyone really cares, which, unfortunately, I really don't (sorry, bro, I'll listen to your arguments, but set aside my own faculty of reason on your say-so, or even Gen Petraeus's) - you are just another anonymous commentator.

Posted by: Brad at July 6, 2008 01:54 AM

pfcem,

Again, you need to stop ranting and raving for a war you will not have to fight. If you are content to read the internet and believe the rhetoric then that's on you, but you are being naive.

Iran and the USA have fought a proxy war lite over influence in Iraq with the Unites Stated gaining a temporary upper hand in that fight as a result of the surge. But that fight is coincident with the political tug-o-war over influence in Baghdad.

Let me ask you this. Do you think it is possible for the so-called lunatic Iranian president to come to Iraq without the permission of the USA? Do you think that advanced IEDs suddenly dropped off in frequency because of U.S. Military action alone? Do you think the United States just dropped the condition of control of Iraqi airspace from the US-Iraqi security pact out of the kindness of our red white and blue hearts? Do you think the NIE downgraded the threat posed by Iran because the CIA "dropped the ball". Do you think that the United States offered to restore diplomatic relations with Iran because a war is inevitable. Do you think both the Iranian presidents spokesman and the Religious Leaders spokesmen welcomed the idea publicly? Finally, do you think Iran or the United States view a war as helpful to either nations interest?

Look, all I can tell you is to stop closing your mind. I do this as a profession pfcem and I am physically here on the ground. I have fought this "proxy war" and seen what I am telling you with my own eyes. None of this is new to me. If in your arrogance and ignorance you won't take the time to consider that you haven't been able to review all the facts then I'll not waste my time discussing this any further with you. I'll just let you sit back and wonder why things keep going the exact opposite from all the pundits and blog sites opinions. That includes why the USAF is getting so few F-22's. It's your choice.

There is a lot more going on here than meets the eye pfcem. A LOT. Defensetech and the DoDBuzz are woefully lacking in detail when they cover these subject matters. Like the President said almost a decade ago. A lot of what happens in this war will be secret and not readily discernable. That is more true than you realize.

Now, having said all that. Nothing that has happened means that at some point during this mainly diplomatic stage things can't go terribly wrong and cause a war. We saw that during the previous Missile Crisis. And like that Crisis, all the general public heard were reports of troop movements, exercises, Spy Planes being shot down, quarantines, nuclear test and on and so forth. The general mood was that war was inevitable. Ask people who were alive at that time. Ask them if all the details of the back channel negotiations were clear then. If they knew of all the offers and counter offers. Why do you think this is any different? When what is going on here is declassified you will learn of a raft of facts and I promise that your jaw will drop to the floor. Just pray that things work out because trust me when I tell you a war here is in nobody's best interest. Right now, F-22's in Iraq would signal only one thing. It's a message that we need to consider because once it's done. It cannot be taken back and this situation is closer than you think to critical mass. It can go one way or the other. Which way would you prefer?

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 5, 2008 11:33 PM

DarthAmerica,

Thank you so much for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you are smoking something & that you have not understood ANYTHING the Iranian leadership has said in the past oh I don't know DECADE... :)

F-22 deployment to Iraq COULD have bearing on any decision to fund more because in so doing the F-22 would prove its utility in the the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight & Gates' BS assertion that it has none would be exposed for the BS that it is & thus Gates could no longer use his BS polity that any/all new weapose sytems developement/procurement "must" be applicable to the the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight as an excuse to not support the USAF NEED for more F-22s.

I didn't say the political consequences of sending the F-22 to Iraq are not valid concerns but you in your blissful ignorance fail to realize that said consequences are NOT necessarliy going to be negative or lead to an "escalation" of anything other than Iranian realization of US resolve. What I DID say is that that excuse if "cover" for the REAL reason Gates does not what the F-22 to go to Iraq.

WHAT progress being made between the USA and Iran over Iraq? Other than coalition forces kicking the Iranian proxy soldier's but & Iran's POSSIBLE realization that their support of the insurgency in Iraq is NOT having the desired effect.

DoD Buzz is a "sister site" to DefenseTech being actively promoted by Christian here on DefenseTech. I guess you need to send a message to Christian that he needs to stop this & sever all ties with DoD Buzz since it is so wrong most of the time. The DoD Buzz IS THE SAME ARTICLE posted here on DefenseTech except that the post on DefenseTech is truncated. What you missed is the parts of the article which were truncated (as well as insite provided from other reports). ;)

Yes I know that there is MUCH MORE to the USAF than how many F-22s it has and manned air to air combat but the USAF DOES have a very clear requirement for more F-22s in order to fulfill its obligations in the decades to come.

