PDA

View Full Version : F-16 Replacement



gute
10-13-2010, 02:56 AM
The big plane is to replace the F-16 and A-10 with the F-35 (as well as the Marine Harrier and older model Marine and Navy F-18A/B/C models). Most are aware of the cost overruns (yes, it's true) and issues with the engine.

Question: Is it realistic to build a smaller F-22 to replace the F-16?

Question: It it possible to replace Harriers with VTOL CAS UCAVs?

Question: Should the production of the F-22 (possible FB-22 variants) end at 183 or continue to 381 air frames?

carl
10-13-2010, 04:32 AM
Do you mean by "smaller F-22" the F-35? If so, they aren't the same airplane.

The F-22 is meant to go out and clear the skies of enemy aircraft, capable formidable enemy aircraft like the big Sukhoi. The F-35, even with the F, is a light bomber. I don't see it having near the capability to fight and kill capable enemy aircraft that the F-22 does. It just doesn't have the flight performance; and despite what the tron gods say, flight performance makes a difference.

Drones may be the way to be in decades coming but I just don't see it in the near term. They crash a lot for one thing. They go stupid and wander around the sky. You can afford that with a Pred that mostly looks and occasionally shoots a Hellfire, but replacing the Harrier... And, they are radio controlled. If it is radio controlled somebody smart can send a radio signal to it and steal it from you.

My opinion not just yes, go up to 381 F-22s, but hell yes. From what I read there is nothing in the world that even comes close. We should sell it to the Japanese too. The development dollars are all spent so we just pay production costs for each one. The cost of the F-35 I think will eventually equal or exceed that of the F-22 and with the Raptor you get a real honest to goodness fighter, not just a light bomber with delusions.

If the past is any guide, your questions should provoke a lot of replies. People love to talk about airplanes.

William F. Owen
10-13-2010, 06:15 AM
Let me ask the question the other way around.

Why would continuing to build and employ F16, A-10, AV-8B+, and F-15X be a bad idea? Why wouldn't this work?

Maeda Toshiie
10-13-2010, 09:30 AM
Let me ask the question the other way around.

Why would continuing to build and employ F16, A-10, AV-8B+, and F-15X be a bad idea? Why wouldn't this work?

Age of airframes. You can manufacture new ones (assuming that the production line tools remain) or "zero-hour" them (which also practically means remanufacturing them).

Design. There is a limit as to how much you can squeeze out of an existing airframe in terms of flight performance, space for avionics, etc. This is partly what killed the F20, ie an F16 with a brand new airframe and resulting growth potential. You can't plug in F22 engines into an F15E and expect a performance boost, even if the engines fit.

While there is no big Red Army capable of beating down the gates of Western European capitals right now, there is still a necessity of maintaining a credible force with at least technological parity if not superior.

Aside: I see that the RAF is fighting to maintain its budget share, but I guess this is for another thread (or even another forum).

William F. Owen
10-13-2010, 10:18 AM
While there is no big Red Army capable of beating down the gates of Western European capitals right now, there is still a necessity of maintaining a credible force with at least technological parity if not superior.
Agree, and improved F16, A-10, AV-8B+, and F-15X all do that. Be aware, Tthe real capability/performance of upgraded types is usually under-played because they threaten the viability of new types.


Aside: I see that the RAF is fighting to maintain its budget share, but I guess this is for another thread (or even another forum).
If by fighting, you mean sacrifice all types and capabilities to maintain the Typhoon fleet, then yes they are!

Bob's World
10-13-2010, 10:36 AM
Wilf asks a fair question. Or why not get a production line up and running producing a modern version of the A-6 Skyraider for ourselves and the many small, poor countries that have requirements? (sure they want F-16s, but really?)

For the top end aircraft critical issues are threat, deterrence and asymmetric counters.

1. What is the threat? (combination of capability, inclination, likelihood, risk, etc)

2. Do current platforms effectively deter that threat?

3. Are there relatively simple, inexpensive counters to these new platforms that can be quickly rolled out by opponents putting us right back at the same deterrence balance we are at currently?

4. What are the missions that drive this. Are there changes of policy that would cause some of those missions to (rightfully) either fall off the books or take a much reduced priority.

I don't have the answers to any of these. I did participate in the High-End Asymmetric Threat section of the last QDR though, so I do have some insights. Sometimes we use our desire for numbers or types of platforms or organizational units to drive retention or adoption of missions, that in turn then drive policy decisions. My one recommendation is that we need to turn that around to the extent possible.

Services and the corporations who produce these platforms are biased advocates; which is fine, so long as we've designed the process to contain those biases into limits set by our national policies and military missions. Currently (and I suspect historically) they opposite is true. BL, neither General Dynamics nor General Officers should pick our wars for us.

Jobu
10-13-2010, 11:01 AM
Here's the first of a series of two articles (part 2 isn't out yet) by the former SECAF on this topic...

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=11959

Fuchs
10-13-2010, 12:00 PM
Lt General Deptula’s depiction in that article is wildly off.

1) The F-22 and F-35 don't have the radar capability (especially not in LPI mode) to substitute for a lack of AEW support. In fact, most F-22s don't even have a proper datalink capability.
Four F-22s would need to almost constantly circle to provide sufficient radar coverage. Their main radar has at most about 110° coverage because of its primitive fixed installation.
F-22s in their preferred BVR air combat tactics would need to move back and forth quickly, not circle around. They could be surprised and engaged in deadly WVR combat without AEW support.

2) It has been acknowledged long ago that it's a myth that stealth bombers need no jammer support for penetration of well-defended regions (there's no EA in the single digit SAM defences 5th gen attack depiction).

3) It's ridiculous to claim that 4 F-35 can replace 8 F-16C in the strike component unless you assume that the F-16's use old munitions while the F-35's use new ones. F-16 has a vastly better payload capability. The assumption of different ammunitions is not legitimate for a platform copmparison.
Plus: The F-16 can employ many (heavy) munitions which a F-35 cannot transport (at least not internally - and external storage removes the low observability advantage, leading to greater support needs because of reduced survivability).

4) It's inappropriate to believe that 4 F-35 suffice for a "DEAD" (destruction of enemy air defences) mission. The mere suppression can already require more ammunition than F-35's can story internally (especially if we assume that they keep at least some air/air missiles!).
The destruction requires follow-on attack within line of sight and additional munitions.
Some background about why I don't buy the implied assumption of advanced ARM hyper-effectiveness:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2008/12/weapons-munitions-hype.html
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/03/anti-arm-decoy-emitters.html
I understand that (very) low observable aircraft need only a tiny opening in an AD network, but even they need it twice - infiltration and exfiltration. They can furthermore be channelled in their movements if they're only ment to slip through instead of fighting their way through - channelled in favour of surprise AD and interceptors.

5) Finally - F-35 and "EA" (electronic attack) is rather odd, for jamming means to give up low observability.


That graphic - and the whole article - is no honest presentation of a realistic assumption. It's political-economic marketing hype.

USMC-03
10-13-2010, 01:23 PM
Age of airframes. You can manufacture new ones (assuming that the production line tools remain) or "zero-hour" them (which also practically means remanufacturing them).

Design. There is a limit as to how much you can squeeze out of an existing airframe in terms of flight performance, space for avionics, etc. This is partly what killed the F20, ie an F16 with a brand new airframe and resulting growth potential. You can't plug in F22 engines into an F15E and expect a performance boost, even if the engines fit.

Both spot on points.

I won't go into the operational capabilities or political aspects of either the F22 or F35, but from an engineering, manufacturing and maintenance standpoint both aircraft have some significant advantages over the current crop. Several years ago I worked for a company making aerospace components was involved with several projects for the F22 and the cancelled Comanche helicopter.

There has been tremendous effort placed into design for manufacturability, reliability and maintenance on both the airframe and engines of the F22, and now the F35. Manufacturing capabilities and efficiency has made huge shifts in the past thirty years and constructing new F22s and F35 will be little more expensive than the older aircraft (in adjusted dollars), the real expense is in materials (lots of titanium and composites) and the advanced technology aspects.

The designers of this new generation of aircraft have actually been seeking significant input from the assemblers in the factories and technicians if the field; operations on the F15/16 that were intended for one person but actually take two, really can be performed by one on the F22/35. The engines used in the F22, and as the basis for the F35 engine, have 40% fewer major components than most prior jet engines and been designed to keep them flying with minimal maintenance man hours by shifting most of the critical components to the bottom of the engine, thus eliminating the need to remove the engine unless a complete overhaul is required. The use of modular systems makes component change out in field conditions very quick and one small innovation that I really liked was the elimination of safety wire with the advent of a new type of connection plug; no need to find lost wire twisting pliers any more.

As an aside, my cousin is a Harrier pilot in the USMC; I'll get his impressions the next time he's home on leave and we have a chance to talk.

Maeda Toshiie
10-13-2010, 01:32 PM
Agree, and improved F16, A-10, AV-8B+, and F-15X all do that. Be aware, Tthe real capability/performance of upgraded types is usually under-played because they threaten the viability of new types.

The loss of A10s without a similar replacement would certainly a shame, considering that the current potential replacements do not have some of its capabilities (and which are certainly needed). And I recall reading some who were against the idea of single seated F16s replacing F4s in the SEAD "Wild Weasel" role due the lack of the second crew member to share the workload.


Wilf asks a fair question. Or why not get a production line up and running producing a modern version of the A-6 Skyraider for ourselves and the many small, poor countries that have requirements? (sure they want F-16s, but really?)

I think this is an issue of roles and the number of different aircraft types needed. For logistics and training, it would be good to limit the number of airframe types. Furthermore, you can reduce the fleet size that is needed to perform X types of missions.

Taking your example, a modernized A6 Skyraider (A6 tends to remind me of the Intruder though) would be useful in Afghanistan right now and probably more bang for the buck as compared to the rest of the USAF stable. Essentially a COIN type. However, how much useful would it be outside of Afghanistan or the current GWOT? A WW3 WP vs NATO scenario isn't likely for the next 10 or maybe even 20 years, but it ain't gonna do much to deter the PRC. The PRC issue is one worth keeping track of for someone living in South East Asia.

In my own amateur way, I'll try address your points:
1. 2 based on projection of the present: PRC and Russia. The second isn't credible but having sufficient capacity to deter can make quite a difference. Their technology is still behind the West and certainly do not have the funds to field the numbers at present. However, when you look at South Ossetia war, the Russians are not unwilling to flex whatever military muscles it still has when it wants to. Presently: a motley crew of 4 gen (early to late) and small numbers of 4.5 gen equipment and crew with questionable amount flying hours.

As for the first, the PLAAF and PLANAF are slowly growing their capabilities. Technology wise, they are still behind even the Russians in some areas (eg engines). However, it is clear that they want to stake out their claim on the waters off their shores and they would want something to back their words.
Presently: a lot of 4 gen equipment (most are early 4th gen) with some 4.5 gen.

Main point: the Russians have the experience and system to run a capable air force (though not quite at the NATO level), but do not have the funds to do so. The PRC's problems are opposite, ie lacking the experience and system to build an air force for serious power projection (or even just to cover their ground forces) but they have the funds to attempt doing so.

2. Yes. BUT the F15 airframes are aging. Even if you replace them with F15s, you aren't going to buy F15Cs with 1990s technology, are you? If you consider the cost of the latest versions of F15Es or even the Silent Eagle, the cost differential with respect to F22s doesn't seem that much.

3. Not really, though SAMs are comparatively cheaper than to operate and maintain. Why else is there so much concern over the S300s? I do not know if the latest models can effectively engage and destroy F22s but it is naive to assume that the F22s are invulnerable for its projected service life.

Of course, air forces don't win wars (cue Soviet general joke), at least not on land but are the ground forces willing to live under a neutral sky instead of a totally friendly one?

4. I think the mission of establishing air supremacy (not air superiority) will not fall off the books. The US and its allies capable of accomplishing it in the present moment (against most potential adversaries), it is difficult for such the capability to be allowed to fall off unless it is totally bank breaking. If you have the ability to beat your opponent 100:0, would you give that up easily?

gute
10-13-2010, 02:27 PM
Do you mean by "smaller F-22" the F-35? If so, they aren't the same airplane.

The F-22 is meant to go out and clear the skies of enemy aircraft, capable formidable enemy aircraft like the big Sukhoi. The F-35, even with the F, is a light bomber. I don't see it having near the capability to fight and kill capable enemy aircraft that the F-22 does. It just doesn't have the flight performance; and despite what the tron gods say, flight performance makes a difference.

Drones may be the way to be in decades coming but I just don't see it in the near term. They crash a lot for one thing. They go stupid and wander around the sky. You can afford that with a Pred that mostly looks and occasionally shoots a Hellfire, but replacing the Harrier... And, they are radio controlled. If it is radio controlled somebody smart can send a radio signal to it and steal it from you.

My opinion not just yes, go up to 381 F-22s, but hell yes. From what I read there is nothing in the world that even comes close. We should sell it to the Japanese too. The development dollars are all spent so we just pay production costs for each one. The cost of the F-35 I think will eventually equal or exceed that of the F-22 and with the Raptor you get a real honest to goodness fighter, not just a light bomber with delusions.

If the past is any guide, your questions should provoke a lot of replies. People love to talk about airplanes.

I did mean a smaller F-22, but as you stated a two different missions, two different aircraft.

Good points made on the Harrier/UCAV idea. I figured present technology would cause limitations.

gute
10-13-2010, 02:32 PM
Let me ask the question the other way around.

Why would continuing to build and employ F16, A-10, AV-8B+, and F-15X be a bad idea? Why wouldn't this work?

Great question and makes sense so it will not happen. Make new ones that are generation 4.5 - well the F-15SE is a 4.5, but the USAF does not seem interested. The USAF is putting new radars in the F-15 (I beleive the same one in the F-22). I've heard about another 4.5 gen F-15 called the Golden Eagle, but I might be confussing this with the Silent Eagle.

gute
10-13-2010, 02:37 PM
IMO the F-35 goes ahead regardless of costs because so much has laready been spent.

If the F-35 were cancelled and production lines were not put back on line for F-16, F-15, AV8-BII, and A-10 what current aircraft might meet the needs?

Is the F-18E a suitable replacement for the F-16?

gute
10-13-2010, 02:40 PM
I read recently that aircraft technology can only go so far before the performance of the aircraft (extreme g forces) kills the pilot. The key is missile technology or the ability to shoot down aircraft behind you, below, above, etc.

Maeda Toshiie
10-13-2010, 03:01 PM
Great question and makes sense so it will not happen. Make new ones that are generation 4.5 - well the F-15SE is a 4.5, but the USAF does not seem interested. The USAF is putting new radars in the F-15 (I beleive the same one in the F-22). I've heard about another 4.5 gen F-15 called the Golden Eagle, but I might be confussing this with the Silent Eagle.


The Golden Eagles are existing F15Cs being fitted with the APG-63(V)3 AESA radar.

Silent Eagles are new F15s incorporating LO technology.

F18Es are replacements for F14s, not F16s. If the USAF wants, they can buy new F16 block 60s and stuff in an AESA radar as well to replace existing F16s.

As for AV-8, I doubt they can restart the production line or want to buy Russian stuff. There is no other alternative to F35B.

Fuchs
10-13-2010, 03:20 PM
I read recently that aircraft technology can only go so far before the performance of the aircraft (extreme g forces) kills the pilot. The key is missile technology or the ability to shoot down aircraft behind you, below, above, etc.

Conscience is lost at +12g with liquid-based anti-g suits. That's 3 Gs higher than with pneumatic anti-g suits and well beyond most airframes' safety limits.

The acceleration won't kill the pilot directly at 13-20 G, but he's unable to control the aircraft and might take relatively long to recover and regain control afterwards. Automated evasion manoeuvres should therefore be possible beyond 12 G - it just takes a while until the pilot can regain control.



The problem is another one, and independent of "manned or unmanned". Large airframes simply cannot withstand as high accelerations as cylindric missiles, the missile manoeuvrability wins. This is apparently even true despite the fact that an intercepting airframe needs to pull a many times as Gs to hit an evading airframe (such as 42 Gs to reliably hit a 9G evading object).

Aircraft manoeuvrability is largely irrelevant for today's fighters because the most advanced air-air missiles can already be launched to hit a target behind the launching platform. They simply turn on the first few hundred meters by 180° and lock on after launch - guess why the Russians installed rear radars in their last fighter series. The F-35 has the DAS for the same purpose (and other purposes).



I suspect that active defences (jamming or shooting down incoming missiles, known from ships and now also from tanks and transport aircraft - bound to happen in fighters) will become relevant in the near future.
This will add even more per unit cost and require additional installation volume and surface.

Entropy
10-13-2010, 04:05 PM
The big plane is to replace the F-16 and A-10 with the F-35 (as well as the Marine Harrier and older model Marine and Navy F-18A/B/C models). Most are aware of the cost overruns (yes, it's true) and issues with the engine.

The issues are mainly with a second engine the DoD doesn't want, but Congress plans to give them anyway. Whether the services can get by with legacy aircraft is irrelevant at this point - all the eggs are in the F-35 basket for better or worse.


Question: Is it realistic to build a smaller F-22 to replace the F-16?


Given the incompetence of the procurement/development system, a "smaller" F-22 is going to add significant development costs. If push comes to shove, better to buy an existing aircraft.


Question: It it possible to replace Harriers with VTOL CAS UCAVs?

Sure it's possible, but that will require a whole new development program. Can we keep the harriers going until then? Can we afford the expense of a new weapons system of a design that's never been done before?


Question: Should the production of the F-22 (possible FB-22 variants) end at 183 or continue to 381 air frames?

That's already been decided - the production line is shutting down. Most of the parts for the last run of aircraft are being made right now. The final delivery is only a year away. There's no indication that Congress or the President have any interest in changing that.

Also, one can't ignore the politics of this. Sure, it's technically feasible to buy more existing legacy aircraft, but Congress likes the jobs and preserving the industrial base.

Plus, when you look at it, legacy aircraft aren't that much cheaper (of course, we don't really know what the F-35 is going to cost yet). For example, the latest and greatest F-15 (Silent Eagle) is estimated at about $100 million per aircraft while an F-22 is about $135 million. The latest estimates for the F-35 put the unit cost at the same price - and the F-35 was supposed to be the "cheap" plane.

The F-22 is more expensive than a new F-15 but bests the F-15 is almost every respect. Whether that additional capability is worth an $35 million premium is a judgment call, but the point is that "legacy" aircraft aren't as cheap as commonly believed.

The newest F-16's run about $60 million - or less than half of what an F-35 is projected to cost. Plus, the F-35's superiority to the F-16 isn't as definitive. Is it worth it? Again a judgment call. I was dubious about canceling the F-22 program for this reason. Considering the F-35 now costs as much as an F-22, it probably would have been better to keep the F-22 and cancel the F-35 in favor of upgraded legacy aircraft. Problem is that the F-35 program is too big to fail at this point.

Fuchs
10-13-2010, 04:17 PM
I advise to not delve into cost comparisons. That terrain is badly mined (http://www.ausairpower.net/US-Cost-Definitions-Slide-Public-DAU-1.png).

Entropy
10-13-2010, 04:36 PM
Yes, there's a lot of definitional differences, wishful thinking and downright deception regarding costs. Despite that, you can't just eliminate cost as a factor in decisionmaking.

