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?
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?
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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).Originally Posted by William F. Owen
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).
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.
If by fighting, you mean sacrifice all types and capabilities to maintain the Typhoon fleet, then yes they are!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).
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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.
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?
Last edited by Maeda Toshiie; 10-13-2010 at 01:41 PM.
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.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
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
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....ions-hype.html
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....-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.
Answers to Bob- Sorry to chime in a little late...
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.
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.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 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...eport_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.
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...2. Do current platforms effectively deter that threat?
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...
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.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?
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.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.
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.
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 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.
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
Thanks for your service. An opposing view.
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.
Hence having F-22 drivers flying light attack aircraft.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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...
Our numbers of 5th generation stealth aircraft are climbing faster than their zero.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...
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!
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.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.
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.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...
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.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.
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.
Last edited by Cole; 10-15-2010 at 01:04 AM. Reason: Clarification and spelling
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.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Ranges vs. Combat Radius
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
F-22 is very similar :
F-22 Combat Radius
(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
F-18 is slightly shorter due to less gas, and being heavier to land on boats: F-18 Combat Radius
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
Some good points Cole...
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.
Unfortunately, the Russians and Indians plan on fielding PAK-FA by 2013.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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 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.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!
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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...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.
Agree, see above.Clearly, a DPRK strategy would be to destroy our fuel tankers with stay behind forces and artillery, and SOF.
Agree- GCV needs to be air and sea transportable, which is why it was postponed if I understand right.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.
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, and as the threat improves that risk goes up.
Good discussion, appreciate all your points and the good debate Cole!
V/R,
Cliff
Some answered in previous response
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.
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.Unfortunately, the Russians and Indians plan on fielding PAK-FA by 2013.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.F-18 is not as effective as F-22, and can't survive double digit SAMs. ISR/C2 and datalinks are key for sure.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
BFM is not dead...
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
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks