F-16 Replacement

[Cole]

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/1...-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]

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]

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?

[Cliff]

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 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.

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]

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]

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]

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