Fuchs
10-13-2010, 04:38 PM
Certainly not, but discussing cost differences takes about as much thoroughness and transparency of sources and quotations as a scientific study - or it runs into troubles.

Cliff
10-14-2010, 01:39 AM
Wilf asks a fair question. Or why not get a production line up and running producing a modern version of the A-6 Skyraider for ourselves and the many small, poor countries that have requirements? (sure they want F-16s, but really?)

I assume you mean the A-1 or AD-1 Skyraider of Vietnam Sandy fame.

The reason why is because we have a production line for the AT-6 and Super Tucano, both of which can do the same job. There are some advantages to having a turboprop vice a prop.

The USAF is currently working procurement of the Light Attack And Reconnaissance aircraft- there's a briefing on it scheduled for 27 Oct at 1230 at CGSC for those who are in the neighborhood.

LAAR will give the USAF a COIN optimized light attack capability that our 6 SOS folks can use to build partner capacity as you suggest.



For the top end aircraft critical issues are threat, deterrence and asymmetric counters.

1. What is the threat? (combination of capability, inclination, likelihood, risk, etc)

The air threat in the current NSS is the same as the ground and sea threats- we need to be able to do full spectrum from peacetime engagement to COIN to the high end.

The high end threat is the Su-30MKK, F-11, and F-10- soon to be PAK-FA. The other issue is advanced EA. See the report on China's military power:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Power_Report_2009.pdf

Last year's report, but the picture is pretty grim. This threat is real, and the other problem is their numbers vs ours.


2. Do current platforms effectively deter that threat?

Yes, but we only have 189 F-22s and the last is being built- China is building more of everything mentioned above. F-22s only have 8 missiles - eventually numbers matter. OBTW not all 189 Raptors are available for use...

The only reason we can deter a threat like China right now is our training- and eventually even that will be eclipsed by numbers - even if we match our Korean War 10-1 kill ratio, that still means we could lose everything pretty quickly...


3. Are there relatively simple, inexpensive counters to these new platforms that can be quickly rolled out by opponents putting us right back at the same deterrence balance we are at currently?

I wish. We're pretty much at the level of picking the low-hanging fruit by improving radars and EW systems. We need a new missile, but that's in the works too. Unfortunately there's no easy answers in air to air.


4. What are the missions that drive this. Are there changes of policy that would cause some of those missions to (rightfully) either fall off the books or take a much reduced priority.

The missions are Air Superiority, DEAD, INT, Strategic Attack- but you need Air Superiority first to enable the rest- so unless you feel like conceding our great-power status, we can't really drop the mission.

Strategically we can drop supporting Taiwan, but that doesn't help - we still need to be able to deter China. I think that conflict with them over Taiwan is highly unlikely. However, we can't predict what would happen if a serious disruption took place in China's economy, or if the social contract (Chinese Communist Party rule in exchange for economic prosperity and keeping the PLA happy) broke down.

If we can't deter China, a lot of folks (especially Korea, Japan, and Australia) would need to either accommodate China, develop their own militaries, or quickly develop nukes...

I submit that our ability to project power is a big part of why we haven't seen a great power war since WWII... if we lose that ability (which is highly dependent on air and sea superiority) we are in trouble.

In other words, the small wars may not stay small.


I don't have the answers to any of these. I did participate in the High-End Asymmetric Threat section of the last QDR though, so I do have some insights. Sometimes we use our desire for numbers or types of platforms or organizational units to drive retention or adoption of missions, that in turn then drive policy decisions. My one recommendation is that we need to turn that around to the extent possible.

Services and the corporations who produce these platforms are biased advocates; which is fine, so long as we've designed the process to contain those biases into limits set by our national policies and military missions. Currently (and I suspect historically) they opposite is true. BL, neither General Dynamics nor General Officers should pick our wars for us.

Completely agree. We don't have the cash to buy what we would really like to have, so we have to make do with what we have now.

I think you will end up seeing the USAF follow the Navy and buy some F-16 block 60s as a stop gap- just like the USN's recent Super Hornet buy. Everyone has to hedge because F-35 is going to slip, and at this point it is too big to fail.

I'd be curious to hear more about your QDR insights...

V/R,

Cliff

Cliff
10-14-2010, 01:50 AM
Aircraft maneuverability is largely irrelevant for today's fighters because the most advanced air-air missiles can already be launched to hit a target behind the launching platform. They simply turn on the first few hundred meters by 180° and lock on after launch - guess why the Russians installed rear radars in their last fighter series. The F-35 has the DAS for the same purpose (and other purposes).

I suspect that active defences (jamming or shooting down incoming missiles, known from ships and now also from tanks and transport aircraft - bound to happen in fighters) will become relevant in the near future.
This will add even more per unit cost and require additional installation volume and surface.

Fuchs, I strongly disagree...

The death of Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) is often greatly exaggerated...

No missile is perfect. OBTW the jammers you refer to exist... see my last post for details on what the threat has. These can affect missiles...

Until missiles become hittiles and have 100% Pk (never going to happen in my opinion) there is always the possibility of having to close with the enemy, maneuver to a position of advantage, and kill him with WVR weapons - BFM.

OBTW, to use your BVR missiles you have to be able to ID the threat- again this is not a perfect science, and if it fails you may have to visually ID (VID) the threat. Getting a VID requires the same maneuverability mentioned above.

At some point we may get to where a computer can match the human system in terms of air-to-air situational awareness... but we're not there yet.

We learned this lesson in Vietnam, hopefully we don't need to re-learn it anytime soon.

V/R,

Cliff

Fuchs
10-14-2010, 09:03 AM
Until missiles become hittiles and have 100% Pk (never going to happen in my opinion) there is always the possibility of having to close with the enemy, maneuver to a position of advantage, and kill him with WVR weapons - BFM.

Missiles ARE the primary WVR weapon/munition. Autocannons have a very small role nowadays.

You don't need to manoeuvre into a position of advantage if you can shoot a missile in every direction, even while turning.

Cliff
10-14-2010, 09:10 PM
Missiles ARE the primary WVR weapon/munition. Autocannons have a very small role nowadays.

You don't need to manoeuvre into a position of advantage if you can shoot a missile in every direction, even while turning.

Fuchs-

Agree that missiles have improved in maneuverability.

I disagree about the gun... the gun can't be jammed by enemy EW, decoyed by flares, or spoofed by an IR jammer... It is much more reliable than your average missile. And it's Pk is pretty decent. Not to mention it is very precise...

Finally, the gun is important for air to ground work, as you can be extremely precise on where your bullets are impacting. I'm sure there's a lot of folks here who are glad the F-15E, F-16, and F-18 have guns...

Even with missiles, you still have to put yourself in a position to employ. Missiles are not a magic death ray (though we may see lasers on fighters soon!), and still need to be put within a certain min/max range to have a chance of success.

In my 1700+ hours of flying fighters, I have found the gun to be a pretty useful thing to have- even if you do have an all-aspect missile. The gun is not minimized, at least not in the US military...

"A fighter without a gun is like an airplane without a wing." -Brig Gen Robin Olds (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/jim.html)

V/R,

Cliff

Cole
10-15-2010, 12:40 AM
The reason why is because we have a production line for the AT-6 and Super Tucano, both of which can do the same job. There are some advantages to having a turboprop vice a prop.

The USAF is currently working procurement of the Light Attack And Reconnaissance aircraft- there's a briefing on it scheduled for 27 Oct at 1230 at CGSC for those who are in the neighborhood.

LAAR will give the USAF a COIN optimized light attack capability that our 6 SOS folks can use to build partner capacity as you suggest.
Go beyond that and use the same aircraft that all airmen use in initial flight training as the light attack version. Then any airmen can be tasked to fly it just as any can be tasked to fly Reaper/Predator.

Believe light attack aircraft also can be used for homeland defense, counterdrug, and search and rescue. For instance, F-22 airmen in the Florida panhandle could augment scarce fighter flight hours flying light attack missions guarding offshore oil wells, looking for drug runners, and deploying to Afghanistan. Alaska F-22 drivers would augment their hours flying search and rescue and patrolling the pipeline. Langley F-22 drivers would watch for small planes and cargo ships with possible cruise missiles and nukes. If artillerymen are being forced to operate as infantry, it follows that F-22 airmen can contribute to the war in a light aircraft in between white scarf duties.



The air threat in the current NSS is the same as the ground and sea threats- we need to be able to do full spectrum from peacetime engagement to COIN to the high end.Hence having F-22 drivers flying light attack aircraft.


The high end threat is the Su-30MKK, F-11, and F-10- soon to be PAK-FA. The other issue is advanced EA. See the report on China's military power:
Last year's report, but the picture is pretty grim. This threat is real, and the other problem is their numbers vs ours.

However few THREAT nations have large quality fighter inventories, those that do are deterred by nukes, and none have true 5th generation stealth aircraft that allies will have thousands of in a few years. The USAF and friends have priced air combat out of reach of most threat nations and the same level of training is still out of reach in Russia and China. Most of China's and Russia's aircraft are so old that their quantity has little quality of its own. Russian aircraft in Georgia were shot down by MANPAD and friendly fire so we could probably expect similar results in China, whereas allied IR and radar countermeasures and experience would be highly effective.

Agree that the F-35 with internal ordnance will be a highly effective CAS provider during week one and beyond and even better with external stores. The Russians lost several Su-25 in Georgia so S-300/S-400 threats would also hinder use of A-10C...but not F-35....which is coming out 20% cheaper than original government estimates for Lot 4. There is nothing wrong with F-35s that hasn't been wrong with all other aircraft types in their early years. The superior air-to-ground capabilities of F-35 make it preferable to more F-22s...even if restoring more parts for it assembly line was cost feasible.

As MG(Ret) Scales wrote recently, during WWII, being a bomber or submarine serviceman was as dangerous as being an infantrymen. That has not been the case for 65 years because excessive funding has gone to air and sea supremacy at the expense of the average G.I. Joe who still dies and get maimed in the thousands for every 10 Airmen and Sailors that perish or are legless. Only SEALS and JTACs experience remotely comparable risks.


Yes, but we only have 189 F-22s and the last is being built- China is building more of everything mentioned above. F-22s only have 8 missiles - eventually numbers matter. OBTW not all 189 Raptors are available for use...That's what F-35 and F/A-18E/F and EA-18G are for. Not every enemy aircraft needs to be shot down by an F-22. AWACS and satellites will know where the good stuff is originating. Ground and sea-based air defense systems will get their share as well.


The only reason we can deter a threat like China right now is our training- and eventually even that will be eclipsed by numbers - even if we match our Korean War 10-1 kill ratio, that still means we could lose everything pretty quickly...
Our numbers of 5th generation stealth aircraft are climbing faster than their zero.

Even in the Korean war with war-experienced Russian pilots augmenting Chinese, a 10:1 ratio in nearly identical aircraft was the norm. The war experience of Chinese and Russian pilots today, not to mention DPRK or Iranian is essentially non-existent. An F-22 assisted by F/A-18E/F and EA-18G with experienced crews would have much higher ratios because they are much better aircraft and pilots, and will continue to be until plenty of even better allied F-35s and unmanned aircraft exist. Even WVR there would be little to lock onto and F/A-18 and F-35 helmet-mounted displays, F-35 DAS, and clean configuration would prevail when F-22 are arming/refueling. Why haven't we figured out how to do air-to-air rearming with missile pods into internal F-22 and F-35 bays!


The missions are Air Superiority, DEAD, INT, Strategic Attack- but you need Air Superiority first to enable the rest- so unless you feel like conceding our great-power status, we can't really drop the mission.
Yet the USAF air superiority crowd always ignores the capabilities of Patriots and Naval air defense missiles, let alone the other fighters of other services and allies that won't have to fly from Guam.


Strategically we can drop supporting Taiwan, but that doesn't help - we still need to be able to deter China. I think that conflict with them over Taiwan is highly unlikely. However, we can't predict what would happen if a serious disruption took place in China's economy, or if the social contract (Chinese Communist Party rule in exchange for economic prosperity and keeping the PLA happy) broke down.

If we can't deter China, a lot of folks (especially Korea, Japan, and Australia) would need to either accommodate China, develop their own militaries, or quickly develop nukes...
Just having lots of F-35s from all services, JASSM-ER fired from B-52, Tomahawk-launching subs, and an offensive missile fired from vertical launch cells, and figuring out how to fix the Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile future problem would be sufficient to fix China. Increased dependence on selling to Walmart and the U.S. would fix the rest.


I submit that our ability to project power is a big part of why we haven't seen a great power war since WWII... if we lose that ability (which is highly dependent on air and sea superiority) we are in trouble.

In other words, the small wars may not stay small.Agreed except the area where ability to project power is suffering the most is ground power. The USAF has the most intertheater airlift in the world by a wide margin and yet the US Army wants new GCVs that will hinder ability to use airlfit to deploy or threaten to deploy credible, sustainable heavier armor until sealift arrives.

All the Russians had to do in Serbia was airland airborne forces to deter NATO. Putting a small HBCT combined arms battalion augmenting an airborne brigade on the east side of Taiwan would be sufficient to deter an amphibious assault in the preparation phase.

Strykers alone in the narrow passes of South Korea near the border would be decimated by North Korean infiltrators and stay behind forces with handheld RPGs and ATGMs. And the sealift distances to South Korea are so excessive that airlift and prepositioning are the sole rapid options. But heavy armor without fuel only is effective a few hours. Clearly, a DPRK strategy would be to destroy our fuel tankers with stay behind forces and artillery, and SOF.

I see that the Army is buying more Joint High Speed Vessels which would help in both the Pacific and Persian Gulf. Great unless you buy a fleet of 50+ ton GCVs and future variants of it for the heavy BCT that will quickly eat up a JHSV's 600 ston payload.

All just my opinion, as always.

carl
10-15-2010, 01:46 AM
I would be interested if somebody would comment on the range of each of the airplanes and how they would affect ops, especially in the Pacific. I have read that all the F-18 variants are short legged and also that one of the reasons the Japanese wanted the F-22 was they needed a long range airplane. What kind of range does the F-35A and C have?

I know that all sorts of games can be played with range figures, hi vs lo, load etc. But regardless of that, some planes will just go farther than others. And I know everything can be refueled in the air but some need it less than others.

I am interested in what you guys know and I ask because I haven't seen that mentioned yet.

Cliff
10-16-2010, 05:52 PM
I would be interested if somebody would comment on the range of each of the airplanes and how they would affect ops, especially in the Pacific. I have read that all the F-18 variants are short legged and also that one of the reasons the Japanese wanted the F-22 was they needed a long range airplane. What kind of range does the F-35A and C have?

I am interested in what you guys know and I ask because I haven't seen that mentioned yet.

Carl-

I won't talk specifics to avoid getting classified, but I can point out the publicly advertised numbers:

The F-35 and F-16 have comparable combat radius:

F-35 vs F-16 Combat Radius Comparison (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A193f1ee3-bac2-4a8d-b0b0-c42c84351a6a&plc)

F-22 is very similar :

F-22 Combat Radius (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2005/January%202005/0105raptor.aspx)
(note this article says FB-22 would have a combat radius of 1800nm, about 3x F-22)

F-15E has a longer combat radius due to CFTs:

Eagle Combat Radius (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-specs.htm)

F-18 is slightly shorter due to less gas, and being heavier to land on boats: F-18 Combat Radius (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18ef.htm)

Combat radius is the best "range" number to compare - since it compares combat performance. Just "range" means just taking off and flying a given distance- but doesn't include any actual employment or fighting.

Basically, a given amount of gas will get you only so far. The specific energy of JP-8 is still the same- and the motors are not that much more efficient one way or another (only marginal effects). You would think more fuel = more range, but you know have to carry that fuel- potentially more parasite or form drag from external tanks or a larger aircraft, plus more induced drag from having to lift more weight. This is why the F-15C and F-15E have (fairly) comparable ranges and combat radii, since the F-15E has more drag even though it carries more fuel.

The F-22 (and to a lesser extent the F-15) have a slight advantage in that they can fly at higher altitudes than the other jets due to their design - in general jet engines get better fuel efficiency at higher altitudes.

The F-22 also has the ability to go supersonic without using afterburner (supercruise) which gives it a greater radius of action- the ability to accelerate quickly and travel at high speed without massively increasing fuel consumption means that it can get to where it needs to be quicker and cover a larger area than other fighters.

Hope this helps.

V/R,

Cliff

Cliff
10-16-2010, 07:27 PM
Go beyond that and use the same aircraft that all airmen use in initial flight training as the light attack version. Then any airmen can be tasked to fly it just as any can be tasked to fly Reaper/Predator.

Hence having F-22 drivers flying light attack aircraft.

There were rumors that this exact plan would happen, but for F-35 folks.... fly F-35 for the high end, have LAARs or AT-6s for COIN/FAC roles... This would require 2x the planes, and also 2x the maintenance... not exactly affordable in today's day and age.

The F-22 has a T-38 companion trainer program (CTP), but it is more like SAC's old CTP - to give them aircraft to chase guys upgrading and maintain proficiency... T-38 CTP (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e9f07893aac6aa334f29f895e2a1a73c&tab=core&_cview=1).


However few THREAT nations have large quality fighter inventories, those that do are deterred by nukes, and none have true 5th generation stealth aircraft that allies will have thousands of in a few years. The USAF and friends have priced air combat out of reach of most threat nations and the same level of training is still out of reach in Russia and China. Most of China's and Russia's aircraft are so old that their quantity has little quality of its own. Russian aircraft in Georgia were shot down by MANPAD and friendly fire so we could probably expect similar results in China, whereas allied IR and radar countermeasures and experience would be highly effective.

Unfortunately, the Russians and Indians plan on fielding PAK-FA by 2013 (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/india-and-russia-confirm-joint-fighter-and-transport-projects-26831/).

See my previous post... the US is producing its 189th (actually 186th operational) F-22 right now. China, India, and Russia are all producing air-to-air fighters still... the US will be producing 0 in a few months. At some point, numbers start to matter. See the link to the DoD report in my previous post for words on the effectiveness of SAMs against our aircraft... unfortunately, the threats have some pretty effective SAMs.


Agree that the F-35 with internal ordnance will be a highly effective CAS provider during week one and beyond and even better with external stores. .... The superior air-to-ground capabilities of F-35 make it preferable to more F-22s...even if restoring more parts for it assembly line was cost feasible.

Completely agree on the air-to-ground... the problem I am talking about is air-to-air and SEAD/DEAD... F-22 is much more effective than F-35 in the air-to-air role... F-35 only carries 1/2 the number of missiles... again it comes down to numbers.


As MG(Ret) Scales wrote recently, during WWII, being a bomber or submarine serviceman was as dangerous as being an infantrymen. That has not been the case for 65 years because excessive funding has gone to air and sea supremacy at the expense of the average G.I. Joe who still dies and get maimed in the thousands for every 10 Airmen and Sailors that perish or are legless. Only SEALS and JTACs experience remotely comparable risks.

Let me start by saying that I totally agree that the folks on the ground are bearing the brunt of the current fight. I have nothing but respect for all of those who have placed themselves at risk around the world... they are all heroes.