Try reading this for some perspective.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1266.shtml

Posted by: pfcem at July 5, 2008 12:44 PM

pfcem,

I didn't miss anything. I'm aware of all the arguments both pro and con RE: the F-22. I discussed that issue at length in detail and it is a whole separate topic. An F-22 deployment to Iraq would have no bearing on any decision to fund more. Of course the USAF would try to further develop it' ground attack capabilities and play around with some of the ISR functionality. But that's a strawman and no one in professional circles is questioning that aspect of the program.

But the political consequences of sending it to Iraq are valid concerns. An F-22 deployment could be interpreted as an escalation and the administration must consider if that is what it wants.

Right now there is significant progress being made between the USA and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East in general. We are as close as we ever were to solving some of the grievances that make the mid-east so violent. Care must be taken to get as much out of the current situation as possible. A war, would be a disaster and should only be a last resort should the current diplomatic effort fail.

I'm not going to even waste my time shattering your childish views of Iranian religious considerations or wiping Israel off the map because it would be a waste of time. Those views are the political equivalent of believing on Santa Claus and like Santa you have to mature on your own to accept that Santa is just mommy and/or daddy.

RE: DoD Buzz. It's a cute spirited website. But it is full of factual errors and would not stand up to peer review. In regard to this story, the aircraft in the picture:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/themes/dodbuzz/thumb.php?src=http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/f-22-1.jpg&w=300&h=200&zc=1&q=80

Isn't even an F-22. It is the YF-22 prototype which is a lot different. Second, the UAE F-16 Blk 60 is definitely not the most advanced tactical combat jet in the region. That distinction belongs the the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornets on board the CVN 72 as a part of Carrier Strike Group 9 commanded by Rear Admiral Buskirk. Aircraft which are superior to even the F-22 as a multirole fighter and much more suited to supporting ground troops. There are also Israeli combat aircraft, The F-15I and F-16I which are on par with the UAE jets.

Again pfcem, I appreciate your passion. But the logic behind the arguments here are flawed. There is more to the USAF besides how many F-22s it has and manned air to air combat. MUCH MORE.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 5, 2008 03:39 AM

DarthAmerica,

Read the rest of this story and other killer acquisition content at our new site, DoD Buzz. ;)

You are missing something from only reading this one...

Posted by: pfcem at July 4, 2008 10:09 PM

DarthAmerica,

You are too full of yourself. I understand MUCH more than you know & appearantly more than you since you are so fooled by the "news". F-22 going to Iraq is ALL about politics (internal politics between the USAF & the Secretary of Defense more so than politics between the US & Iran).

Sec Gates knows FULL WELL what the F-22 can do & that if he allows the F-22 to deploy to Iraq then he will have to conceed that it IS useful for the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight & therefor there is justification under his own BS policy for the USAF to get more of them. But Gates wants the PUBLIC to be fooled into thinking that the F-22 is only useful in a WWIII/major world war vs near pear enemies so he can justify his BS desire to prevent the USAF from getting all the F-22s it NEEDS.

Your understaning of the Iranian leadership is SEVERELY lacking. The Irania leaderships is MORE THAN just religiously motivated, religion DRIVES virtually everything they do. Ahmadinejad believes that his purpose for being is to bring forth the return of the 12th Imam & the "end of days" (& the Mullahs have ACTIVELY encouraged that) & that obtaining a nuclear weapon to "wipe Israel off the map" is the way to do it. Iran's interest in Iraq has more to do with religion & the belief that Iraq will be the seat of power once the world has been "cleansed" of all infidels than world/regional politics. To them, politics are simply a tool to further their religious beliefs. It is important to understand that the Iranian leadership actually WANTS the return of the 12th Imam & the "end of days" & they believe that by making it happen that they will be rewarded.

Iran knows that the west does not want war & Iran sees that as a sign of weakness which emboldens them. Iran does not fear war with the west, they embrace war with the west as the way to bring forthe the return of the 12th Imam & the "end of days".

Iran isn't earning a seat at the table in negotiations over the fate of Iraq & has no intentoin to unles it is at IT'S table & everyone is there to submit to THEIR will.

