F-16 Replacement

[Cliff]

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

[Ken White]

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... ) 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.

[carl]

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... ) 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]

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.

[carl]

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]

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.

[carl]

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?

[Ken White]

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

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)...

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.' 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]

even though I also added my comment on the big, slow, lumbering and very straight wing F3D shooting down one Mig (true)...

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.

[Fuchs]

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]

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]

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...

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...

[Fuchs]

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...