The current fight is ground and COIN centric, which means that the folks on the ground are bearing this burden. I don't think you can blame this on lack of money... it's more the type of fight we're in. You could potentially blame the lack of spending on the RIGHT resources... MRAP for instance is twice as effective in preventing casualties than the M-1, and over 3x as effective as the HMMWV, see CRS report (at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22707.pdf).

I agree that the ground forces need more emphasis to win the current fight... but you have to hedge your bets at some point. If we win the COIN fight in Afganistan but our allies in another theater are powerless against an agressor because we have lost our ability to deter near-peers... well, both would not be good outcomes, but which has more dramatic effects on our national security? In other words, it's all about balancing risk... both are important.


That's what F-35 and F/A-18E/F and EA-18G are for. Not every enemy aircraft needs to be shot down by an F-22. AWACS and satellites will know where the good stuff is originating. Ground and sea-based air defense systems will get their share as well.

Agree... issue again comes down to numbers and effectiveness. F-35 = 1/2 F-22 missiles... F-18 is not as effective as F-22, and can't survive double digit SAMs. ISR/C2 and datalinks are key for sure.



Our numbers of 5th generation stealth aircraft are climbing faster than their zero.

Even in the Korean war with war-experienced Russian pilots augmenting Chinese, a 10:1 ratio in nearly identical aircraft was the norm. The war experience of Chinese and Russian pilots today, not to mention DPRK or Iranian is essentially non-existent. An F-22 assisted by F/A-18E/F and EA-18G with experienced crews would have much higher ratios because they are much better aircraft and pilots, and will continue to be until plenty of even better allied F-35s and unmanned aircraft exist. Even WVR there would be little to lock onto and F/A-18 and F-35 helmet-mounted displays, F-35 DAS, and clean configuration would prevail when F-22 are arming/refueling. Why haven't we figured out how to do air-to-air rearming with missile pods into internal F-22 and F-35 bays!

Agree on the training piece... that was my point in my previous post, we are at technological parity (except F-22) and are relying on training to keep our edge. Unfortunately, numbers matter... still. An F/A-18 WVR against 4 Flankers is in trouble... Realize that the enemy has all-aspect missiles as well.

It's unfortunate that the USAF, USN, and USMC's successes in the air in the last few conflicts have made people think that we will always have an overmatch in the air.


Yet the USAF air superiority crowd always ignores the capabilities of Patriots and Naval air defense missiles, let alone the other fighters of other services and allies that won't have to fly from Guam.

Cole this is just not true. We train with all of the folks you have mentioned on a routine basis. We are not ignoring their capabilities, not at all. Unfortunately, even Aegis and Patriot only have so many missiles... and their priority has to be TBMs. They help- especially Aegis... but it is not the end-all-be-all. Numbers still matter.


Just having lots of F-35s from all services, JASSM-ER fired from B-52, Tomahawk-launching subs, and an offensive missile fired from vertical launch cells, and figuring out how to fix the Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile future problem would be sufficient to fix China. Increased dependence on selling to Walmart and the U.S. would fix the rest.

All of these things help, but there are some other problems... numbers being one of the biggest... F-35 = 1/2 F-22 missiles, so at best it can cover 1/2 as much until SAMs are knocked back and they put on the external pylons.


Agreed except the area where ability to project power is suffering the most is ground power. The USAF has the most intertheater airlift in the world by a wide margin and yet the US Army wants new GCVs that will hinder ability to use airlfit to deploy or threaten to deploy credible, sustainable heavier armor until sealift arrives.

Hmmm... I don't think it is in any one realm that power projection is suffering- they all are. We are dependent on sea and air LOCs for any power projection... and that is ALL services, the whole joint force. Without LOCs, no one can fight... so everyone needs to be concerned about Anti-Access threats.


All the Russians had to do in Serbia was airland airborne forces to deter NATO. Putting a small HBCT combined arms battalion augmenting an airborne brigade on the east side of Taiwan would be sufficient to deter an amphibious assault in the preparation phase.

How is your HBCT going to get there when the C-17s are shot down by naval SAMs, and the MPF ships are sunk by diesel subs or anti-ship ballistic missiles? How will you sustain said HBCT? You will not be able to get there if the anti-access threat isn't solved. OBTW an HBCT on Taiwan would probably be seen as an act of war...


Clearly, a DPRK strategy would be to destroy our fuel tankers with stay behind forces and artillery, and SOF.

Agree, see above.


I see that the Army is buying more Joint High Speed Vessels which would help in both the Pacific and Persian Gulf. Great unless you buy a fleet of 50+ ton GCVs and future variants of it for the heavy BCT that will quickly eat up a JHSV's 600 ston payload.
All just my opinion, as always.

Agree- GCV needs to be air and sea transportable, which is why it was postponed if I understand right.

One last time- I am not arguing that air superiority is more important, that the Air Force needs a lot more money, or we have to buy F-22s. I am simply saying that we need to be honest and realize that we need LOCs to project power, and anti-access threats can cut those LOCs. We need to understand the risk we are accepting as a joint force, and figure out ways that minimize it within our current constrained forces (means). We are at best at a moderate risk level (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2009/0618/p02s09-usmi.html), and as the threat improves that risk goes up.

Good discussion, appreciate all your points and the good debate Cole!

V/R,

Cliff

Cole
10-16-2010, 10:21 PM
Carl-

I won't talk specifics to avoid getting classified, but I can point out the publicly advertised numbers:

The F-35 and F-16 have comparable combat radius:

F-35 vs F-16 Combat Radius Comparison (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A193f1ee3-bac2-4a8d-b0b0-c42c84351a6a&plc)

F-22 is very similar :

F-22 Combat Radius (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2005/January%202005/0105raptor.aspx)
(note this article says FB-22 would have a combat radius of 1800nm, about 3x F-22)

F-15E has a longer combat radius due to CFTs:

Eagle Combat Radius (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-specs.htm)

F-18 is slightly shorter due to less gas, and being heavier to land on boats: F-18 Combat Radius (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18ef.htm)

Combat radius is the best "range" number to compare - since it compares combat performance. Just "range" means just taking off and flying a given distance- but doesn't include any actual employment or fighting.

Well I sure won't go classified because have no such access...just like Air Power Australia ;) Will couch my casually informed discussion in China terms as DPRK and Iran don't pose significant SAM or air-to-air threats. Russia has catching up to do on modern fighter numbers and lacks China's defense budget to catch up rapidly...and few would consider the Pak-FA a stealth aircraft or anything projected by the Chinese. India is a friend. Few threats would be able to buy large numbers of export Fak FA because their defense budgets are typically $10 billion or less annually.

Your own link shows an F-16 with external tanks and weapons has a combat radius of 630nm...and presumably will either dump the tanks repeatedly (and create a logistics problem) or live with the radar, reduced range, and performance penalty. Meanwhile, the F-35 to achieve 728nm will dump fewer tanks, then has a clean internal load profile, better turning performance, and more speed/acceleration...and can survive S300/S400 missiles and long range radar AAM. That seems to surpass the F-22 as there is no FB-22.

The F/A-18E/F will be closer to Taiwan than the F-22/F-35 that are taking off most likely from Guam since mainland Japan, Korea, and Okinawa will be too risky from a Chinese long range missile standpoint. The Naval sea-to-air threat won't last long and keeping F/A-18E/F over Taiwan just outside long range Chinese SAM range will easily handle older Chinese aircraft with AWACs vectoring F-22/F-35to the newer stuff. Would guess eventually the F-35 will have conformal fuel tanks to match F-15E and certainly would not want to try to bomb mainland China airfields or amphibious ships with an F-15E given the SAM threat.

Finally, one of these days, a KC-X tanker will be able to refuel all of the above to keep them on station and top off replacement KC-Xs before heading home. I still believe a C-17/C-130 could be modified to have a hydraulic arm extend out the rear of the open ramp and lift a missile pod under and into both the F-35/F-22...at a much cheaper price than new F-22s.

There is talk of F-35 carrying 6 AMRAAM internally and even with just four, you send two flights of four covering a wider CAP than a single flight of four F-22s. The two flights of F-35 would be close enough together that with AIM-120D capability they would be mutually reinforcing.

Its largely irrelevant anyway because in many cases, both F-22 and F-35 will be carrying just 2 AMRAAM and 8 Small Diameter Bomb 1 or 2. Surmise that you don't have to beat their numbers in the air if you bomb. JASSM-ER, and Tomahawk their runways.

Again, I love air and seapower, but suspect we have more than enough of both given our carrier and quality sub numbers and coming F-35 quantities. The counter-missile threat is more problematic (and the poor country's air force) than the counter-air threat...but that too is being addressed. Don't necessarily reject all EBO arguments in many potential conflicts. Certainly can't envision putting land forces on mainland China, and just bombing China rail lines and highways (see the recent problem with 10-day traffic jams?), ports, and establishing a fuel ship blockade in the Straits of Mallaca would be sufficient to end the war.

Good discussion.

Cole
10-16-2010, 11:04 PM
There were rumors that this exact plan would happen, but for F-35 folks.... fly F-35 for the high end, have LAARs or AT-6s for COIN/FAC roles... This would require 2x the planes, and also 2x the maintenance... not exactly affordable in today's day and age.It would mean fewer total pilots if F-22 aces flew both, augmenting their under 20 Raptor hours per month. Suspect they could more safely practice some air-to-air maneuvers/TTP in the LAAR as well. Just one squadron of 24 LAAR might be shared by three squadrons of F-22s. Maintainers for the 24 LAAR are essential regardless, so it is a sunk cost no matter who flies them.


Unfortunately, the Russians and Indians plan on fielding PAK-FA by 2013 (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/india-and-russia-confirm-joint-fighter-and-transport-projects-26831/).

See my previous post... the US is producing its 189th (actually 186th operational) F-22 right now. China, India, and Russia are all producing air-to-air fighters still... the US will be producing 0 in a few months. At some point, numbers start to matter. See the link to the DoD report in my previous post for words on the effectiveness of SAMs against our aircraft... unfortunately, the threats have some pretty effective SAMs.We are producing F-35s that surpass anything China is producing and will beat PakFA in BVR. Suspect EODAS and AIM-9X coupled with helmet mounted displays would do just fine in WVR, as well. Why do you guys never mention that half the day is at night when WVR won't matter too much anyway.

I buy the argument that F-22 and F-35 will run out of missiles, but doubt the "quantity has a quality of its own" numbers will kill too many of our stealth aircraft as they are heading home to rearm. We and allies will get their numbers down rapidly enough to matter. You don't need to win the air war in a week when the longer blockade lasts for months.


Completely agree on the air-to-ground... the problem I am talking about is air-to-air and SEAD/DEAD... F-22 is much more effective than F-35 in the air-to-air role... F-35 only carries 1/2 the number of missiles... again it comes down to numbers.You mentioned the missile quantity disparity repeatedly. Suspect from informed forum comments that eventually F-35 will have 6 internal missiles. Its larger numbers of aircraft make up for half the missiles per aircraft and in many non-CAP mission both F-22 and F-35 will have just two AMRAAM.


Let me start by saying that I totally agree that the folks on the ground are bearing the brunt of the current fight. I have nothing but respect for all of those who have placed themselves at risk around the world... they are all heroes.Agree 1000% but sickened when things like FCS unmanned ground and air vehicles that could lead dismounted troops through IED fields/roads are not given the same emphasis as air/sea power. We fixed the HMMWV problem with MRAP/M-ATV but not the dismount problem.


F-18 is not as effective as F-22, and can't survive double digit SAMs. ISR/C2 and datalinks are key for sure.Suspect that with towed decoys and other countermeasures, helmet-mounted displays not on F-22, a fair amount of stealth, and EA-18G support flying more sorties than F-22 closer to Taiwan and thus outside S300/S400 range, and an eventual AIM-20D...it could hold its own against Chinese aircraft.



It's unfortunate that the USAF, USN, and USMC's successes in the air in the last few conflicts have made people think that we will always have an overmatch in the air.
Since the advent of the F-15/F-16 have we or allies lost more than one fighter in air-to-air? Don't believe so, and F-22/F-35 stealth is a leap ahead beyond either with threats not currently being able to duplicate that stealth.


Hmmm... I don't think it is in any one realm that power projection is suffering- they all are. We are dependent on sea and air LOCs for any power projection... and that is ALL services, the whole joint force. Without LOCs, no one can fight... so everyone needs to be concerned about Anti-Access threats.The Navy has ample stationing in Hawaii and elsewhere adn plenty of back-up carriers. The USAF needs few C-17s and little time to move fighters to Guam/Hawaii/Alaska/Diego Garcia/North Australia/and South Korea/Japan after missile threat is gone.

South Korea has only Strykers able to rapidly reinforce it, and double hulls won't solve all their survivability problems and lack of firepower. Have more confidence in the ability of a C-17 to airland or JHSV to sealand in South Korea or on the east side of Taiwan with mountain-masking prior to their hard-to-miss border crossing or amphibious assault preparations then have confidence in EFVs, amphibious/maritme prepositionings ships, and airborne forces launching a forcible entry after the PLA already controls Taiwan.

Cliff
10-17-2010, 12:13 AM
Will couch my casually informed discussion in China terms as DPRK and Iran don't pose significant SAM or air-to-air threats.

Your own link shows an F-16 with external tanks and weapons has a combat radius of 630nm...and presumably will either dump the tanks repeatedly (and create a logistics problem) or live with the radar, reduced range, and performance penalty. Meanwhile, the F-35 to achieve 728nm will dump fewer tanks, then has a clean internal load profile, better turning performance, and more speed/acceleration...and can survive S300/S400 missiles and long range radar AAM. That seems to surpass the F-22 as there is no FB-22.

F-22 combat radius, per the article, is approx 600ish nm. Which is pretty comparable to F-35... and all the rest of the fighters. The speed difference matters too.. the F-35 is not as fast as the F-22.


The F/A-18E/F will be closer to Taiwan than the F-22/F-35 that are taking off most likely from Guam since mainland Japan, Korea, and Okinawa will be too risky from a Chinese long range missile standpoint. The Naval sea-to-air threat won't last long and keeping F/A-18E/F over Taiwan just outside long range Chinese SAM range will easily handle older Chinese aircraft with AWACs vectoring F-22/F-35to the newer stuff. Would guess eventually the F-35 will have conformal fuel tanks to match F-15E and certainly would not want to try to bomb mainland China airfields or amphibious ships with an F-15E given the SAM threat.

The F-18s will be closer... but again they have a short range (369nm legacy, 520 Super Hornet - and both of those are with 3 external tanks!). The better the Chinese Navy gets, and the more anti-ship ABMs become credible, the less help the carrier can be - because you end up spending more and more effort protecting the boat and less effort projecting power. CFTs on F-35 are unlikely as it would ruin the stealth.


Finally, one of these days, a KC-X tanker will be able to refuel all of the above to keep them on station and top off replacement KC-Xs before heading home. I still believe a C-17/C-130 could be modified to have a hydraulic arm extend out the rear of the open ramp and lift a missile pod under and into both the F-35/F-22...at a much cheaper price than new F-22s.

This is not really feasible just yet... you would have to develop some way of towing the aircraft being re-armed or connecting some sort of platform to it. More likely to see some sort of directed energy weapon before you see this...


There is talk of F-35 carrying 6 AMRAAM internally and even with just four, you send two flights of four covering a wider CAP than a single flight of four F-22s. The two flights of F-35 would be close enough together that with AIM-120D capability they would be mutually reinforcing. Its largely irrelevant anyway because in many cases, both F-22 and F-35 will be carrying just 2 AMRAAM and 8 Small Diameter Bomb 1 or 2. Surmise that you don't have to beat their numbers in the air if you bomb. JASSM-ER, and Tomahawk their runways.

My point is that F-35s are going to be doing a lot of other jobs... some will be A-A configured but most will need to carry other weapons, as you point out.


Again, I love air and seapower, but suspect we have more than enough of both given our carrier and quality sub numbers and coming F-35 quantities. The counter-missile threat is more problematic (and the poor country's air force) than the counter-air threat...but that too is being addressed. Don't necessarily reject all EBO arguments in many potential conflicts. Certainly can't envision putting land forces on mainland China, and just bombing China rail lines and highways (see the recent problem with 10-day traffic jams?), ports, and establishing a fuel ship blockade in the Straits of Mallaca would be sufficient to end the war.

Agree on the effects. Not sure on the numbers... China is producing F-10s, F-11Bs, and FB-7s... Our first IOC F-35s are in 2012, with the first deployment in 2014... at best... (Its largely irrelevant anyway because in many cases, both F-22 and F-35 will be carrying just 2 AMRAAM and 8 Small Diameter Bomb 1 or 2. Surmise that you don't have to beat their numbers in the air if you bomb. JASSM-ER, and Tomahawk their runways.)

I think there is a window of risk over the next 5-7 years. I think you are overestimating our advantage, and underestimating the work other folks have done.

V/R,

Cliff

Cliff
10-17-2010, 12:51 AM
It would mean fewer total pilots if F-22 aces flew both, augmenting their under 20 Raptor hours per month. Suspect they could more safely practice some air-to-air maneuvers/TTP in the LAAR as well. Just one squadron of 24 LAAR might be shared by three squadrons of F-22s. Maintainers for the 24 LAAR are essential regardless, so it is a sunk cost no matter who flies them.

The other issue, Cole, is training- F-22s focus on air-to-air, and they need to with the limited numbers. F-35s make more sense since they will be primarily A-G. That said, I would love to be in either an F-22 or F-35 squadron and have a squadron of LAARs to fly! The pooling idea could work, but again I think is not fiscally workable unless the economy improves a lot.


We are producing F-35s that surpass anything China is producing and will beat PakFA in BVR. Suspect EODAS and AIM-9X coupled with helmet mounted displays would do just fine in WVR, as well. Why do you guys never mention that half the day is at night when WVR won't matter too much anyway.

NVGs allow day-style tactics at night... WVR still matters based on technology like EW that makes BVR missiles less effective, and numbers (lots of targets so you will have to use IR missiles and perhaps the gun). Just because it's night doesn't mean you will never go to the merge.


I buy the argument that F-22 and F-35 will run out of missiles, but doubt the "quantity has a quality of its own" numbers will kill too many of our stealth aircraft as they are heading home to rearm. We and allies will get their numbers down rapidly enough to matter. You don't need to win the air war in a week when the longer blockade lasts for months.

A longer conflict would be tough for us as well... we are going to have very limited numbers of platforms. If I lose 10 F-22s that is 10% of the combat coded force... Our kill ratios will need to be in the 20 to 1 neighborhood to win.

See above for discussion on F-35 missile numbers.


Agree 1000% but sickened when things like FCS unmanned ground and air vehicles that could lead dismounted troops through IED fields/roads are not given the same emphasis as air/sea power. We fixed the HMMWV problem with MRAP/M-ATV but not the dismount problem.

My understanding was that FCS was canceled to buy things like MRAP... I think if FCS had counter-IED tech that was extremely effective it would being the force right now... I don't think money has been as big an issue as you think, at least not in the Gates years. The impression I get from my Army peers is that they have gotten most of what they have asked for...


Since the advent of the F-15/F-16 have we or allies lost more than one fighter in air-to-air? Don't believe so, and F-22/F-35 stealth is a leap ahead beyond either with threats not currently being able to duplicate that stealth.