Yes the the SecDef sets policy the DoD carries out BUT the problem is that Sec Gates' policies are NOT pro US defense!

Yes when you hear things in the media about "generals want this" or "generals are upset about that" ect., these are often times carefully constructed leaks designed to influence you one way or the other in order to compel decision makers one way or another. That is why the news reports are that "Gates nixed the plans, citing the strategic danger from the deployment if it were misread by Iran". When those of us who happen to have a somewhat understanding (you really do need to look at much more than just one news report) recognize that IS NOT what it is REALLY about & that BS about Iran misreading it is the "cover".

Posted by: pfcem at July 4, 2008 04:02 PM

Oh and also try and understand that when you hear things in the media about "generals want this" or "generals are upset about that" ect., these are often times carefully constructed leaks designed to influence you one way or the other in order to compel decision makers one way or another rightly or wrong. Generals and Defense Contractors are very politically savvy and nothing they say in public should be taken at face value. NOTHING. Trust me on that.

Remember, Generals also wanted to bomb and invade Cuba during the missile crisis and they made their displeasure known quite publicly. What wasn't publicly known is that there were live tactical nuclear weapons there operating without positive control from Moscow. Just because a General suggest something, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 4, 2008 02:42 AM

pfcem,

You are falsely asserting something that is incorrect. Your so called #1 reason is completely false. And operating cost is not the same whether or not the F-22 is deployed or not. It cost money to operate away from home. Just consider a personal vacation or business travel. Does it not cost more to eat out and sleep in hotels vs living at home and subsisting off of the grocery store?

WINNING here is not measured by casualties or military victories. The military aspect of our mission is only one aspect. Again, the military dimension is an area you do not understand and that is clear from your post.

You also do not understand the Military-Market link or Military-Political link. In essence you are an ignorant outside observer incapable of independently understanding what little you get to see. This is not an insult, just the truth. You demonstrate this when you say things like Iran would be deterred by an F-22 deployment here. All that would do is increase tensions on a calming improving relationship between Washington and Tehran and provoke an Iranian response.

The may decide to remind us with a slight increase in IEDs that they have options and means to retaliate that we would have a hard time countering too. All for what? To prove some point? Utter stupidity. The only An F-22 deployment would have to be weighed very carefully against region specific military-political-economic considerations first. If you only look at it from a military point of view(which still fails to justify F-22s) then you will be blind sided by the politico-economic consequences. That's because the Iranians aren't the only ones who would be likely to see an Iraq F-22 deployment as a prelude to war. So too would the speculators and oil traders. A barrel of oil is already well above $140. If they thought a shooting war was imminent or more likely that price could increase dramatically and the people controlling those prices would have a lot of incentive to do so. Do you think the Saudi's want a war along their primary shipping route while they are making $140+ a barrel? Try to unlearn all the things you thought you knew and listen to people who actually understand. Also stop reading these bias weblogs and believing them. There is a lot more to this than a short little blog could communicate.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 4, 2008 02:31 AM

DarthAmerica,

NOBODY said that the F-22 was the "ideal" platform for the fight in Iraq OR that it is needed for the fight in Iraq. And F-22s are costly to operate whether they are flying in Iraq or anywhere else. ;)

But Gates seems to think we are losing the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight & therefor everybody needs to foget about developing the weapons systems which may very well be NEEDED in order to win the next war in order to save us from defeat in the current one. The reality is the exact opposite. We are (& have been) WINNING the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight, our losses are at unheard of low levels and there are NO "new" weapons systems that are needed in order for us to be doing significantly better.

For the 3rd time (since STILL do not get it) THE #1 reason why the USAF is even considering sending the F-22 to Iraq is because of Gates' BS policy that in order for any weapons system to continue developement &/or procurtement it "must" be applicable to the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight so the USAF "wants" to send the F-22 to Iraq to show to gates that it IS (plus there is the deterrent/convincing of resolve effect that the F-22 COULD have on Iran). But since Gates does not want the USAF to get any more F-22, he has nixed the plans. It is like if your boss said to you that in order for you to keep your job you "must" secure some deal with a client but he/she won't let you even talk to said client.

What have I asserted that can't be verified by most anyone with decent research skills or logically explained?

Posted by: pfcem at July 4, 2008 12:56 AM

pfcem you make incredibly naive assertions to make about someone you don't know. I'll let you figure out why.

