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.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
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?
Bookmarks