Just one, the Navy F-18 in Desert Storm. Then again, we haven't fought anyone who could be termed a near-peer competitor numbers or tech wise. It's a little silly to me to argue that we should stop trying to keep our advantage in an area that helps us so much...



The Navy has ample stationing in Hawaii and elsewhere adn plenty of back-up carriers. The USAF needs few C-17s and little time to move fighters to Guam/Hawaii/Alaska/Diego Garcia/North Australia/and South Korea/Japan after missile threat is gone.

The Navy doesn't have a lot of extra... see here (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-10/tipping-future-fleet-0).


South Korea has only Strykers able to rapidly reinforce it, and double hulls won't solve all their survivability problems and lack of firepower. Have more confidence in the ability of a C-17 to airland or JHSV to sealand in South Korea or on the east side of Taiwan with mountain-masking prior to their hard-to-miss border crossing or amphibious assault preparations then have confidence in EFVs, amphibious/maritme prepositionings ships, and airborne forces launching a forcible entry after the PLA already controls Taiwan.

I agree about our ability to see the enemy moving, and that the ability to move by air helps, but again how many C-17s/5s do we have, and how many can we lose to SAMs/Naval SAMs?

Again, I'm not saying it's a crisis... just that we're accepting a lot of risk. The problem is deterrence... if folks think that they can beat us, then our ability to deter them is hurt. We are at about the minimum level now...

You are very right about the allies, but remember that there is not a formal NATO-style agreement among the nations in the Pacific... so the ability of an agressor to divide and conquer is there. China is not trying to win... yet. They are trying to get to a point where they can deter us or make it too costly for us to continue, forcing us to let them do whatever it is they set out to do. Finally, I am not saying lots of our folks in F-22s will be shot down.... I am saying they won't be able to kill all the threats before they can get to and kill folks on the ground or on ships.

I think everyone in the US military has forgotten the hard-learned lessons about air superiority from World War II... which was really the last time we faced a peer competitor Air Force. A lot of things we depend on (just in time supply, ISR, drones, sea and air LOCs) depend on having air superiority. Hopefully our accepting risk in this area isn't challenged in conflict.

Finally, one point that I sometimes make to folks- 5,767 US Military folks have been killed since 2001 in Iraq and Afghanistan - 9 years.

Al Qaeda killed 2,819 folks using 4 airliners in 102 minutes. Think about what someone could do with actual military aircraft...

I don't point this out to say that one is worse than the other, or to be flippant, only to show that the consequences of losing air superiority are pretty severe.

Thanks for the good points, hopefully I made some intelligent contributions.

V/R,

Cliff

Cole
10-17-2010, 03:02 PM
The F-18s will be closer... but again they have a short range (369nm legacy, 520 Super Hornet - and both of those are with 3 external tanks!). The better the Chinese Navy gets, and the more anti-ship ABMs become credible, the less help the carrier can be - because you end up spending more and more effort protecting the boat and less effort projecting power. CFTs on F-35 are unlikely as it would ruin the stealth.

Not sure legacy F-18C/D matter that much and believe ASBM can be defeated through a combination of multispectral smoke (littoral combat ship dispensing smoke in front of carriers?) and the same smoke over island bases in the Pacific on the outer edge of missile range.

http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/17cb7d9c-0de4-40f8-aecb-94030e059d27/The-Strategic-Implications-of-Obscurants

Wonder if the USAF should look at the F/A-18E/F (or F-35C) for rotating Pacific island-basing and stateside homeland security. Use smoke to defeat ASBM radar/IR sensors, and jammers to locally disrupt Chinese-GPS to eliminate pinpoint targeting. Then employ concrete shelters over catapult launch and recovery to provide passive countermeasures to survive missile attacks while staying within reasonable range and escorting/augmenting KC-X aerial refueling. Marcus Island? Wake Island? Midway Islands? As you mention, up to 29,000 lbs of fuel can be transported internally/externally in a Super Hornet in 5 tanks which when added to KC-X top-off would leave a near perpetual fuel supply and protection escort for KC-X. Add a mini-boom to the F/A-18E/F and have 3 refuelers on station at a track or anchor.



Agree on the effects. Not sure on the numbers... China is producing F-10s, F-11Bs, and FB-7s... Our first IOC F-35s are in 2012, with the first deployment in 2014 at best...

I think there is a window of risk over the next 5-7 years. I think you are overestimating our advantage, and underestimating the work other folks have done.
Forgive my display of old-guy bias and I truly respect the mature/respectful arguments you are making. But a J-10, J-11B, and FB-7 are no more capable than an F-15/F-16/FA-18E/F and we already acknowledged how few of those have been lost in the past 30+ years...and the experience-level of the PLAAF or PLAN in the next 5-7 years is not likely to be considered near-peer.

While the 1970s-1980s military shared none of the austere repeated deployments and extraordinary ground risk of service today or in the Vietnam war, there was a far more extraordinary "window of risk" in the European theater with double digit thousands of Soviet tanks/BMPs more than capable of rolling over NATO. The related nuclear risk was far higher, as well. So when considering China, with much to lose economically and little to gain over the next 5-7 years by attacking Taiwan, it is hard for me to feel much concern.

And as much as we portrayed the Soviet air and ground threat as 10' tall back then, with the exception of numbers, they truly were not much threat (other than numbers far more in disparity than today's threats) to M1s, Bradleys, F-16, and F-15...but would have posed a serious threat to M60s, M113, and F-4s that were slowly being replaced. THAT was a window of vulnerability! Yet it was addressed with a 50,000 lb Bradley that also proved more than up to task in OIF before being uparmored at which point it remained only in the 60-70,000lbs range...so why does the GCV need to be 100,000-140,000 lbs? Why is it unacceptable for F-35s to take on Pak FA's that lack stealth? China will never own any because the Russians have gotten wise to their repeated attempts to backward engineer.

While respecting any Soldier's loss, find it hard to get very alarmed by the loss of 125 combined-arms rusty Israelis regulars and reservists against a determined Hezbollah foe that had years to dig in and prepare. Where was the smoke to defeat ATGMs/RPGs? CAS (was doing EBO)? Artillery prep? In most realistic future uses of U.S./allied heavy armor and airpower, we would be addressing a threat preparing to or in the process of invading someone else, therefore giving them little time to prepare a proper defense. In addition, the very act of invading would make it difficult to hide advancing armor in slow-go terrain, thus leaving them vulnerable to airpower and ATACMs, and Apaches.

Bradley/Stryker/LAV III survivability in OIF, current air-deployment of 25% of supplies to Afghanistan, the air movement of Strykers and M-ATV there, and the success of 60+ sorties in inserting armor/airborne forces into Bashur, Northern Iraq should be far more revealing to us than any lesson of Lebanon in 2006. Adding belly armor to a GCV should not exceed 80,000+ lbs to retain the key benefits of C-17/C-5M air-deployment of heavy-light mix air deployment facilitated by the current trend of placing HBCTs and IBCTs at many of the same division-home bases.

Fuchs
10-17-2010, 04:27 PM
To be honest, the MiG-29 with its helmet mounted sight and the super-agile AA-11 with its off boresight seeker created a Sputnik shock in 1990 when Eastern German NVA equipment was studied. The West had dropped these technologies in the 70's after tests and was on a very different path (ASRAAM).

The MiG-29 was inferior to F-18 and F-16 in simulated gunfights, but ceteris paribus they were superior in WVR missile fights. We were lucky to not lose many combat aircraft after Vietnam; no Western air force had to go to war against a near-peer during that time.

The same applies to Su-27s; they were clearly superior to F-15's in the 80's and their huge range without any drop tanks was a huge operational advantage.


The Russians only fell back again in the 90's when they weren't able to match avionics improvements and lacked funds for everything.



Everything that was produced in the 80's (= most NATO combat aircraft) is technically inferior to the best the Russians have to offer, probably even to the best the Chinese have to offer.

Western high end quality combat aircraft are limited to about a thousand aircraft, and even these about thousand aircraft have huge quality differences between batches (especially Eurofighter and F-22).
The most capable F-16s and many of the most capable F-15s were exported beyond NATO's members.

carl
10-18-2010, 01:50 AM
Very interesting discussion.

Combat radius was what I actually meant to say when I asked my question but of course my brain didn't pull it up. Related to that, I have another question. Things get very very complicated when figuring radii. Is fuel fraction (clean) a more useful benchmark to use when figuring how far these airplanes can usefully go on missions? Is that data available for the F-35 versions and the F-22?

Another question I have regards the F-22 altitude capability. I have read that it can fight from way high up there. Can the other planes under discussion fight from that high up and is that altitude capability of very great of very small use?

One other thing I only learned about last year that may have some bearing. I don't think the vertical launch missile magazines of the carrier escorts can be replenished at sea. Once they're out, they have to drive back to the big base to get refilled. That would probably have significant bearing on planning I would imagine.

The only other thing I would say is if planning on fighting somebody you figure is almost at good as you, you had better plan on some surprises. If we were to, God forbid, get into a full on tussle with China, I think it would be prudent to expect to lose a number of carriers. Could we carry on if that happened?

viper__40
10-18-2010, 02:45 PM
Question: Is it realistic to build a smaller F-22 to replace the F-16?
If you mean an F-35, it does that to an extent. But the F-22 and the F-16 have different roles although they narrow with AESA and block 60+. I'm not sure you can effectively replace the F-16 in the near or distant future for shear tonnage on target. Unless of course you change the mission and let the Navy have it all with F-18's.

Question: It it possible to replace Harriers with VTOL CAS UCAVs?
A real question is whether or not we can replace manned flight with unmanned. Is there a need for a VTOL UCAV? There are already several options available for recovering and launching unmanned vehicles.

Question: Should the production of the F-22 (possible FB-22 variants) end at 183 or continue to 381 air frames?
Based on recent developments with Russian aerospace (T-50) and their willingness to export (India) as a means to support development and domestic procurement it would seem inevitable that there could be advanced fighters based within internal fuel load of the continental United States (Venezuela) in decades to come. Of course, advanced assumes they're actually going to produce an airframe that is something more than reverse engineering. I always thought that 381 was a give away just to get the contracts signed anyway. If you're talking continental defense against an adversary on your doorstep 381 might seem a bit lacking since force projection will drain off assets for deployment elsewhere.

Cliff
10-18-2010, 08:17 PM
Things get very very complicated when figuring radii. Is fuel fraction (clean) a more useful benchmark to use when figuring how far these airplanes can usefully go on missions?

Yes and no... the big issue is that the different aircraft have different mission profiles, so while the fuel fraction is important (Su-27 carries a lot of fuel for instance) it is not the end-all be-all...

As an example, your average modern airliner is very fuel efficient. This is because it flies at optimized (higher than legacy) altitudes and has very efficient high-bypass engines. Power changes are minimized and routings are as direct as possible... yielding better range.

If I'm flying a mission in combat, however, I have to maneuver in relation to the threats, so I can't necessarily fly a fuel optimized profile (although I will try in between times when I'm fighting!).

Combat radius is probably the best number to compare, as long as you look at the assumptions involved and check that they make sense. It usually takes into account the expected profile for a mission (hi-lo-hi etc).


Another question I have regards the F-22 altitude capability. I have read that it can fight from way high up there. Can the other planes under discussion fight from that high up and is that altitude capability of very great of very small use?

In general, higher altitude gives you better fuel efficiency and a longer range on your weapons. There's a dated (but still relevant) interview with Lockeed test pilot Paul Metz here (http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html) that discusses this. F-15Cs can get up to similar altitudes, but can't turn as well as the F-22 up there. F-16s and F-18s have a hard time getting into the upper 40s when combat configured. According to one expert, the altitude advantage means that the F-22 is twice as effective - see here (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2009/03/31/F-22-displays-combat-superiority-at-high-altitudes/UPI-73201238510360/).


One other thing I only learned about last year that may have some bearing. I don't think the vertical launch missile magazines of the carrier escorts can be replenished at sea. Once they're out, they have to drive back to the big base to get refilled. That would probably have significant bearing on planning I would imagine.

Magazine space and reloading is definitely an issue for the Aegis ships. As I said, numbers matter at some point.


The only other thing I would say is if planning on fighting somebody you figure is almost at good as you, you had better plan on some surprises. If we were to, God forbid, get into a full on tussle with China, I think it would be prudent to expect to lose a number of carriers. Could we carry on if that happened?

We could and would carry on, but it would not be pretty. We have been lucky that our last few opponents have been either really dumb or really over-matched. With the exception of 9-11, we have not been hit hard in any one engagement. Hopefully we can continue this streak!

V/R,

Cliff

viper__40
10-19-2010, 10:32 AM
One other thing I only learned about last year that may have some bearing. I don't think the vertical launch missile magazines of the carrier escorts can be replenished at sea...

The MK41 VLS comes with a modular crane option allowing reload at sea. Weight is the key though with the heavier weapons unable to replenish.

Maeda Toshiie
10-19-2010, 03:58 PM
Sorry to go a little off topic here: Considering PRC's current amphibious capabilities and building rate, a plausible invasion is unlikely from my POV for at least the next 10 years. What would an inconclusive air-sea battle with accompanying economic damage, serve for the PRC?

On the other hand, the PRC looks like it is taking a hard stand over territorial disputes with its neighbours (Japan and other SEA countries).

Cliff
10-19-2010, 09:13 PM
Sorry to go a little off topic here: Considering PRC's current amphibious capabilities and building rate, a plausible invasion is unlikely from my POV for at least the next 10 years. What would an inconclusive air-sea battle with accompanying economic damage, serve for the PRC?

On the other hand, the PRC looks like it is taking a hard stand over territorial disputes with its neighbours (Japan and other SEA countries).

From a realist perspective, there's no reason to take on Taiwan. The main scenario I see as plausible is an economic collapse or social unrest in China due to an economic downturn, where the regime needs to focus attention on an outside scapegoat (IE the west). Even then I don't see this as leading to war- but the resulting tensions could potentially lead to war due to a miscalculation.

More likely, IMHO, is a conflict between China and a regional rival that spins out of the leadership's control and results in a small conflict. This becomes more likely to become a larger conflict if the US cannot deter China. If regional powers like South Korea, Singapore, and Japan feel the US cannot deter China, they will be forced to improve their own militaries and possibly obtain nuclear weapons. A regional arms race makes conflict more likely when compared to the US. While we are something of a hegemon in the region militarily, most people (including to a large extent China) trust us to be impartial.

V/R,

Cliff

carl
12-29-2010, 06:36 PM
The Information Dissemination blog has photos and many links to other photos and blogs regarding what appears to be a new Chinese 4th/5th generation fighter that is about to enter flight test.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/12/j-20-lives.html#disqus_thread

Maybe it is all photo shopped, maybe not. The consensus of the various authors is that it is not.

James Fallows wrote that the Chinese can get things into production and onto the streets very fast, faster than us. He gave an example of their having a knockoff of a new American electronic product on the street a day or two after the product launch of the American model. And the Chinese knockoff had more features. That may have some bearing on how fast they can get a new fighter into operation.

Tukhachevskii
12-30-2010, 08:54 AM
The Information Dissemination blog has photos and many links to other photos and blogs regarding what appears to be a new Chinese 4th/5th generation fighter that is about to enter flight test.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/12/j-20-lives.html#disqus_thread

Maybe it is all photo shopped, maybe not. The consensus of the various authors is that it is not.

James Fallows wrote that the Chinese can get things into production and onto the streets very fast, faster than us. He gave an example of their having a knockoff of a new American electronic product on the street a day or two after the product launch of the American model. And the Chinese knockoff had more features. That may have some bearing on how fast they can get a new fighter into operation.

What do you get when you cross a YF-23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23) with an F-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor) and a PAK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA)?:D

Which reminds me...I wonder what the J-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10) reminds me of? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi);)

Maybe it's time we planted spies in China?:rolleyes:

carl
01-12-2011, 10:31 PM
This is Bill Sweetman on what he thinks the new Chinese superfighter, the J-20 is meant to do.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aada92122-076e-4e2f-894c-ccec75133760&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

He figures it is a high altitude, long range supercruiser meant to pick off things we can't afford to lose, like AWACS, tankers and any little fighter that could not that happens to get in the way, from on high. I think this a bit worrisome.

Fuchs
01-12-2011, 11:30 PM
We'll see the length of their weapons bay soon. A moderate length would restrict the length of internal missiles to below super long range air-air missiles.
That in turn would not exactly support an anti-AEW mission.

An example for such super long-range A/A missiles are AA-13 Arrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-37)s.

carl
01-12-2011, 11:43 PM
If the fighter had very long range wouldn't that make up for a missile of somewhat shorter range, especially if it were launched at great speed and from high altitude? The J-20 appears quite large. Perhaps something like a Meteor would do. That is a fraction of the size of the AA-13.

Fuchs
01-12-2011, 11:49 PM
It's not about the range, but about avoiding to close in, because that's risky.

An AEW&C aircraft may reliably detect VLO fighters at let's say 100 km. A F-22 combat air patrol could then escort it and go on supercruise to engage every attacker who's spotted at that distance.
A long-range missile would enable the attackers to shoot at the easily detectable AEW&C aircraft from 150-250 km away, avoiding the risky air combat.

(The figures were just examples, meant to only explain the dynamic.)

carl
01-13-2011, 12:14 AM
A F-22 combat air patrol could then escort it and go on supercruise to engage every attacker who's spotted at that distance.

That's the rub. There won't be many F-22s.

Fuchs
01-13-2011, 01:13 AM
That's probably exactly the right thing.

The F-22 is already partially obsolete. It lacks some important features that were introduced about 30 years ago (IRST, helmet mounted sight) and has troubles with some utterly standard air war features (datalink).

Very low observability ("stealth") technology is at a maturity point, whereas signal processing and various counter-VLO technologies make still huge improvements. The F-22's design concept has been publicly known since at the latest 1991 (YF-22) and is really a 80's concept (actually, it dates in its philosophy back to about '71!).
All competitors were developed to defeat it and its ilk, as were some air defence systems.

(The F-22 is a parallel to the F-4: Expensive, large, impressive in its technology, dependent on one specific approach to air combat and most likely very vulnerable to opponents who deny to play along (the F-4 boasted great speed, unparalleled radar effectiveness, a second crew member, a medium range air combat missile and was supposed to defeat the enemy many miles ahead - but then obsolete MiG-17s began to close in, fly circles around it and shoot at it with supposedly obsolete guns!).
Similarly, the F-22 boasts stealth, supercruise, limited thrust vectoring, a very high combat altitude and is supposed to defeat the enemy with dash & run at high altitude and over long distances.)


A fighter weakness is the best motivator for the development of a better fighter (or whatever takes over a fighter's functions) and might thus be very beneficial in the long term.
It's better to have 300 F-22 successors in 2030 than 500 F-22s.
This reduces the period of uncertain air superiority to about 2020-2030 unless the bureaucracy fails to launch and manage a timely successor program.

carl
01-13-2011, 01:36 AM
It's better to have 300 F-22 successors in 2030 than 500 F-22s. This reduces the period of uncertain air superiority to about 2020-2030 unless the bureaucracy fails to launch and manage a timely successor program.

We won't have anything close to 500 F-22s, just that 187 or so. In light of our history, we won't have anything in 2030 but an artist's concept and a prototype that is confidently expected to make it's first flight sometime in the near future. The F-22 may be flawed as you say but it is the best we have and there aren't very many of them.