What makes you think SecDef Gates doesn't know what the F-22 can do here? You do know he has access to very detailed information and advisors who fully brief him on what our capabilities are and the contributions that can be made by various weapons systems.

Also, do you not understand propaganda and messages meant for internal consumption. Iran has a very religiously motivated society and government. A lot of the people who actually live in Iran need something to focus their energy on other than how repressed they are. Israel, several hundred miles away from Iran is no threat to them and simply represents a political target of opportunity. This is classic dictator/repressive government 101. Just like the Chinese do with Taiwan.

Iranian leaders aren't stupid and they know the consequences of a nuclear weapon. But they also know the political leverage a possible nuclear weapon gives in negotiations. They have seen the North Korean actions and they realize the military necessity of western powers preventing them from getting those weapons. They also know the last thing the United States, OPEC, Europe, Israel or China wants is a war in the Middle East due to the global dependence on the flow of oil from the Gulf. In an emergency where the Gulf was closed only 3 million bpd could realistically be made up for by redirection out of the ~17-20 million bpd that flows from the Gulf. That is one quarter of the global daily consumption of oil. Abruptly taking that off the market would destroy a lot of the less economically stable nations and possibly even some of the larger more developed nations. There is also the natural gas which has no alternate. Taking that off the market because of a war would literally starve and freeze millions to death pfcem. A nuclear weapons effects pails by comparison to that damage. Nobody wants this and a war with Iran could make this a very real possibility. It has before.

This is how Iran is earning a seat at the table in negotiations over the fate of Iraq which is it's real concern if you have been paying attention. The defining moment in modern Iranian history is the Iran-Iraq war where there was over 1 million killed. Almost every Iranian knows or is related to someone who lost their life in that conflict and it is their top national priority to prevent it from happening again.

They no a nuke is intolerable and we will trade much in return for them abandoning such a program. That's what this is about.

"F-22s in Iraq would be a sign to Iran that when we say stop enriching Uranium & pursuing nuclear weapons we MEAN it & are prepared to do what is necessary to stop them if need be."

LMAO, why because the F-22 is an ultimate weapon? How silly. The F-22 would certainly indicate a more offensive posture but it is hardly capable of ending their nuclear program any more than an F-15, F-18 or F-16 could. They know their air force would not survive the first 24 hours of a conflict with us even if no Raptors were involved. The F-16s out of Balad(http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.941106,44.365631&z=13&t=h&hl=en), Harriers out of Al Assad(http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.805146,42.449445&z=13&t=h&hl=en), Super Hornets/TLAMs in the gulf, TLAMs in the Med, and Bombers in Al Udied(http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=25.12383,51.323422&z=16&t=h&hl=en), Guam(http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=13.444304,144.79373&z=11&t=h&hl=en), Diego Garcia(http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-7.3277829,72.428694&z=11&t=h&hl=en), plus CONUS bombers and AEF reinforcements out of Europe and the USA now would be enough to utterly crush their ability to fight in the air and wage a punishing bombing campaign.

"I didn't say the Secretary of Defense is supposed to be a cheerleader. The Secretary of Defense IS, however, SUPPOSED to SUPPORT US defense rather than undermine it as Gates & his predessesors have."

First, you are too ignorant to make a statement like that. You do not understand the DoD well enough to say what any SecDef should or should not be doing. Second, the SecDef sets policy the DoD carries out, not the other way around. Get that through your head.

"Gates SHOULD be working on a roadmap to get the USAF every F-22 it wants rather than seeking to deny them & his denying to allow the F-22 to go to Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with preventing the USAF from proving its utility/effectiveness even in the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight."

You clearly do not understand the role of the SecDef.

I cringe everytime a see a picture of the F-22 in a forum or blog. It's a guarantee to attract the most ignorant commentary and armchair generals who often know nothing relevant. I'm sure the websites advertisers love it though!

