QDR and Strategy Changes

[Cliff]

A 1990 design will do the job in 2030? Okay, if you say so. Given that most Squadrons field 12-14 aircraft with a 90% OR, the implication is that six or more may be hangar queens but if you're cool with that, so am I...

The sad fact is that the lifetime of a fighter is probably going to be 30-40 years... our newest F-15Cs are 1986 models, most are 83-84 jets... 26 years old. So yes, the F-22 will do a good job in 2030. So the solution to this problem is to just not buy new fighters, and let anyone who wants to buy better ones from the Chinese or Russians?

F-22 squadrons are actually 18 PAA right now... supposed to be 24. What folks don't realize is the additional 60 F-22s would give each squadron 24 jets... OBTW, the MC (mission capable) rate is about 68%... which is about where it should be for a new jet. There will typically be 12-14 available per squadron.

You can't use the total loss rate if you're going to talk the F-22, look at the air to air rate only. Adjust it for the fact that Thuds which had no business even being there but were all the AF had due to bad purchasing decisions got attacked by Mig 21s, SAMs, ADA and small arms. Defending them with a long range missile launcher of a big Fox 4 against an agile Mig took some adaptation. So to did the CAS mission performed by supersonic fighters which got knocked down in the south by small arms fire. You're comparing Apples and Mangoes.

Unfortunately, I am talking A-A and SAM loss rates as well... because the main reason we need the F-22 over improved F-15Cs or the F-35 is the SAMs. Double digit SAMs are cheap, and fairly effective... and the F-15C can't go up against them. The F-35 isn't as effective against them either. Trust me, the SAMs worry the folks flying air-to-air fighters a lot more than the Flankers do.

So, the SAM loss rate has to be there. The Thuds were not bought due to bad purchasing decisions... the Thud was bought to drop nukes on the Soviets... period. Unfortunately we bought aircraft only in preparation for (total) nuclear war... and trained mostly for nuclear war. Training and buying for only one type of conflict.... hmm, sound familiar?

You make my point for me by illustrating how the F-4 wasn't suited to the role we had to use it for... just like the F-35 isn't suitable for air to air.

Anyway, I don't think looking at the effect of a new surface to air system on air-to-air combat is comparing apples and mangoes at all.

Even so, the VN loss rate was far better than that in Korea or WW II. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II. LINK. Note the sheer number of aircraft types.

Valid. Then again, we were restricted ourselves to not flying over the most heavily defended areas... How many sorties in WWII were considered "Combat" when flown over (essentially) friendly territory?

Doesn't the 'dead' bit remain to be seen from an aircraft still in design proof stage? Not as survivable against SAMs based on its lesser stealth characteristics and speed -- or its more modern avionic fit?

The F-35 has much of the same avionics as the F-22 does. The F-35 does not have the same speed capability as the F-22... which is huge against SAMs. The F-22's DEAD capability is based on the JDAM... I think we've proven that JDAM is pretty effective. Or do you think the JDAM doesn't work?

Where's John T.? He was the guy who first brought up the F22 on this thread.

In any event, Cliff, I appreciate your defense of the program but you and I are unlikely to agree. You're an airplane driver and I'm a gravel cruncher, so your opinion ought to count more...

Thus I cede the ground, er, air, to you and will stick to the thread henceforth.

Sorry for replying, no I didn't want this thread to be about the F-22... but I still feel the need to clear the air since there's a lot of misconceptions. I am absolutely sick of "experts" who have never been up against the threats we're talking about telling the media that the F-22 isn't needed, and the F-35 will be so much better...

I appreciate everyone here at least listening to the AF guy's comments. I look forward to learning more from all of you.

V/R,

Cliff