That period of uncertain air superiority is likely to last a long time.

Cliff
01-13-2011, 04:27 AM
My 2 cents, in reverse order from Fuch's post:

A fighter weakness is the best motivator for the development of a better fighter (or whatever takes over a fighter's functions) and might thus be very beneficial in the long term.
It's better to have 300 F-22 successors in 2030 than 500 F-22s.
This reduces the period of uncertain air superiority to about 2020-2030 unless the bureaucracy fails to launch and manage a timely successor program

Fuchs I agree with Carl, it is unlikely there will be an F-22 replacement in the timeframe you discuss... the Next Gen Bomber was announced (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/01/06/awx_01_06_2011_p0-280761.xml) as being a priority again, meaning the bulk of funding in the timeframe you refer to (2020s) will be going to that, hence not a lot of $$ for R&D of fighters.

187 F-22s is not a lot (numbers wise).


The F-22 is already partially obsolete. It lacks some important features that were introduced about 30 years ago (IRST, helmet mounted sight) and has troubles with some utterly standard air war features (datalink).
(The F-22 is a parallel to the F-4: Expensive, large, impressive in its technology, dependent on one specific approach to air combat and most likely very vulnerable to opponents who deny to play along (the F-4 boasted great speed, unparalleled radar effectiveness, a second crew member, a medium range air combat missile and was supposed to defeat the enemy many miles ahead - but then obsolete MiG-17s began to close in, fly circles around it and shoot at it with supposedly obsolete guns!).
Similarly, the F-22 boasts stealth, supercruise, limited thrust vectoring, a very high combat altitude and is supposed to defeat the enemy with dash & run at high altitude and over long distances.)

While the F-22 doesn't have an HMD, that doesn't make it obsolete. It was a conscious decision to save cost and not put an HMD in the Raptor. Some of the issues you mentioned will be fixed in upgrades (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/05/345808/usaf-debates-major-upgrade-for-f-22-raptors.html) that are coming up.

While stealth and supercruise are a big part of the effectiveness of the F-22, it also is one of the most maneuverable jets ever. It can win a close in fight as well as kicking butt BVR. Pilot training still matters (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/07/first-f-22-rapt/), but the good thing is that F-22 pilots are still among the best trained in the world.

Bottom line, I would take the "cold war obsolete fighter" hype that some folks seek to spread about the F-22 with a huge grain of salt.

V/R,

Cliff

William F. Owen
01-13-2011, 05:32 AM
the F-4 boasted great speed, unparalleled radar effectiveness, a second crew member, a medium range air combat missile and was supposed to defeat the enemy many miles ahead - but then obsolete MiG-17s began to close in, fly circles around it and shoot at it with supposedly obsolete guns!
Mate! That is not good history or analysis. A MIG-17 could do nothing better than an F-4 except sustained turns at low speeds <450kts.
Yes the F4's lack of a gun, was criminally stupid, but that was corrected at east with the F-4E.
In the history of Air Warfare, the F-4, like the P-51, is a notable aircraft. The MIG-17 isn't.

Fuchs
01-13-2011, 01:31 PM
Mate! That is not good history or analysis. A MIG-17 could do nothing better than an F-4 except sustained turns at low speeds <450kts.
Yes the F4's lack of a gun, was criminally stupid, but that was corrected at east with the F-4E.
In the history of Air Warfare, the F-4, like the P-51, is a notable aircraft. The MIG-17 isn't.

Hardly. A F-4 costed many times as much as a MiG-17 and had no real chance (other than retreat) against two of them. The MiG-17 was fast enough to close in with bombers and fighter-bombers and force them to emergency drop their loads.

The F-4 is rather notable like the Bf 110 or P-38 than like the P-51 (the P-51 was an efficient airplane which was able to engage all enemies on equal footing).

In fact, the F-4 had quite exactly the double purchase cost, maintenance hours/flight hour, fuel consumption, crew requirement of a Draken, Mirage III or Mirage F.1 - but it wasn't better than them in air combat, even in the later versions. The lower cost F-8 was also a better fighter.

The F-4 was meant to be a bomber interceptor for the navy's carriers, complemented by the dogfight-capable F-8 Crusader.
It was forced on the air force as a fighter because the air forces' '100' series had yielded no useful fighter (F-104 was utterly useless for all but short range nuking or photo reconnaissance). As an air force fighter it was OK at low or no visibility and at high altitude, but it was terribly inefficient as a fighter in support of a land war.



Likewise, the F-22 is best at tactical dancing - supersonic launch of AMRAAM at target, turn and run at supersonic speed to avoid incoming missiles, repeat.It's like a boxer with long arms who ties to throw jabs all the time to keep the enemy at long distance because he's not good in the infight. He needs to have a great leg work and needs to cede ground all the time.
This mode is an impossible luxury if you need to protect assets, for the enemy could keep pressing forward and could only be stopped with a more decisive engagement (a launched AMRAAM doesn't equal a kill at all).
The F-22s will therefore be forced into a suboptimal combat style whenever they need to protect assets, such as a ground target, a fleet, slow support aircraft or a strike package.
Again, this is similar to how F-4s had to leave their preferred medium range engagement fantasy and were forced into dogfights in which they weren't good despite their high cost.
(The F-22 is superior to F-16s in dogfighting thanks to TVC, but afaik that advantage dwindles when the F-16s have HMS and AIM-9X).

Cliff
01-13-2011, 02:30 PM
Have to disagree on historical grounds...


Hardly. A F-4 costed many times as much as a MiG-17 and had no real chance (other than retreat) against two of them. The MiG-17 was fast enough to close in with bombers and fighter-bombers and force them to emergency drop their loads.

Fuchs, not true. The F-4 had the ability to take the fight vertical, or extend, disengage, and then re-enter at high speed.

The big issue was training. Early on, the USN and USAF pilots were not adequately trained and tried to fly the F-4 like it WAS a P-51 or F-86... not smart. Later on, when TOP GUN and USAF Fighter Weapons School had refined the tactics, thigns went better.

OBTW, at the end of the war the F-4 was able to employ BVR again based
Combat Tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stephen_Ritchie). That's how Steve Ritchie became an ace. With Tree, the F-4 was again dominant - as they could employ BVR and hold their own WVR.

Every aircraft has advantages and disadvantages. The key is knowing how to fight your jet where you have an advantage and the other guy doesn't. The smart fighter pilot will also evaluate the enemy's tactics and use tactics the other guy probably hasn't seen.

A good book to read is Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering (http://amzn.com/0870210599) by Robert Shaw. He takes you through how an F-4 can beat the MiG-17, or even two MiG-17s.


The F-4 is rather notable like the Bf 110 or P-38 than like the P-51 (the P-51 was an efficient airplane which was able to engage all enemies on equal footing).

Your opinion. The P-51 had issues just like any other fighter. For example, low caliber armament and a vulnerable cooling system.


In fact, the F-4 had quite exactly the double purchase cost, maintenance hours/flight hour, fuel consumption, crew requirement of a Draken, Mirage III or Mirage F.1 - but it wasn't better than them in air combat, even in the later versions. The lower cost F-8 was also a better fighter.

What are you basing this assertation on? F-8 may have been a better dogfighter, though even that is questionable if you look at the E-M diagrams... Draken/Mirage - no way. Especially the F-1... piece of junk.


The F-4 was meant to be a bomber interceptor for the navy's carriers, complemented by the dogfight-capable F-8 Crusader.
It was forced on the air force as a fighter because the air forces' '100' series had yielded no useful fighter (F-104 was utterly useless for all but short range nuking or photo reconnaissance). As an air force fighter it was OK at low or no visibility and at high altitude, but it was terribly inefficient as a fighter in support of a land war.

Again, what is this based on? The F-4 had decent loiter time, a ton of weapons, and could take a lot of punishment. Yes, back seat vis was not as good as other fighters... but that was later fighters, not those of it's generation. The Mirages you sight had horrible vis!


Likewise, the F-22 is best at tactical dancing - supersonic launch of AMRAAM at target, turn and run at supersonic speed to avoid incoming missiles, repeat.It's like a boxer with long arms who ties to throw jabs all the time to keep the enemy at long distance because he's not good in the infight. He needs to have a great leg work and needs to cede ground all the time.
This mode is an impossible luxury if you need to protect assets, for the enemy could keep pressing forward and could only be stopped with a more decisive engagement (a launched AMRAAM doesn't equal a kill at all).
The F-22s will therefore be forced into a suboptimal combat style whenever they need to protect assets, such as a ground target, a fleet, slow support aircraft or a strike package.
Again, this is similar to how F-4s had to leave their preferred medium range engagement fantasy and were forced into dogfights in which they weren't good despite their high cost.
(The F-22 is superior to F-16s in dogfighting thanks to TVC, but afaik that advantage dwindles when the F-16s have HMS and AIM-9X).

Fuchs, you forget the part where the F-22 uses the oldest tactic in the book, the unobserved entry, to roll in at the F-16's six and gun its brains out. Stealth is a pretty sweet capability. While you're right on the pK of the AMRAAM, you discount the ability of the Raptor to use it's advantages (stealth, supercruise) to get to a position of advantage.

The F-22 is superior to even an F-16CCM with HMS and 9X. If the pilot knows what he is doing, he will have no issues - even if outnumbered. I've fought the Raptor with the weapons above, and it is the toughest opponent I've ever faced.

Like I said before, the F-22 is not the end-all, but it is the best fighter in the world, at least for the next 10-15 years. Training is still almost as important though, like I said before.

V/R,

Cliff

Fuchs
01-13-2011, 03:24 PM
There's of course the advantage of a faster aircraft over a slower one- like P-38 vs. A6M. This advantage is largely dependent on the ability to surprise, though. The higher/faster-flying fighters pick those targets which seem to be unaware, hit them and regain there relatively safe higher/faster setting asap.
This isn't very relevant in certain missions such as escort or low level attack, though.
You cite the book (have it, but didn't read all of it yet) for how a F-4 could defeat two MiG-17s (not going to happen with equal quality crews imo). You also stress the importance of pilots, training and tactics. What you didn't mention is that the F-4 had no LD/SD capability to speak of (before Germany upgraded some with APG-65 and AIM-120) and two MiG-17s were thus able to deny a F-4's BVR capability whenever they were protecting mobile (army) targets that couldn't be attacked from high altitude.




About mock combat vs. F-22s; surprise becomes rather rare in large formation air combat. As WW2 aces said; loss percentages were lower in great air battles (wing vs. wing) than in small ones (flight vs flight). Few fighters were able to surprise anyone in large air battles, and surprise was involved in about 80% of the air/air kills of the time (80% of kills happened without target having seen the attacker). It's difficult to surprise a F-16 from behind with a visually huge F-22 if there are multiple other F-16 plots able to see that position.

Mock air combat in NATO - even Red Flag - is typically about rather small engagements afaik. That favours surprise tactics.
There's rarely a training like a pulse (saturation) attack of 300 combat aircraft at once on a 200x200 km area. I doubt that VLO/LO characteristics help much in such a situation, and IIRC a RAND study published in 2010 about F-22 capabilities over East Asian waters pretty much reinforced this point.
Again, I doubt that real peer/peer air war would look anything like the preferred scenarios for F-22 employment. The F-22 may face especially great obstacles on offensive missions (over red territory). Fighters are merely a component in a combined arms effort these days, after all.


There's also the issue of contrails. Certain atmospheric conditions create contrails reliably (at high altitude) and there's little chance to surprise anyone in WVR combat in such a zone if fighter pilots cooperate properly. Sensors (such as certain missile warning sensors) can even be programmed to detect contrails at large distances and direct extra sensor attention to the contrails' ends. The USAF doesn't do this, of course (afaik). It doesn't attempt to defeat a F-22.

It doesn't give its other aircraft the tools to defeat a F-22. Even West Europeans don't do that (at least not much). The Russians and Chinese on the other hand try hard to defeat it, and that's all-important for the appraisal of a F-22's quality.
A small anecdote for illustration:
An engineer/physicist team developed a radio proximity fuze for 5" shells in WW2. An engineer from another lab asked them if countermeasures were possible - the answer was a very sure "no". The lab itself had failed in its attempt to defeat its own product. Said engineer was puzzled, thought about it and two weeks later his laboratory had patched together a jammer. It was tested and defeated the proximity fuze reliably.

Now think about it. I hear all the time from the U.S. (the lab that invented the thing) about how great it is and how its own attempts at defeating it fail.
At the same time I have a Flug Revue issue from 1991 (!) on my desk with a big article on the YF-22. The Russians probably had espionage results on the program back in the 80's. Two decades of high priority countermeasure efforts (some of them already known, as truck-mobile search radars with wavelengths that pretty much prevent even LO characteristics for aircraft of the F-22's size through sheer physics).

-----

I based the comparison of F-4 and Mirages etc on the fact that
fuel - twice engine power = roughly twice fuel consumption
maintenance - 30-50 hrs/hr vs. 15-20 hrs/hr
crew - 2 instead of 1
Granted, the Draken was ill-armed with its Falcons and single gun, but the Mirages were very capable for their time AND capable of more sorties/day. Israeli Mirage IIIs did cut the time for loading fuel and weapons down to ten minutes. Ten minute breaks between sorties!
The F-4 had an almost double probability of one engine requiring urgent maintenance and its electronics required more care as well.
You seem to compare these 60's fighters too much to modern fighters in regard to visibility and "crap".


We also need to remember that kill statistics are questionable when discussing the F-4's qualities. The North Vietnamese exaggerated their kills (and had an impressive array of supposed aces) and the U.S. did most likely exaggerate air combat kill statistics as well. This happened in WW2 unintentionally and even with strict rules up to a factor of about two. BVR combat hasn't exactly made BDA more simple post-WW2.

carl
01-13-2011, 05:29 PM
Fuchs:

I am getting a little mixed up with all this talk of MiGs and Messerschmitts. I understand the importance of using historical analogies but a lot of things are fundamentally different now vs. then. Missiles really work well now and stealth does give you some advantage. So the most important thing to be derived from the history of air combat is that sheer performance gives you an advantage.

The J-20 is likely to have a sheer performance advantage over anything but the F-22. The J-20 has some stealth and will have a good radar and missiles that will work. The J-20 will not have to escort alpha strikes in order to totally wreck us. It can do that by acting as a missile shooting on high interceptor and by destroying things like AWACS, C-17s and tankers. The only thing that could stop it are F-22s. We will not have enough F-22s to do the job. I will bet that the Chinese will get the J-20 into squadron service much more quickly than we think and I will bet that they make considerably more than 187,

We have no idea how to fight and win without air superiority. The J-20 can take that away from us. This is very serious.

Fuchs
01-13-2011, 07:27 PM
So the most important thing to be derived from the history of air combat is that sheer performance gives you an advantage.

Ceteris paribus - yes. It's not generally true, for otherwise The Finnish wouldn't have fared so extremely well in air combat and the I-16 pilots would have been able to slaughter Cr.32 pilots over Spain.


The J-20 is likely to have a sheer performance advantage over anything but the F-22.

It's too early to judge. It could well be superior, keeping in mind that the F-22 is a mix of 80's and 90's tech and J-20 was likely developed to defeat it.
It could also be inferior to many more planes; the T-50 and even Typhoon if it gets its next radar.


We have no idea how to fight and win without air superiority. The J-20 can take that away from us. This is very serious.

I doubt that we have a good idea how to fight a modern peer/peer war at all. We had no reality check for 65 years.

carl
01-13-2011, 10:02 PM
Fuchs:

You are confusing me a little.

You say it is too early to tell if the J-20 will have a performance advantage over any thing but the F-22, but at the same time you say the J-20 was developed to defeat the F-22 and may have superior performance. Then you say the Typhoon may have superior performance to the J-20. But I thought it was widely accepted that nothing in the west can match the flight performance of the F-22. I am talking about flight performance and should have been more clear that is what I meant.

I stand by my opinion about flight performance giving an advantage. The best example of that would be swept wing vs. straight wing jets in the early 50s. Pilot quality in that case didn't matter much. Straight wings had no chance because of inferior flight performance.

The J-20 will most likely have very superior flight performance to anything but an F-22.

Fuchs
01-13-2011, 10:24 PM
There's actually no logical collision in the F-22 / J-20 / Typhoon triangle, just wide margins of uncertainty.

Nevertheless, it's my turn to be confused.
Why don you dismiss the PAK-FA/T-50 in regard to flight performance?

carl
01-13-2011, 11:22 PM
Nevertheless, it's my turn to be confused.
Why don you dismiss the PAK-FA/T-50 in regard to flight performance?

I don't believe the mafia state that is Russia will make those things in important numbers, if at all. So I don't include it. Just a personal opinion.

Cliff
01-14-2011, 12:57 AM
This isn't very relevant in certain missions such as escort or low level attack, though.
You cite the book (have it, but didn't read all of it yet) for how a F-4 could defeat two MiG-17s (not going to happen with equal quality crews imo). You also stress the importance of pilots, training and tactics. What you didn't mention is that the F-4 had no LD/SD capability to speak of (before Germany upgraded some with APG-65 and AIM-120) and two MiG-17s were thus able to deny a F-4's BVR capability whenever they were protecting mobile (army) targets that couldn't be attacked from high altitude.

True on the radar's look-down-shoot-down, although the limitations are somewhat overrated. A lot of that depends on the operator, and there are still modes where an F-4 could shoot look-down.


About mock combat vs. F-22s; surprise becomes rather rare in large formation air combat. As WW2 aces said; loss percentages were lower in great air battles (wing vs. wing) than in small ones (flight vs flight). Few fighters were able to surprise anyone in large air battles, and surprise was involved in about 80% of the air/air kills of the time (80% of kills happened without target having seen the attacker). It's difficult to surprise a F-16 from behind with a visually huge F-22 if there are multiple other F-16 plots able to see that position.

What are you basing this on? I would argue that surprise is MORE likely when there are a lot of planes around... you say that few fighters were able to surprise, but 80% of kills resulted from surprise... the F-22 can surprise someone because it is stealthy!


Mock air combat in NATO - even Red Flag - is typically about rather small engagements afaik. That favours surprise tactics.
There's rarely a training like a pulse (saturation) attack of 300 combat aircraft at once on a 200x200 km area. I doubt that VLO/LO characteristics help much in such a situation, and IIRC a RAND study published in 2010 about F-22 capabilities over East Asian waters pretty much reinforced this point.
Again, I doubt that real peer/peer air war would look anything like the preferred scenarios for F-22 employment. The F-22 may face especially great obstacles on offensive missions (over red territory). Fighters are merely a component in a combined arms effort these days, after all.

No one has the aircraft or ability (these days) to put 300 aircraft in one airspace. Airfields are a big LIMFAC, as you can't exactly take an F-22 or T-50 off from a grass strip like a Mustang or Spit. Even if you could launch that many aircraft it would be almost unsafe - coordination would be difficult at best.

That said, Red Flag (Alaska and Nellis), Northern Edge, and like exercises typically involve large numbers of aircraft. Northern Edge (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123154850) involved 60+ aircraft at a time, which is about as large a force as anyone is likely to be able to concentrate at a given location.