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 4, 2008 12:50 AM

>>>DarthAmerica,

You just don't get it.>>THE #1 reason why the USAF "wants" to send the F-22 to Iraq is because if the BS policy of Sec Gates that any/all new procurement "must" be applicable to the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight. So the USAF "wants" to get the F-22 into the current fight to prove to Gates that it is & CAN be of significant benefit.>>Iran DOES want a nuclear weapon, they want it to "wipe Israel off the map" & bring forth the return of the 12th Imam & the "end of days". Pull your head out of the ground & wake up to what is going on!>>F-22s in Iraq would be a sign to Iran that when we say stop enriching Uranium & pursuing nuclear weapons we MEAN it & are prepared to do what is necessary to stop them if need be.>>I didn't say the Secretary of Defense is supposed to be a cheerleader. The Secretary of Defense IS, however, SUPPOSED to SUPPORT US defense rather than undermine it as Gates & his predessesors have.>>Gates SHOULD be working on a roadmap to get the USAF every F-22 it wants rather than seeking to deny them & his denying to allow the F-22 to go to Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with preventing the USAF from proving its utility/effectiveness even in the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight.<<<

No one doubts you can use an F-22 here for something. But it is certainly not the ideal platforms and the operating cost is so high that we would actually lose capability overall because that money could be spent on more directly relevant methods. Do you have any idea what it cost to run and support an F-22 vs say an F-16 or MQ-9? Perhaps you should look into it. F-22s are expensive high value low availability assets and their deployment is not going to be whimsical or tp "prove points".

pfcem, if you aren't involved in the business or a participant in real life, don't pretend to have core subject matter competency because it will show. If you have an opinion based on something you have seen on the internet, share. But don't assert things you obviously can't verify or logically explain because there are those who actually do know what we are talking about. These websites and weblogs are some of the most inaccurate sources of information on this stuff. Trust me.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 3, 2008 11:31 PM

That could mean anything from mining parts of the gulf to increasing the violence in Iraq and undermining the progress there where Iran has been instrumental in securing.
__________________________________________________

Bullshit. Iran would NEVER help the US secure Iraq. In no way is that in their national interest. The stabilization of the Shia South is an Iraqi and US perogative, and its progress is a sign of eroding Iranian influence.

Ostensible Iranian cooperation in this regard is an effort to preserve their Iraqi assets while heading off a confrontation they know they will lose at this juncture.

The key reason is that Shia Iraq is _not_ their stooge, as some presume. They are self-interested political entities seeking independence from _both_ Iran and the US, while establishing their power base. They are not interested in destroying Iraq for Iran and US power allows them to counter Iranian influence.

Thus, Gates is not trying to head off action by a magnanimous foe (Iran) who is in a position of advantage. He is trying to prevent Iranian desperation in the face of escalating pressure and decreasing options while tempering temptations for an ally (Israel)to initiate military strikes.

Posted by: citanon at July 3, 2008 03:49 PM

DarthAmerica,

You just don't get it. THE #1 reason why the USAF "wants" to send the F-22 to Iraq is because if the BS policy of Sec Gates that any/all new procurement "must" be applicable to the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight. So the USAF "wants" to get the F-22 into the current fight to prove to Gates that it is & CAN be of significant benefit.

Iran DOES want a nuclear weapon, they want it to "wipe Israel off the map" & bring forth the return of the 12th Imam & the "end of days". Pull your head out of the ground & wake up to what is going on!

F-22s in Iraq would be a sign to Iran that when we say stop enriching Uranium & pursuing nuclear weapons we MEAN it & are prepared to do what is necessary to stop them if need be.

I didn't say the Secretary of Defense is supposed to be a cheerleader. The Secretary of Defense IS, however, SUPPOSED to SUPPORT US defense rather than undermine it as Gates & his predessesors have. Gates SHOULD be working on a roadmap to get the USAF every F-22 it wants rather than seeking to deny them & his denying to allow the F-22 to go to Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with preventing the USAF from proving its utility/effectiveness even in the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight.

Posted by: pfcem at July 3, 2008 03:36 PM

The reason for not sending the F-22 is in the lede: "Iran would interpret the deployment of the country’s most capable fighter as a regional escalation at a time when rumors were sweeping the region that the US was planning strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities".
___________________________________________________

I was thinking, in particular, that this justification makes no sense. If the goal is preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and bringing them to the negotiating table, then quietly increasing assets in the region could only serve to aid that process. There's much wisdom, after all, in the old adage: "speak softly but carry a big stick".

However, the part that I was missing, is that likely in Gate's view, there is a second party he also needs to address. Iran is the root cause of the problem, but Israeli military action, is the most imminent and likely instigating factor of a near term crisis. Hence, if Gates wants to prevent near term US military action, then he needs to understand Israeli motivations and actions.

Israel's one likely avenue of eliminating Iranian nuclear program, is to begin strikes then hope that retaliatory Iranian military action (salvoed ballistic missile launches, closing the Straits of Hormuz) precipitates broad military action by the US.