Surprise still works. Yes the F-22 can be swarmed by other aircraft... so can any airplane. Numbers matter. That said, you would be better off going 2 v 10 in an F-22 than 2 v 6 in an older jet...


There's also the issue of contrails. Certain atmospheric conditions create contrails reliably (at high altitude) and there's little chance to surprise anyone in WVR combat in such a zone if fighter pilots cooperate properly. Sensors (such as certain missile warning sensors) can even be programmed to detect contrails at large distances and direct extra sensor attention to the contrails' ends. The USAF doesn't do this, of course (afaik). It doesn't attempt to defeat a F-22.

Cons typically occur only at certain altitudes. Anyone looking outside will see them and direct their sensors there. Cons can be avoided.


It doesn't give its other aircraft the tools to defeat a F-22. Even West Europeans don't do that (at least not much). The Russians and Chinese on the other hand try hard to defeat it, and that's all-important for the appraisal of a F-22's quality.

I think you underestimate how good the USAF Aggressors are, Fuchs! Why do you think anyone would publicize how to defeat their own systems?


I based the comparison of F-4 and Mirages etc on the fact that
fuel - twice engine power = roughly twice fuel consumption
maintenance - 30-50 hrs/hr vs. 15-20 hrs/hr
crew - 2 instead of 1

How many Mirages do you lose a year due to (single) engine failure? What's that cost you?


We also need to remember that kill statistics are questionable when discussing the F-4's qualities. The North Vietnamese exaggerated their kills (and had an impressive array of supposed aces) and the U.S. did most likely exaggerate air combat kill statistics as well. This happened in WW2 unintentionally and even with strict rules up to a factor of about two. BVR combat hasn't exactly made BDA more simple post-WW2.

The thing is that we KNOW how many US aircraft were lost... so the Vietnamese might have been lying but they still did some pretty good work (http://www.acepilots.com/vietnam/viet_aces.html). Kill ratios went up a lot after TOP GUN and USAF FWS improved training. As for US kill verification, both gun cameras and other means of verification were a lot better in Vietnam. The limited number of kills meant that they were very closely looked at... Modern kills (like those in Allied Force) are even better scrutinized, as there is almost always some sort of surveillance asset that can verify what the gun camera film shows.

V/R,

Cliff

Fuchs
01-14-2011, 01:37 AM
What are you basing this on? I would argue that surprise is MORE likely when there are a lot of planes around... you say that few fighters were able to surprise, but 80% of kills resulted from surprise... the F-22 can surprise someone because it is stealthy!

The context was WVR combat, and the huge F-22 isn't stealthy WVR at all.


No one has the aircraft or ability (these days) to put 300 aircraft in one airspace. Airfields are a big LIMFAC, as you can't exactly take an F-22 or T-50 off from a grass strip like a Mustang or Spit. Even if you could launch that many aircraft it would be almost unsafe - coordination would be difficult at best.

You are mistaken here. Soviet designs can routinely operate from grass airfields. Grass strips were an integral part of their airbase layout and Cold War fighters were meant to disperse to grass airfields (in part sports airfields). The MiG-29 is elaborately prepared for such operation (see the extra intakes) and Su-27 can operate from grass airfields as well afaik. It's not known yet whether the PAK-FA will have that capability or not.
There are enough roads in almost all countries anyway.

Furthermore, the WP had almost unbelievable alert reaction times - including drills for very rapid launch of entire squadrons from bunkers into the air. They were taxiing at up to 60 km/h with little spacing. Eight minutes between alert with all fighters in protected positions till whole squadron in the air were a standard requirement, and many squadrons in central Europe were faster than that!

300 combat aircraft at once is well out of reach for the U.S. forces on Okinawa and even for a four CVN fleet, but it's not at all unrealistic for Russians or Chinese. All it takes is the intent to to it, for it is clearly possible given their aircraft quantities, the availability of (provisional) airfields and the demonstrated performance of WP fighter squadrons in East Germany.

Pulsing saturation attacks are a great counter-tactic to a 24/7 air supremacy attempt with CAPs, for it defeats the CAPs and other defences through saturation and creates local/temporary air superiority.


That said, Red Flag (Alaska and Nellis), Northern Edge, and like exercises typically involve large numbers of aircraft. Northern Edge (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123154850) involved 60+ aircraft at a time, which is about as large a force as anyone is likely to be able to concentrate at a given location.

I simply consider this to be excessively optimistic and unrealistic. IIRC even the Israelis had more aircraft over Lebanon in 1982 than that, at several times.


I think you underestimate how good the USAF Aggressors are, Fuchs! Why do you think anyone would publicize how to defeat their own systems?

I don't, you misread my reply. The USAF has no real motivation to defeat the F-22, while others have. It's just reasonable to expect that others are more prepared to defeat it (and the USAF is accordingly not aware about the actual relative strength of the F-22).


How many Mirages do you lose a year due to (single) engine failure? What's that cost you?

Not many. The probability of a total engine failure is almost exactly halved if you have only one instead of two engines.
A smaller quantity of fighters means on the other hand a lesser distribution of risk of other accidents (which is relevant especially for small air forces which -surprise- tend to favour single engine fighters).

Cliff
01-14-2011, 02:33 AM
But I'll admit I like a good discussion, so I'll bite once more!


You are mistaken here. Soviet designs can routinely operate from grass airfields. Grass strips were an integral part of their airbase layout and Cold War fighters were meant to disperse to grass airfields (in part sports airfields). The MiG-29 is elaborately prepared for such operation (see the extra intakes) and Su-27 can operate from grass airfields as well afaik. It's not known yet whether the PAK-FA will have that capability or not.
There are enough roads in almost all countries anyway.

I am not mistaken. The J-10 doesn't have rough field capability, and the J-11 has some of the features from the Su-27 but not all. The MiG-29 does have grass-field capability. However, you need a fairly large grass field to operate, as well as special tires and a well-prepared grass strip. Roads need to be specially constructed, especially when you are flying a heavy fighter like the Flanker. Finally, are they training to do this?

One big advantage the USSR had was that the ground is frozen for much of the year... makes it much easier since the ground is hard!


Furthermore, the WP had almost unbelievable alert reaction times - including drills for very rapid launch of entire squadrons from bunkers into the air. They were taxiing at up to 60 km/h with little spacing. Eight minutes between alert with all fighters in protected positions till whole squadron in the air were a standard requirement, and many squadrons in central Europe were faster than that!

Agreed, but my point is who can do this now? Who trains to it?


300 combat aircraft at once is well out of reach for the U.S. forces on Okinawa and even for a four CVN fleet, but it's not at all unrealistic for Russians or Chinese. All it takes is the intent to to it, for it is clearly possible given their aircraft quantities, the availability of (provisional) airfields and the demonstrated performance of WP fighter squadrons in East Germany.

My point is that you need to train to do something like this.


Pulsing saturation attacks are a great counter-tactic to a 24/7 air supremacy attempt with CAPs, for it defeats the CAPs and other defences through saturation and creates local/temporary air superiority.

I agree with this, see my last post- you can swarm anyone.


I simply consider this to be excessively optimistic and unrealistic. IIRC even the Israelis had more aircraft over Lebanon in 1982 than that, at several times.

Too many aircraft and you start getting in each other's way and start running jets together. My point is not that the Chinese cannot launch 300 aircraft, but that they can't get 300 aircraft in a 100x100 area.


I don't, you misread my reply. The USAF has no real motivation to defeat the F-22, while others have. It's just reasonable to expect that others are more prepared to defeat it (and the USAF is accordingly not aware about the actual relative strength of the F-22).

I refer you back to my comment about the Aggressors.


Not many. The probability of a total engine failure is almost exactly halved if you have only one instead of two engines.
A smaller quantity of fighters means on the other hand a lesser distribution of risk of other accidents (which is relevant especially for small air forces which -surprise- tend to favour single engine fighters).

Huh? This makes no sense.

Take the historical USAF engine related Class A (total loss or >$1M damage or death) mishap rates for single engine (http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080819-035.pdf) aircraft versus two engine (http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100201-058.pdf) aircraft.

If we're talking Vietnam, look at how the F-4 rate is .16... the F-105 rate is 4.56.

Still don't believe me? Let's look at F-15 PW-220 vs. F-16 PW-220 (basically same motor)... F-15 is .28, F-16 is 1.10...

I would submit that you are MUCH more likely (28x for F-4 vs. F-105, 3.92x for F-15 vs. F-16) to have a mishap due to your engine failing in a single engine aircraft.

Two engine aircraft are inherently safer than single engine jets... period.

V/R,

Cliff

Fuchs
01-14-2011, 01:38 PM
"The probability of a total engine failure is almost exactly halved if you have only one instead of two engines."

should have been

"The probability of one total engine failure is almost exactly halved if you have only one instead of two engines."

for clarity.

Kiwigrunt
01-14-2011, 09:39 PM
"The probability of one total engine failure is almost exactly halved if you have only one instead of two engines."

for clarity.

Interesting. Statistically, can’t fault that.
But surely, the issue is not the failing of an engine, it is the resultant failure of the aircraft. If a frame with one engine has an engine failure, then that will result in an aircraft failure (probability of 100 %?). If a multi-engine frame has a single engine failure, the probability of that aircraft getting home is pretty high. So the question should IMO be, what is the statistical probability of both (or all) engines on one aircraft failing at the same time.
The tricky part here would be determining independence between the engines on the same aircraft. That might depend on the type/cause of failure.



A smaller quantity of fighters means on the other hand a lesser distribution of risk of other accidents (which is relevant especially for small air forces which -surprise- tend to favour single engine fighters).
Sure, but do they favour single engine fighters for that reason or has it got more to do with acquisition and maintenance costs? How many fairly good quality fighters can we get, given our tight budget, and still have a meaningful number, versus how few can we afford if each is more expensive? So may your argument of favourable risk distribution contributed to other factors serve the larger/richer forces better, relative to their size?

jmm99
01-14-2011, 10:53 PM
Ok, single engine failure on single engine plane = aircraft failure.

A single engine failure on twin engine plane, in a non-combat situation = good chance (whatever % is) of limping home. Hey Carl, remember our Blue Goose turboprops ! :)

What about a single engine failure on a twin engine plane, in a combat situation ? What are your chances of getting home there ?

Regards

Mike

Cole
01-15-2011, 01:46 AM
Ok, single engine failure on single engine plane = aircraft failure.Believe Cliff would tell us that pilots memorize an engine restart procedure in the event of an engine failure. Had a long-ago neighbor who had one as a USAF instructor pilot in a T-38 and he got it restarted.


A single engine failure on twin engine plane, in a non-combat situation = good chance (whatever % is) of limping home.Cliff probably would admit that if you have one of two engines fail, there is a good possibility the second engine also will fail.

The ones who should be worrying the most about engine failures are those flying aircraft with Russian engines.

Aviation Week said that F-35A engine costs are down to about $19 million. A current General was quoted saying he could buy 100 UAS for the price of an F-35 engine. He may have been talking about the F-35B engine which I believe costs twice what an F-35A engine costs. The F-22A has two $19 million engines and don't believe they are included in the typical $143 million F-22A cost that you often heard the USAF was paying at the end.

Plus if you buy 100 F-35As and lose just one to an engine failure, you lose a$100 million dollar aircraft and whatever it costs to rescue the pilot who bailed out. To buy two engines for a hypothetical 100 twin engine F-35A would cost an extra $1.9 billion.

The F-22A line is mostly closed anyway. RAND's 2010 study titled "Ending F-22A Production," paid for by the USAF, estimates that Shutdown and Restart costs for 75 more F-22s would result in average unit costs of $227 million. The total cost in then year dollars to produce 75 more would be $19.2 billion ($17 billion in FY 2008 constant dollars).

In any event, you can't fly an F-22A off a carrier. Guam will be a pretty crowded place. Japan would be a dangerous place to park an F-22A or F-35A given the missile and massed air attack threat. But those massed aircraft also need to land if they survive. The decision to move forward on a new bomber seems to make sense with its longer legs and ability to bomb airfields so that threat quantity and quality are largely irrelevant. Just can't picture a 75,000 lb J-20 or J-10/11 taking off on three points of contact on wet grass thousands of meters long and probably not all that smooth. Don't think loading heavy jet munitions or using large fuel trucks on wet grass would work too well either.

Just my opinion.

carl
01-15-2011, 04:31 AM
Aviation Week said that F-35A engine costs are down to about $19 million. A current General was quoted saying he could buy 100 UAS for the price of an F-35 engine.

That is $190,000 each. It would buy you something that is completely useless against an enemy who can match your numbers and technology. Preds cost a lot more than that and Reapers cost rather more than Preds. And both of those are completely useless against an enemy who can match your technology.


The F-22A line is mostly closed anyway. RAND's 2010 study titled "Ending F-22A Production," paid for by the USAF, estimates that Shutdown and Restart costs for 75 more F-22s would result in average unit costs of $227 million. The total cost in then year dollars to produce 75 more would be $19.2 billion ($17 billion in FY 2008 constant dollars).

In any event, you can't fly an F-22A off a carrier. Guam will be a pretty crowded place. Japan would be a dangerous place to park an F-22A or F-35A given the missile and massed air attack threat.

Acquiring more F-22s may be costly, as may be hardening the bases to put them on, but if the only thing that will be able to stop the J-20 from killing any old thing it wants to is an F-22. Once those 187 or so are used up, so are we.



But those massed aircraft also need to land if they survive. The decision to move forward on a new bomber seems to make sense with its longer legs and ability to bomb airfields so that threat quantity and quality are largely irrelevant. Just can't picture a 75,000 lb J-20 or J-10/11 taking off on three points of contact on wet grass thousands of meters long and probably not all that smooth. Don't think loading heavy jet munitions or using large fuel trucks on wet grass would work too well either.

I am guessing an airbase can be hardened. Underground aircraft hangers, underground facilities, runways spread wide apart, copious amounts of engineers and repair materials; all these things might make it hard to knock out a base. You could also do what the Swedes do, use specially hardened road sections and spread your airplanes around the countryside. All these things would make it hard for a handful of new bombers to take out enough bases for long enough to make any difference. We won't have anything more than a handful of new bombers and I doubt we would get this handful prior to...oh say, 2030.

The Chinese will perfect the J-20 and if they build them in large numbers we will be faced with an extremely serious problem. There will be no inexpensive way around that problem and once the F-22s run out there may be no way around it at all.

slapout9
01-15-2011, 04:36 AM
Once those 187 or so are used up, so are we.






carl, did the Air Force tell us a story? ;)I remember them guarantying the F-22would be superior for like 50 years. Now it is just barely in service and China is already beating us:eek: something is kinda stinky about the whole deal.

carl
01-15-2011, 04:57 AM
carl, did the Air Force tell us a story? ;)I remember them guarantying the F-22would be superior for like 50 years. Now it is just barely in service and China is already beating us:eek: something is kinda stinky about the whole deal.

Just my opinion, but if the Air Force told us that they were lying or so arrogant about our capabilities and so dismissive of others as to be wonderously stupid. I don't know if the J-20 is superior to the F-22 but it is most definitely superior to everything but the F-22. The big problem with the F-22 is there won't be enough of them. 187 or so is not a lot of airplanes.

William F. Owen
01-15-2011, 06:19 AM
I don't know if the J-20 is superior to the F-22 but it is most definitely superior to everything but the F-22.
Really? Where is the evidence? One photograph of the plane?

It is entirely possible that the J-20 may have abysmal manoeuvring characteristics, may not be that stealthy and have a wealth of serious systems issues. ....and it may not. One good airplane type, does not a serious threat make.

Entropy
01-15-2011, 01:55 PM
I've gotta agree with Wilf here. I don't understand the hyperventilating over the J-20. No one knows what it's capabilities are. And there is, of course, a long history of impressive looking aircraft that turned out to be crap.

Regarding two vs. one engined aircraft, all else being equal, two engines is much safer. The statistics on that score are incontrovertable.

carl
01-15-2011, 03:29 PM
Really? Where is the evidence? One photograph of the plane?

It is entirely possible that the J-20 may have abysmal manoeuvring characteristics, may not be that stealthy and have a wealth of serious systems issues. ....and it may not. One good airplane type, does not a serious threat make.

The engineers and the fellows in the trade press are pretty good at determining general performance from the configuration and size of the airplanes, not perfect but pretty good. The air molecules are only going to act one way and gravity is a constant. Besides, they have a lot of photos to work with so I tend to believe them when they say this thing looks like a high altitude, long range, missile toting supercruiser.

It is true that the J-20 may be a flop. It is probably not prudent to base your planning on that assumption. It is more prudent to assume they will get it right and assume that the airplane will do what it appears capable of. In that case we have big problem, and depending upon what we have to fight with, maybe one that can't be solved.

One good airplane type does a serious problem make. The MiG-15 was very serious problem for the west. The only thing that helped with that problem was the F-86. If for some reason or other the F-86 hadn't been there, we would had exactly zero airplanes that could have kept the MiGs from killing everything.

Conversely, the F-15 couldn't be matched by the MiG-21 and 27. Big problem for the Russians until they made the SU-27 and MiG-29. But there was a span of years there they were quite vulnerable.

The point of the above two paragraphs is the threat airplanes were matched and the problem reduced. By our refusal to make more than that mighty 187 or so F-22s, we have consciously chosen not to match the threat. When those 187 are used up we will have big trouble.

Fuchs
01-15-2011, 03:51 PM
The J-20 may be(come) a failure, but let's not overshoot the target.

I've read more than enough remarks about it that resembled very much the "Japanese aircraft are made of bamboo and paper" mentality of the U.S. before the Pearl Harbour raid and the following half year of getting beaten up by A6M fighters.


The competence of a nation or industry in a certain area can advance spectacularly in a few years; much faster than distant observers tend to take notice.

Cole
01-15-2011, 04:31 PM
That is $190,000 each. It would buy you something that is completely useless against an enemy who can match your numbers and technology. Preds cost a lot more than that and Reapers cost rather more than Preds. And both of those are completely useless against an enemy who can match your technology.
Carl, it was this month's NationalDefenseMagazine and General Cartwright. He was probably referring to the F-35B STOVL engine which is $38 million according to Aviation Week. A Shadow 200, used by the Marines and Army costs around $300,000 for the air vehicle itself. The Marines are arming there's. Admittedly it's not as potent as an F-35.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/February/Pages/Here’saThoughtThePentagonWants‘Thinking’Drones.asp x


Acquiring more F-22s may be costly, as may be hardening the bases to put them on, but if the only thing that will be able to stop the J-20 from killing any old thing it wants to is an F-22. Once those 187 or so are used up, so are we.
China has over a thousand tactical ballistic missiles. TBM have become the new cost-effective alternative to an effective air force. According to Wikipedia, an F-35A in 1965 dollars was $1.9 million. Adjusted for inflation that is only a bit over $13 miilion today. That tells you that the cost of a competitive fighter has risen much, much faster than the 640% inflation rate from Jan 1960 until today.

The result is that most potential adversaries cannot afford competitive fighters in great numbers. Heck, we can't afford them if they are F-22As. The F-35 is a more cost-effective compromise just as the F-16 was. The Russian and Chinese aircraft are cheaper, but not so cheap to sell many to any one rogue nation (with a sub $10 billion defense budget), and they remain unproven in actual combat. We know our pilot's are experienced. We know their's are not. We know nothing about J-20 capabilities other than that nations seldom advance decades in military know-how overnight.


I am guessing an airbase can be hardened. Underground aircraft hangers, underground facilities, runways spread wide apart, copious amounts of engineers and repair materials; all these things might make it hard to knock out a base. You could also do what the Swedes do, use specially hardened road sections and spread your airplanes around the countryside. All these things would make it hard for a handful of new bombers to take out enough bases for long enough to make any difference. We won't have anything more than a handful of new bombers and I doubt we would get this handful prior to...oh say, 2030.
We will have many hundreds of cruise missiles and JASSM-ER, and we still have penetrating capability with B-2, F-22, F-35, and future UCAV/MC-X. At night the primary threat to these aircraft would be SAMs that we can jam or avoid. Agree that we could harden some bases further away from China, but Japan and Korea are too close. Let them pay to harden their own bases for their own aircraft.


The Chinese will perfect the J-20 and if they build them in large numbers we will be faced with an extremely serious problem. There will be no inexpensive way around that problem and once the F-22s run out there may be no way around it at all.Why would we go to war with China. Why would they bomb our Walmarts? We both have nukes and MAD deterrence. Taiwan is getting friendlier with the mainland everyday. The ones who should have any inkling of worry are Japan, Korea, and Australia. They can all buy F-35s (not F-22) and Patriot missiles to assume more of their own aerial defense with our back-up.

A recent Australian study claimed a lowly 6:1 loss-exchange ratio between Chinese aircraft and our own. IMHO, that is ridiculously inaccurate considering how old most Chinese aircraft still are. Did that consider F-35s? Navy and shore-based SAMs also attrite threat aircraft. It is unlikely Pak FA or J-20s will be anywhere near as stealthy as our aircraft or that S-300/400/Chinese SAMs would withstand EA-18G and next generation jammers.

The sky is not falling versus China or Russia. We still have MAD keeping both sides happy. The sky could fall on some American, European, or Israeli city if attacked by a state-supported terrorist nuke. Irrational individuals don't consider that their nation will be destroyed if they are insane, think they can hide any connection, believe they have nothing to lose, or have some religious belief creating a martyrdom complex. Focus on those more likely threats by deterring rogue states and developing TBM defenses, befriending/helping states that reject terrorism, and by killing potential terrorists where we actively find them. Rapidly deployable and forward-deployed ground and naval forces, nukes, 186 F-22s, 2000+ F-35s, new bombers, and UAS are more than adequate to preclude miscalculation by major powers.

Fuchs
01-15-2011, 04:40 PM
According to Wikipedia, an F-35A in 1965 dollars was $1.9 million. Adjusted for inflation that is only a bit over $13 miilion today. That tells you that the cost of a competitive fighter has risen much, much faster than the 640% inflation rate from Jan 1960 until today.

...

The sky is not falling versus China or Russia. We still have MAD keeping both sides happy.

a) I bet you meant something different than F-35A.

b) The Chinese are reputed with a minimal deterrence; just a few hundred nuclear warheads. That's not true MAD.

slapout9
01-15-2011, 04:54 PM
It is probably not prudent to base your planning on that assumption.


That is real problem. Link to Long Range Planning By Colonel Warden

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/joint2008/papers/Panel%203_June%204_Warden-PPT.pdf

carl
01-15-2011, 05:52 PM
The J-20 is a big target for the F-35 Distributed Aperture System if it gets close.

That may be true but why would it need to get close? If, if it is designed to stay high, fast and shoot missiles from far away it doesn't have to get close.



The result is that most potential adversaries cannot afford competitive fighters in great numbers. Heck, we can't afford them if they are F-22As.

The ability to afford something is a decision as to where you want to put your resources. We have enough resources to build lots of F-22s but we choose to put those resources elsewhere. If the Chinese make the decision to build lots of J-20s, they can. They will just have to give up something else. That is easier to do in a totalitarian society.


The F-35 is a more cost-effective compromise just as the F-16 was. The Russian and Chinese aircraft are cheaper, but not so cheap to sell many to any one rogue nation (with a sub $10 billion defense budget), and they remain unproven in actual combat. We know our pilot's are experienced. We know their's are not. We know nothing about J-20 capabilities other than that nations seldom advance decades in military know-how overnight.

The F-35 will be no compromise at all if all it can do is look at a J-20 and use that vaunted computing power to calculate exactly when the missile will hit. Our pilots are experienced, but that doesn't mean the other fellow can't think up something nasty for us. The Indians and the Chileans have both done us the favor of showing us up in the past. They weren't experienced. The J-10 first flew in 1998. The Chinese have been working on this stuff for decades. Besides, they may have every bit of data from our decades of work via their internet espionage work.



We will have many hundreds of cruise missiles and JASSM-ER, and we still have penetrating capability with B-2, F-22, F-35, and future UCAV/MC-X. At night the primary threat to these aircraft would be SAMs that we can jam or avoid.

Would there be enough of those things to shut down hardened bases, if the opponent chose to harden bases, for a long time? Would they have bases close enough that survive long enough to do any good? I don't know.


Agree that we could harden some bases further away from China, but Japan and Korea are too close. Let them pay to harden their own bases for their own aircraft.

...The ones who should have any inkling of worry are Japan, Korea, and Australia. They can all buy F-35s (not F-22) and Patriot missiles to assume more of their own aerial defense with our back-up.

I am not so sure we can be so easily dismissive of Japan, Korea and Australia. We could not afford not to have them in it with us.


A recent Australian study claimed a lowly 6:1 loss-exchange ratio between Chinese aircraft and our own. IMHO, that is ridiculously inaccurate considering how old most Chinese aircraft still are. Did that consider F-35s? Navy and shore-based SAMs also attrite threat aircraft. It is unlikely Pak FA or J-20s will be anywhere near as stealthy as our aircraft or that S-300/400/Chinese SAMs would withstand EA-18G and next generation jammers.

Shore based SAMS are only good near the shore or a little beyond. Way out to sea, not so much. Ship based SAMS are only good if there is a ship there and you can run them out of missiles. (I know there is a version of the Mk. 41 VLS that can be reloaded at sea but is that version on any of our ships?) I read too there is a shortage of naval missiles. Let's say you made each one of those old Chinese airplanes a drone and pointed them toward an American ship. They wouldn't have any warhead or terminal guidance. They wouldn't need it. Each would have to be engaged because they might be able to hurt you. Pretty soon, poof! No more missiles.


The sky is not falling versus China or Russia.

Maybe not. My point is there is a very serious problem on the horizon and we can't wish it away.


2000+ F-35s

I am skeptical we will buy anywhere near that many.

Cole
01-15-2011, 06:03 PM
a) I bet you meant something different than F-35A.

b) The Chinese are reputed with a minimal deterrence; just a few hundred nuclear warheads. That's not true MAD.

a) Oops, you're right, it was the F-4A Phantom that I looked up on Wikipedia.

b) Maybe not true MAD, but close enough!! Can't imagine any country wanting to endure 10 nukes let alone one hundred.

Cole
01-15-2011, 06:42 PM
That may be true but why would it need to get close? If, if it is designed to stay high, fast and shoot missiles from far away it doesn't have to get close.We don't even know if its intent is more of a fighter or a bomber. Is it directed at us or a solution to the Indian PakFA? Even if it's high heading toward an F-35, it does not mean it can see the F-35 or successfully lock on to it, especially if it is being jammed and there are other decoys out and about. It's more likely focused on some distant larger radar target AWACS or an F-15 Golden Eagle or F-18E/F with upgraded AESA when it gets an AMRAAM from an unseen F-35 or F-22.



The ability to afford something is a decision as to where you want to put your resources. We have enough resources to build lots of F-22s but we choose to put those resources elsewhere. If the Chinese make the decision to build lots of J-20s, they can. They will just have to give up something else. That is easier to do in a totalitarian society.But for the same money, we can build a lot more nearly as good F-35s and sell others to allies to keep the price even lower. Plus the F-35 splits up our fighter eggs, and gets them closer to the threat so we don't overcongest Guam.


The F-35 will be no compromise at all if all it can do is look at a J-20 and use that vaunted computing power to calculate exactly when the missile will hit. Our pilots are experienced, but that doesn't mean the other fellow can't think up something nasty for us. The Indians and the Chileans have both done us the favor of showing us up in the past. They weren't experienced. The J-10 first flew in 1998. The Chinese have been working on this stuff for decades. Besides, they may have every bit of data from our decades of work via their internet espionage work.Indians and Chileans? Wargames where we couldn't use all our capabilities of newest assets?

Backward engineering is (I suspect) hard enough when you have the actual item let alone when you have drawings of something small and complex and no means of duplicating that item in quality mass production, and no current sample of the material helping making it low observable.


Would there be enough of those things to shut down hardened bases, if the opponent chose to harden bases, for a long time? Would they have bases close enough that survive long enough to do any good? I don't know.And meanwhile their oil is getting blockaded in the Straits of Mallaca and railways leading to air bases are getting bombed. Commuter rails are hit so millions of Chinese are stranded and a few good bomb hits on highways creates month long trafffic jams for both military and civil traffic.


I am not so sure we can be so easily dismissive of Japan, Korea and Australia. We could not afford not to have them in it with us.Of course we want them on our side but it is their war and threat to their homeland...not ours, and if the Chinese attack them as well as Taiwan, then they get more allies involved. I'm sure we are more than willing to sell them F-35s just as they sell us their goods.


Shore based SAMS are only good near the shore or a little beyond. Way out to sea, not so much. Ship based SAMS are only good if there is a ship there and you can run them out of missiles. (I know there is a version of the Mk. 41 VLS that can be reloaded at sea but is that version on any of our ships?) I read too there is a shortage of naval missiles. Let's say you made each one of those old Chinese airplanes a drone and pointed them toward an American ship. They wouldn't have any warhead or terminal guidance. They wouldn't need it. Each would have to be engaged because they might be able to hurt you. Pretty soon, poof! No more missiles.We have decoys (MALD) and means of jamming their data links too, I suspect. Folks forget that as we are running out of naval and shore SAMs, they are running out of aircraft. 100 quality aircraft with a 10:1 (and submit it would be more like 40:1 against most) air-to-air loss-exchange means we may lose 100 aircraft, but they will lose 1000 lesser quality and far fewer quality aircraft, plus whatever number are killed by the Navy and Patriots. Meanwhile, we still have lots of F-35s and more SAMs on the way.

Somebody will come back and say we should not lose any aircraft and our pilots need every asymmetric and numbers advantage. But recall that $13 miilion (in TODAY'S dollars) F-4A in the early 1960s. Can we afford to pay for excessive numbers of today's stealthy fighters that cost ten times as much? That is not a realistic outlook when 100 lost planes means nowhere near 100 lost pilots...a number surpassed by ground troops every few months in conflicts with a 100% probability (Afghanistan/iraq), not a .1% probability against China or Russia. Iran and North Korea are probably 5% probability conflicts and we have more than sufficient stealth jets for those adversaries.

Fuchs
01-15-2011, 06:54 PM
Part f the problem with decoys is that VLO aircraft lose LO characteristics if they carry external loads. A MALD would need to be carried externally, for the weapons bays do not have spare volume.

MALD is -just as IRST- one of the technologies that favour non-stealth aircraft like Typhoon and Rafale (which don't use such decoys, though).

carl
01-15-2011, 11:46 PM
Cole:

This is fun, alternating deconstruction of arguments


We don't even know if its intent is more of a fighter or a bomber. Is it directed at us or a solution to the Indian PakFA? Even if it's high heading toward an F-35, it does not mean it can see the F-35 or successfully lock on to it, especially if it is being jammed and there are other decoys out and about. It's more likely focused on some distant larger radar target AWACS or an F-15 Golden Eagle or F-18E/F with upgraded AESA when it gets an AMRAAM from an unseen F-35 or F-22.

The crux of our differences is the efficacy of the F-35 vs. fighters like the J-20. You believe that it will be close enough to the F-22 to do the job. I think it won't. It was designed mainly to be a light bomber so it just doesn't seem, to my uneducated eye, to have the flight performance and size to even come close to the F-22 or J-20 or PakFA. You cite the F-22 above. With the small number we will have, will there be enough to be on the spot when it matters?


Plus the F-35 splits up our fighter eggs, and gets them closer to the threat so we don't overcongest Guam.

But if we are closer, aren't we more vulnerable to all those missiles the Chinese have, especially if our bases aren't hardened?


Indians and Chileans? Wargames where we couldn't use all our capabilities of newest assets?

You mentioned pilot experience, not the totality of airborne combat power. The Indians and Chileans demonstrated that inexperienced pilots can dream things up to surprise us. If they can do it, so can others.


Backward engineering is (I suspect) hard enough when you have the actual item let alone when you have drawings of something small and complex and no means of duplicating that item in quality mass production, and no current sample of the material helping making it low observable.

It might be a mistake to underestimate the cleverness of those guys.


And meanwhile their oil is getting blockaded in the Straits of Mallaca and railways leading to air bases are getting bombed. Commuter rails are hit so millions of Chinese are stranded and a few good bomb hits on highways creates month long trafffic jams for both military and civil traffic.

I think figuring on how a the entire course of a conflict would play out is beyond the scope of this discussion. I am mainly concerned how the J-20 will threaten our plans in the future.


We have decoys (MALD) and means of jamming their data links too, I suspect. Folks forget that as we are running out of naval and shore SAMs, they are running out of aircraft. 100 quality aircraft with a 10:1 (and submit it would be more like 40:1 against most) air-to-air loss-exchange means we may lose 100 aircraft, but they will lose 1000 lesser quality and far fewer quality aircraft, plus whatever number are killed by the Navy and Patriots. Meanwhile, we still have lots of F-35s and more SAMs on the way.

I hope so, but it may be folly to count on a 10-1 exchange ratio. 40-1 I think is dreaming; the Chinese may not be the Japanese Naval Air Force of May 1942, but they won't be an Arab air force either.


Can we afford to pay for excessive numbers of today's stealthy fighters that cost ten times as much? That is not a realistic outlook when 100 lost planes means nowhere near 100 lost pilots...

If we go up against an adversary who can match tech and numbers we have to have the things to fight them with. If we don't, we lose. I don't think we are really confronting the reality that our sweet deal with history that has lasted for the last 65 years (as Fuchs said) may be coming to an end, and it will be expensive.

carl
01-15-2011, 11:50 PM
Cliff:

If you are still there, how stealthy are these various designs if they are viewed by a radar from above rather than below or from the same altitude?

davidbfpo
01-16-2011, 12:59 PM
This discussion is far beyond my interests and understanding, but I do recall reading now some thirty years ago that the USA planned an IIRC a conventional bombing campaign in any conflict with the PRC, with waves of B52 strikes etc. Please do not ask for the source as my memory is fading.

Will knowledge of this option and presumably still a current option impact Chinese defence thinking?

slapout9
01-16-2011, 02:20 PM
the USA planned an IIRC a conventional bombing campaign in any conflict with the PRC, with waves of B52 strikes etc. Please do not ask for the source as my memory is fading.



Dave,Probably came from the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) part of SAC (Strategic Air Command). Ranged from total world war to single country attack plans.

William F. Owen
01-17-2011, 07:14 AM
The engineers and the fellows in the trade press are pretty good at determining general performance from the configuration and size of the airplanes, not perfect but pretty good. The air molecules are only going to act one way and gravity is a constant.
I'd discount 99% of the men in the trade press. There are about 2-3 I respect. The rest are basically plane-spotters, some with PhDs.
..but its a very long road from 1 flying prototype to an effective in service aircraft. Not least, what about the weapons system?

It is probably not prudent to base your planning on that assumption. It is more prudent to assume they will get it right and assume that the airplane will do what it appears capable of.
Concur 100%. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

One good airplane type does a serious problem make. The MiG-15 was very serious problem for the west. The only thing that helped with that problem was the F-86. If for some reason or other the F-86 hadn't been there, we would had exactly zero airplanes that could have kept the MiGs from killing everything.
So would you feel comfortable saying, without the F-86, the UN would have lost the Korean War?


By our refusal to make more than that mighty 187 or so F-22s, we have consciously chosen not to match the threat. When those 187 are used up we will have big trouble.
That's just the symptom. Not the disease. You have a 187 F22 because the US Air Force over-spec'd the plane and allowed industry to build something grossly over priced. Plus a long history of mismanaging aircraft programs.

carl
01-17-2011, 07:40 AM
So would you feel comfortable saying, without the F-86, the UN would have lost the Korean War?

I think without the F-86, we may have had to do without interdiction, close air support and transport missions close to the front lines. The Communists would have been rather more confident also. What would have resulted, who knows?



That's just the symptom. Not the disease. You have a 187 F22 because the US Air Force over-spec'd the plane and allowed industry to build something grossly over priced. Plus a long history of mismanaging aircraft programs.

Agreed. However the F-22 is the only thing we have to work with. There is nothing else and because of the disease, there will be nothing else...in time.

Cliff
01-18-2011, 05:17 AM
Cliff:

If you are still there, how stealthy are these various designs if they are viewed by a radar from above rather than below or from the same altitude?

Can't really talk to specifics, but in general most stealth designs are optimized to be stealthy from certain angles. It totally depends on the design where these angles are.

V/R,

Cliff

Cliff
01-18-2011, 05:24 AM
Concur 100%. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

My big arguement is the US needs to at least be able to deter China... which means planning a minimum deterrent capability based on worse case capabilities.



So would you feel comfortable saying, without the F-86, the UN would have lost the Korean War?

I personally think we would have lost the Pusan perimeter without CAS... as for later, the Chinese would have done a lot better had they had air superiority...


That's just the symptom. Not the disease. You have a 187 F22 because the US Air Force over-spec'd the plane and allowed industry to build something grossly over priced. Plus a long history of mismanaging aircraft programs.

You have to remember, the F-22 program was planned for 600+ aircraft... any time you take a major program like that and cut the numbers, it drives the cost up.

The specs were actually cut quite a bit, deleting a lot of extras that were originally in the program.

I would argue that the US military has lost much of its ability to manage complex acquisition programs. When you don't have enough of your own (blue suit) engineers who can actually evaluate what the contractor's engineers are telling you, it's tough to hold their feet to the fire...

V/R,

Cliff

SethB
01-18-2011, 05:25 AM
In 2006 I took a class on Asian security. I vividly remember being told that China has 5,000 aircraft, only 1,000 of which can be considered modern.

They've got a long way to go before they have parity, or can even get close.

Now, can they close off their airspace with ADA? Different story.

But I have yet to see any indication of a capable expeditionary threat.

Cliff
01-18-2011, 05:37 AM
carl, did the Air Force tell us a story? ;)I remember them guarantying the F-22would be superior for like 50 years. Now it is just barely in service and China is already beating us:eek: something is kinda stinky about the whole deal.

Slap, the AF didn't lie about the F-22. The big issue is numbers (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2009/0618/p02s09-usmi.html)- only 187 F-22s is an issue if our adversaries have significant numbers of even somewhat inferior fighters.

I don't think anyone is saying the J-20 will be as good as the F-22... but if they buy a lot of them they don't have to be.

OBTW, it is a lot easier for the Chinese to buy things like this cheaply since the key industries are state owned and not subject to having to make profits, pay union wages, or pay taxes like LockMart or Boeing.