Israel knows that the Iranian retaliatory actions would likely cross the Bush administration's bottom line. Therefore, what is the most effective way Gates could head off Israeli action before the end of Bush's presidency? He has to convince them that the US is not even _preparing_ to act _effectively_. Thus, he seeks to prevent the readiness of any asset Israel might deem critical enablers for a US military strike. Had the F22s moved to the Gulf Region, the Israelis would have taken that as a signal that the US was seriously preparing the battle field and collecting intelligence for an air campaign against Iran. Hence, by stopping the deployment, Gates is really sending a message to ISRAEL. In the press, Gates may say "Iran", but there is no mistaking whom his message is actually aiming for.

Indeed, if he were to deploy the F22s, not only would Israel be tempted to act, but Iran might step up destabilization operations in Iraq. The US military would then be face a position of maximum stress near the end of the year.

Is his action wise? That depends on whether whether Gates has hedged his bets. ;)

Posted by: citanon at July 3, 2008 03:34 PM

The reason for sending the F-22 is in the lede: to "provide ISR and targeting capabilities that no US or allied plane in the region currently possesses".

The reason for not sending the F-22 is in the lede: "Iran would interpret the deployment of the country’s most capable fighter as a regional escalation at a time when rumors were sweeping the region that the US was planning strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities".

Apart from that, y'all seem to be assuming that it isn't there. If it was, it would be partly to confirm it's stealth capability, and develop further TTP to exploit that.

If it was, we'd want to say that it wasn't.

Posted by: demophilus at July 3, 2008 02:10 PM

Pedestrian,

We believed the same thing about Iraq in early '03 that the moment the war started the whole army would desert and the country would be delivered to us on a plate.

While Iran is certainly involved with sending weapons and training our way, there's a big difference between doing that covertly and openly attacking us because they have no longer have anything to hide or lose. Bombing Iran would give them that excuse and could unravel everything we've fought for in Iraq for the last couple years. For them to send whole formations of troops across the border would be suicidal of them, there are plenty of other military options available to them (such as the thousands of rockets and missiles they say they have pointed as Iraq and Israel).

Posted by: TB at July 3, 2008 01:29 PM

What my fellow ground pounders seem to forget about the Air Force is that the last time a U.S. soldier was killed by ordinance dropped/fired from an enemy aircraft was in the 1950's! (I'm not counting the USS Stark) That's called AIR SUPERIORITY and we seem to take it for granted these days. Without air superiority the snake eaters, tankers and grunts sit in their barracks playing cards. Oh, and they also scan the skies looking for Jabos.

Posted by: Henry at July 3, 2008 10:54 AM

Just wait until the F-35 takes over the roles of the F-16 and A-10. Laughable. So what do we do then? I guess it will be an all Predator fight.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at July 3, 2008 08:15 AM

"Iran is ALREADY involved in Iraq sending EFPs, Hezbollah advisors and covert agents, and training Mahdi Army inside Iraq and Iran"

It would be interesting to see some actual evidence for these claims.

It would also be intersting to see any justification for why the F-22 (rather than any other piece of kit) is needed in Iraq. It's certainly not an obvious one.

Posted by: Wembley at July 3, 2008 07:42 AM

This is an incredibly significant event. Sec Gates is wise to not deploy F-22's to Iraq. This is the F/A-18, F-16 and UAV fight. Moreover, the F-22 would represent an escalation threat against Iran at a time where significant progress between the USA and Iran is being made.

Iranians don't want a nuclear weapon, they wanted Iraq. The success of the surge denied them that. They have readjusted policy and now seek security guarantees for their western border. What they don't want is a Iraqi vassal state that could be used as a staging area for attacks against them by any foreign power. Deployment of F-22s to Iraq would be that which they absolutely fear most and they would probably react in ways we would not like to that. That could mean anything from mining parts of the gulf to increasing the violence in Iraq and undermining the progress there where Iran has been instrumental in securing. So long as the USA and Iran are making progress through back channel negotiations, an F-22 deployment would probably be a military-politico mistake.

Besides, if we really needed F-22s there for any reason it would not take anything more than 24 to 48 hours to have them ferry themselves to the region and begin combat operations.

pfcem please tone down your rhetoric, it's very unbecoming and in fact incorrect. The SecDef is the Civilian Leader of the U.S. Military, a policy maker, not a cheerleader. His job is to manage the DoD in accordance with national policy. He isn't detracting anything, he is carefully managing an organization through a significant period of transformation. This is no less painful than the Admirals realizing that Aircraft Carriers were eclipsing the Battleship as the premier warships of the USN.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at July 3, 2008 01:24 AM

>They have COMBAT READY troops while we are still stuck in Iraq.