V/R,

Cliff

SethB
01-18-2011, 06:07 AM
it is a lot easier for the Chinese to buy things like this cheaply since the key industries are state owned and not subject to having to make profits, pay union wages, or pay taxes like LockMart or Boeing.

The technical term is Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). And it changes their defense budget a lot. Besides the fact that they lie through their teeth about what they actually spend.

Of course, the PLA also has a huge stake in state owned businesses, so who knows?

Ken White
01-18-2011, 06:46 AM
I personally think we would have lost the Pusan perimeter without CAS... as for later, the Chinese would have done a lot better had they had air superiority...Having been there, I can assure you that you're right. However, much of that was Prop stuff and in the Fighting Jet routine to take on the Migs -- that didn't have the range to get down to the Naktong -- there were 'lesser-than-Saber' Meteors, F9Fs, F2Hs and FJ1s plus, a bit later, the as good (as it logically should have been... :D) FJ3. Not to mention the one Mig clobbered by the slow F3D...

The Mig was better than the early available US birds, no question, however the fairly large number of experienced USSR pilots made more difference than did the aircraft.

slapout9
01-18-2011, 12:04 PM
Slap, the AF didn't lie about the F-22. The big issue is numbers (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2009/0618/p02s09-usmi.html)- only 187 F-22s is an issue if our adversaries have significant numbers of even somewhat inferior fighters.

I don't think anyone is saying the J-20 will be as good as the F-22... but if they buy a lot of them they don't have to be.

OBTW, it is a lot easier for the Chinese to buy things like this cheaply since the key industries are state owned and not subject to having to make profits, pay union wages, or pay taxes like LockMart or Boeing.

V/R,

Cliff

Cliff, I don't think the Air Force lied but simply made a statement about the future that cannot be sustained. One of the weaknesses of Capitalism against a state controlled armaments industry is that technologies leak out to the enemy to make money. China can skip the research and development costs by simply buying the most current technology indirectly through trade deals through foreign corporations.

carl
01-18-2011, 02:42 PM
Having been there, I can assure you that you're right. However, much of that was Prop stuff and in the Fighting Jet routine to take on the Migs -- that didn't have the range to get down to the Naktong -- there were 'lesser-than-Saber' Meteors, F9Fs, F2Hs and FJ1s plus, a bit later, the as good (as it logically should have been... :D) FJ3. Not to mention the one Mig clobbered by the slow F3D...

The Mig was better than the early available US birds, no question, however the fairly large number of experienced USSR pilots made more difference than did the aircraft.

Ken: I disagree with you at my peril but I must in this case. The FJ-1 never made it into combat, only 31 were produced. The FJ-3 was a Sabre and didn't make it into service prior to the end of the war. The other straight wing jets had no chance at all against the MiG-15 which is why they were all turned into light bombers.

The author of "Sabres over MiG Alley" stated the only thing that prevented a "wholesale slaughter" of our aircraft when the MiGs first appeared was the high experience level (WWII guys) of the F-80 and prop pilots vs. the relatively low experience level of the Soviets flying the MiGs. The Air Force didn't get Sabres over there quick for nothing.

It really was one of those times in history where a single weapon made a critical difference.

Entropy
01-18-2011, 04:02 PM
I guess I look at this from a different angle.

Yes, if we plan to have a large, conventional air and naval war with China in their own littoral, then yes, we'd probably want a lot more advanced, stealthy aircraft. In an environment where resources are infinite we could do whatever is necessary to prepare for that contingency.

That's just one contingency, however, and we are in an environment where resources are not only limited, but will be declining for the next decade if not longer. The question then becomes one about the relative importance of preparing for this contingency vs. other priorities.

Personally, I think it was ill-advised to cancel the F-22 early, especially considering all the problems with the F-35. At the same time, though, we are going to have to deal with the reality that we will have to do more with less and contingency plan for scenarios where we might have inadequate forces for the task. Would I like more F-22's for a war with China? Yes I would, but at the same time I don't want to facilitate bankrupting our country to achieve that capability, nor do I want to neglect more important priorities. I would also much prefer that we avoid conflict with China in the first place.

In short, we need to get away from the idea that we can, forever and always, field a superior force to all competitors as well as deploy and sustain them anywhere in the world against any and all opponents. The fact that China is trying, and largely succeeding, in improving it's military capabilities doesn't automatically mean we need to spend many additional billions - especially in response to capabilities that remain theoretical.

Ken White
01-18-2011, 04:15 PM
Ken: I disagree with you at my peril but I must in this case. The FJ-1 never made it into combat, only 31 were produced.Totally true -- but it was the granddaddy of the F-86. My indirect allusion was to that fact :wry:
The FJ-3 was a Sabre and didn't make it into service prior to the end of the war. Also true, thus my comment that it logically should have been as good as the Saber because it was a Saber (my Wife says my humor needs work...). The FJ2 flew, IIRC in late 51 or early 52 but didn't hit the fleet until the mid-50s. The delay in getting it and the FJ3into service was due to the genealogy; the FJ1 led to sweeping wings and a Saber but the AF didn't need the beef that Carrier jets require. So they lightened it up and then had to re-toughen things up to satisfy BuAer. That took more time.
The other straight wing jets had no chance at all against the MiG-15 which is why they were all turned into light bombers.I know a few F9F pilots who don't totally subscribe to that but I do realize that's basically true -- even though I also added my comment on the big, slow, lumbering and very straight wing F3D shooting down one Mig (true)...:D
The author of "Sabres over MiG Alley" stated the only thing that prevented a "wholesale slaughter" of our aircraft when the MiGs first appeared was the high experience level (WWII guys) of the F-80 and prop pilots vs. the relatively low experience level of the Soviets flying the MiGs.Werrell may have said that but he wasn't there. He also as a 1960 AFA grad may have skewed the tale a bit. Others contend that the Soviet Pilots were, like the US pilots, a mix of WW II experienced guys and new kids. Others also mention that the AF version of Korea omits much comment on Naval and Marine aviation in country. It was extensive and effective.
The Air Force didn't get Sabres over there quick for nothing.Totally true -- and the quickness for technological reasons was required to offset the hard fact that, regardless of technical superiority or experience levels, we were losing too many aircraft -- and something needed to protect the B-29s which the Migs were slaughtering. That's what gave 'Mig Alley' its name as they tooled in to swat the B29s trying to do 'interdiction.' :rolleyes: Which fact really drove the AF train, not support of the grunts...
It really was one of those times in history where a single weapon made a critical difference.Probably. However, technical superiority has been known to be beaten by Mass, which I sort of alluded to -- the North Koreans (and USSR) had the Mig -- we had more capability to flood the zone with lesser birds and as Cliff pointed out "The big issue is numbers- only 187 F-22s is an issue if our adversaries have significant numbers of even somewhat inferior fighters." We could've trumped 'em on numbers because history also shows that if one thing doesn't get the job done, another will -- which was my point with my tongue in cheek comment that did seriously acknowledge "The Mig was better than the early available US birds, no question, ...

That comment also included the statement "...however the fairly large number of experienced USSR pilots made more difference than did the aircraft" and that was based on my recollection of public and private comments at the time. Whether it was true or not will have to remain a matter of conjecture and opinion. ;)

carl
01-18-2011, 04:59 PM
even though I also added my comment on the big, slow, lumbering and very straight wing F3D shooting down one Mig (true)...:D

The Skyknight got more than that, 7 kills and one probable vs. one loss. Most of the kills were MiGs I think. There were special circumstance though.

The Soviets were a mix of old and new pilots. One of the books I have says that the success of MiG units varied on how many experienced pilots were in the units as they rotated through.

The B-29s were driven from the daylight skies within range of the MiGs. There weren't enough F-86s to protect them and the straight wing jets may as well not have been there.

Navy and Marine aviation were critical of course but they had nothing that could deal MiG-15 either. They were mostly light bombers.

Mass can trump quality if the quality differential isn't too great. Straight wing jets vs. swept wing jets the quality differential was too great. There was no way to overcome that unless we were wiling to sustain a loss rate that would have whitened our hair. The F-84 got 10 MiGs and the MiGs got 18 F-84s.

carl
01-18-2011, 05:11 PM
Yes, if we plan to have a large, conventional air and naval war with China in their own littoral, then yes, we'd probably want a lot more advanced, stealthy aircraft. In an environment where resources are infinite we could do whatever is necessary to prepare for that contingency.

It won't have to be in their own littoral. The Chinese said the J-20 can get to Guam (I assume back too). If it can do that it can threaten air routes to Taiwan, northern Philippines, all of Vietnam and more. We depend on transports and tankers not being threatened and if they are I don't know what we would do. There aren't enough F-22s to protect all that space.



In short, we need to get away from the idea that we can, forever and always, field a superior force to all competitors as well as deploy and sustain them anywhere in the world against any and all opponents. The fact that China is trying, and largely succeeding, in improving it's military capabilities doesn't automatically mean we need to spend many additional billions - especially in response to capabilities that remain theoretical.

I'm am not concerned about fielding a superior force, I'm concerned about not fielding a force that can match the J-20s capabilities. F-35s and the latest iteration of the 70s forever fighter, the F-18, aren't going to be able to deal with that thing I fear. F-84s vs. MiG-15s redone, with no Sabres to the rescue.

Entropy
01-18-2011, 06:00 PM
It won't have to be in their own littoral. The Chinese said the J-20 can get to Guam (I assume back too). If it can do that it can threaten air routes to Taiwan, northern Philippines, all of Vietnam and more. We depend on transports and tankers not being threatened and if they are I don't know what we would do. There aren't enough F-22s to protect all that space.

Line of sight distance from the Chinese airfield to Guam is about 1800 miles. They would realistically need more like 2000 miles to avoid flying directly over Taiwan. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? No. Consider that the F-111, originally designed as a long-range interceptor, had a combat radius of about 1300 miles.

Secondly, F-22's don't need to protect every inch of airspace. Chinese fighters can't simply interdict air-routes willy-nilly at those ranges - they need some kind of intelligence or queuing from radar, or something. It's not like we'd be twiddling our thumbs while the Chinese launch their aircraft to intercept.





I'm am not concerned about fielding a superior force, I'm concerned about not fielding a force that can match the J-20s capabilities. F-35s and the latest iteration of the 70s forever fighter, the F-18, aren't going to be able to deal with that thing I fear. F-84s vs. MiG-15s redone, with no Sabres to the rescue.


We don't know the J-20's capabilities. We don't know when, if ever, it will reach IOC, much less be fielded in significant numbers. We don't know how many the Chinese would ultimately build. The claim that we can't field a force that can match the J-20 is a bit premature considering the J-20 isn't fully developed (much less deployed), has unknown capabilities, etc.

Plus, there is more than one way to skin a cat - ie. kill the aircraft on the ground, blind the aircraft by taking out C2 and GCI systems, etc. There is a lot more to winning an air campaign than a simple comparison of airframes.

Fuchs
01-18-2011, 07:45 PM
The Soviets were a mix of old and new pilots. One of the books I have says that the success of MiG units varied on how many experienced pilots were in the units as they rotated through.

It was even more complicated, and that explains why so many reports and anecdotes about Korean air combat seem to be contradictory.


The Russians had two air forces; the strategic homeland defence force (interceptors/bomber destroyers, but partially equipped just like front-line fighters) and the front-line/tactical air force.

The Soviet tactical air force was working steadily towards air superiority over parts of North Korea when political envy and infighting allowed the homeland defence forces to get their rotation into the theatre - and they blew it because they lacked dogfight training.

So there weren't only rookies and veterans, but also front-line and interceptor MiG-15 pilots; four very distinct groups (save for the few veterans who flew in the interceptor squadrons).

TAH
01-18-2011, 08:15 PM
Some of this is not some much airframe number comparision versus numbers of advanced Air-to-Air weapons. Buy enough AMRAAMs and the number of F22 begins to become mote. Don't buy enough and the overall situation changes.

Ken White
01-18-2011, 09:09 PM
One of the books I have says that the success of MiG units varied on how many experienced pilots were in the units as they rotated through.Books are often but not always correct. However, that book got that obvious truth correct... :cool:
The B-29s were driven from the daylight skies within range of the MiGs.Deja vu all over again. Daylight bombing without local air superiority (there is and will be no air dominance...) is hazardous to Bombers. What a surprise. :(
Navy and Marine aviation were critical of course but they had nothing that could deal MiG-15 either. They were mostly light bombers.The F9F did okay on the rare occasions it encountered Mig 15s. They were rare due to operational location and range (both) considerations, not to avoidance. Several former Panther pilots I talked to, former Brother in law and his friends, had scraps with Mig 15s. They acknowledge its technical superiority but claimed it could be beaten. They and other Navy / MC aircraft were mostly light bombers for a variety of reasons -- I would never suggest that the most significant was that they did a far better job at it and everyone in Korea knew that. ;)

It also was a matter of location and range...
Mass can trump quality if the quality differential isn't too great.Adequate Mass can trump a hugaceous amount, indeed any amount, of quality...
The F-84 got 10 MiGs and the MiGs got 18 F-84s.Pilot quality, maybe? The F9Fs got 5 Migs and the Migs got no Panthers...;)

Ken White
01-18-2011, 09:16 PM
Buy enough AMRAAMs and the number of F22 begins to become mote. Don't buy enough and the overall situation changes.then the number of AMRAAMs one possesses becomes moot...

Not to mention countermeasures...

Fuchs
01-18-2011, 09:59 PM
Ken, this was funny. I read "Meteor" and was still mentally in Korea War history...for a split second I wondered what Meteors and AMRAAMs have in common.

Ken White
01-18-2011, 11:36 PM
I left out the Vampires (none in Korea to my knowledge but they were arguably better fighters than the Meteors)... :D

Entropy
01-18-2011, 11:58 PM
Ken,

If you're going to bring up the quantity-over-quality argument, then you really shouldn't leave out zombies. ;)

Fuchs
01-19-2011, 12:24 AM
Pilot quality, maybe? The F9Fs got 5 Migs and the Migs got no Panthers...;)

Such very small data samples have only anecdotal, no real empirical value.

16 Fw 190A hunted 4 P-51's over the beaches of Normandy during Overlord and destroyed some of them. Now guess how representative this sample was...

Ken White
01-19-2011, 02:38 AM
If you're going to bring up the quantity-over-quality argument, then you really shouldn't leave out zombies. ;):D

However, there were Phantoms involved. ;)

Fuchs:


True on the anecdotal. However, anecdotes as antidotes to anecdotes should doted upon if the anecdoter is in his dotage...

As to the 190s and P-51s, the 190 was, IMO, a great bird and the 20mms gave it an edge. It did better than most contemporaries at lower altitude but I suspect most often, the relative numbers were reversed...

carl
01-19-2011, 05:25 AM
Line of sight distance from the Chinese airfield to Guam is about 1800 miles. They would realistically need more like 2000 miles to avoid flying directly over Taiwan. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? No. Consider that the F-111, originally designed as a long-range interceptor, had a combat radius of about 1300 miles.

If it has a 1300 mile combat radius, that will still cover all the areas I mentioned plus get it down to the straits of Malacca. Why would you need to go around Taiwan? If you are up at 65,000 feet or so going Mach 1.2 and have some ideas of where the missile batteries are you might be able to overfly the place, especially if those missile batteries are destroyed or suppressed by missiles fired from the mainland. If your object was to cut the air route from Guam to Taiwan for example, even if you had to go around the island it would still have the range to do that.


Secondly, F-22's don't need to protect every inch of airspace. Chinese fighters can't simply interdict air-routes willy-nilly at those ranges - they need some kind of intelligence or queuing from radar, or something. It's not like we'd be twiddling our thumbs while the Chinese launch their aircraft to intercept.

No they don't need to protect every inch of airspace, only that airspace where the things we need are flying, like tankers, transports, AWACS etc. With the small number of F-22s we have we can't cover much. The choice then is don't fly or lose the tanker. They know they need all that you mention and I'll bet they are working on all of it, like say...hacking into ATC computer connections. Once we run out of F-22s, twiddling our thumbs may be all we can do.


We don't know the J-20's capabilities. We don't know when, if ever, it will reach IOC, much less be fielded in significant numbers. We don't know how many the Chinese would ultimately build. The claim that we can't field a force that can match the J-20 is a bit premature considering the J-20 isn't fully developed (much less deployed), has unknown capabilities, etc.

True enough we don't know. We may never know for sure until the Chines choose to tell us or demonstrate the capabilities in a practical manner. The problem is if we wait until we know, and the aircraft is as capable as I fear, it will be to late to do anything about it. We could petition the Chinese to give us 15 years to come up with a match but the price would likely be steep. We have to make educated guesses and plan on what it probably can do, not what we are certain it will do.


Plus, there is more than one way to skin a cat - ie. kill the aircraft on the ground, blind the aircraft by taking out C2 and GCI systems, etc. There is a lot more to winning an air campaign than a simple comparison of airframes.

The Chinese know that too and they plan for it. They have several bases with underground hangers. Do we have any bases like that?

Cliff
01-19-2011, 05:32 AM
Some of this is not some much airframe number comparision versus numbers of advanced Air-to-Air weapons. Buy enough AMRAAMs and the number of F22 begins to become mote. Don't buy enough and the overall situation changes.

TAH-

The F-22 can carry 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders. While you could carry more externally, you sacrifice some stealth.

That is one of the big problems with 187 Raptors... not enough jets and missiles.

V/R,

Cliff

Kiwigrunt
06-17-2014, 12:10 PM
One of the F16 designers trashes the F35. (http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468)

Maeda Toshiie
07-16-2014, 04:32 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28260781

The fighter plane in question: Textron AirLand Scorpion


The Scorpion costs about $20m (£12m) a throw, is built from off-the-shelf components, and went from drawing board to first flight in 23 months.

It is being pitched as a lost cost alternative to the current fighter jet fleets. In particular, it is being sold as being suited for COIN like operations in OEF/OIF.


Thoughts:

With the development of the F15 under the F-X program, the USAF found it impossible to equip every standing squadron with it. This lead to the light weight fighter program with the F16 as the winner. The results was a mix of Hi/Lo or Heavy/Light. Of course, the F16 has evolved into a true multirole combat aircraft. The F35, as the successor, is even further away from the original low.

If we wish to have a Hi(F22)/Med(F35)/Lo mix of combat aircraft, I don't see this filling in the lo. Something like the Golden Eagle from Korea, JF17 from PRC, or a modern variant of the F5/T38 would be far suitable. The first obviously suffer from the "not-made-here", the second is obviously out of question, the third doesn't exist (at least not yet). The obvious fear is that this "new" lo in the mix of three, will again suffer from mission bloat that it will eventually become a new "medium".

For COIN like operations, jets have high speeds to race into position as necessary, but is probably associated with higher operating costs (I'm not an expert in this). Would something like a modernized OV10 Bronco or Argentinian Pucara be a better choice? Apparently, the Pucara was used by government forces in Sri Lanka.


Thoughts?

Maeda Toshiie
07-16-2014, 04:35 AM
The Chinese know that too and they plan for it. They have several bases with underground hangers. Do we have any bases like that?

Those bases can be killed by:
1. Destroying ventilation/utilities/logistics shafts.
2. Exit points for the aircraft to launch

We don't have to kill bases outright.