Invalid. They are ALREADY involved with Iraq. I'll beat your concerns. If US strikes Iran even by terms of limited war, what the regime will fear first is revolution. Iran will fear revolution that it could not sacrifice its COMBAT READY force that will be occupied to counter revolution at home ground. Iran is a multi ethnic country, and the regime is very unpopular. Iranians say they believe that even one bomb dropped on Iran may lead to revolution.

Posted by: pedestrian at July 2, 2008 11:46 PM

>We were suppossed to be at war with Iran two summers ago.

I agree it is valid to say that there is enough reasoning to go to war against Iran in the near future, but two years ago is not the correct time. The point is the strength of terrorists in Iraq, and at this moment, Al Qaida and Mahdi Army is declining in strength. You cannot go to war against Iran while there are Al Qaida and Mahdi Army ready to be paid and do a favor for Iran. However, the declining strength of the two are indicators that may conclude to be safe to attack Iran (limited strike) now while large number of troops are in Iraq.

Posted by: Peter Enav at July 2, 2008 11:39 PM

>Putting a high capability stealth aircraft in the region at this time won't help stabilize Iraq >and might very well destabilize it, if the Iranians feel it means a strike is imminent.

That is a invalid reasoning. Iran is ALREADY involved in Iraq sending EFPs, Hezbollah advisors and covert agents, and training Mahdi Army inside Iraq and Iran. You can not make things worse when its already the worst.

>It might not be a good idea to expose our top fighter to the likely sigint and elecint efforts
>of old and possibly future enemies.

In terms of technology and the price tag, that is a valid reasoning that makes sense, but my point is rather Raptor has the features to fight counter insurgency or not. If Gates meant he does not think so, then it does not make sense to me and nothing but an invalid reasoning. I would also want to mention weapons that were desinged for conventional warfare does not mean its uncompatible with assymetric warfare. The opposite may be true as well. There are weapons that may have hidden potentials which may fight both, and weapons such as M-1, MLRS, and JSTARS proved its capabilities in MULTIROLE, fighting both types of war.

>Sometimes with a new piece of equipment you've got to get it dirty before you really know what
>you've got.

That is a valid point. In fact, problems were spotted for CROWS and MV-22 as a result for getting dirty, and experience building up will allow fix for those problems. Dynamic real world events give valuable feedback.

>The F-22 can perform counter-insurgency tasks & recon tasks but it's not the best aircraft for either.

Partially true, there are other options, but Gates is still wrong if he meant Raptors are not useful for counter insurgency.

>The USAF needs more F-22. Sec Gates has more-or-less proclaimed that for ANY new procurement the
>system "must" be applicable to the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight.

That's probably what the truth is behind the back.

Posted by: pedestrian at July 2, 2008 11:33 PM

Its incredible how pathetic America's administration is.

We were suppossed to be at war with Iran two summers ago.

Posted by: NSAguy22 at July 2, 2008 11:26 PM

We could use the F-16 to shoot down the Iranian F14's. An F22 vs. F-14 = overkill.

Of course, we shouldn't even be talking about war with Iran.

They have COMBAT READY troops while we are still stuck in Iraq. For the Right to even be thinking of this shows their stupidity.

Posted by: NSAguy22 at July 2, 2008 11:20 PM

Good Evening Folks,

Could we be seeing a trip wire for military intervention Iran with deploying the F-22 to Iraq. It's no secret that Iran has about 58 old F-14A and that the Air Force has been war gaming air to air with those F-14's for about a year now at Nellis. I'm sure the F-22 had it licks at the F-14 in virtual world.

Using the F-22 against Iran would I guess estlabish that the U.S.A.F. is still relative to U.S. defense, or does it?

Sec. Gates and Adm Mullen are at least up front againt any military action in Iraq, but didn't we see this same dog and pony show in 02-03?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at July 2, 2008 10:45 PM

This is actually quite ironic. When Secretary Gates blasted the F-22 for not flying a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan, he convientently neglects to mention that the only reason the F-22 hasn't flown any missions there is because he won't allow it.

Posted by: C4Casey at July 2, 2008 10:29 PM

Damn that's a sexy plane

Posted by: Jeff M at