Cliff:
If you are still there, how stealthy are these various designs if they are viewed by a radar from above rather than below or from the same altitude?
Cole:
This is fun, alternating deconstruction of arguments
The crux of our differences is the efficacy of the F-35 vs. fighters like the J-20. You believe that it will be close enough to the F-22 to do the job. I think it won't. It was designed mainly to be a light bomber so it just doesn't seem, to my uneducated eye, to have the flight performance and size to even come close to the F-22 or J-20 or PakFA. You cite the F-22 above. With the small number we will have, will there be enough to be on the spot when it matters?
But if we are closer, aren't we more vulnerable to all those missiles the Chinese have, especially if our bases aren't hardened?
You mentioned pilot experience, not the totality of airborne combat power. The Indians and Chileans demonstrated that inexperienced pilots can dream things up to surprise us. If they can do it, so can others.
It might be a mistake to underestimate the cleverness of those guys.
I think figuring on how a the entire course of a conflict would play out is beyond the scope of this discussion. I am mainly concerned how the J-20 will threaten our plans in the future.
I hope so, but it may be folly to count on a 10-1 exchange ratio. 40-1 I think is dreaming; the Chinese may not be the Japanese Naval Air Force of May 1942, but they won't be an Arab air force either.
If we go up against an adversary who can match tech and numbers we have to have the things to fight them with. If we don't, we lose. I don't think we are really confronting the reality that our sweet deal with history that has lasted for the last 65 years (as Fuchs said) may be coming to an end, and it will be expensive.
Last edited by carl; 01-15-2011 at 11:52 PM. Reason: had to add some words and change a date
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Cliff:
If you are still there, how stealthy are these various designs if they are viewed by a radar from above rather than below or from the same altitude?
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
This discussion is far beyond my interests and understanding, but I do recall reading now some thirty years ago that the USA planned an IIRC a conventional bombing campaign in any conflict with the PRC, with waves of B52 strikes etc. Please do not ask for the source as my memory is fading.
Will knowledge of this option and presumably still a current option impact Chinese defence thinking?
davidbfpo
I'd discount 99% of the men in the trade press. There are about 2-3 I respect. The rest are basically plane-spotters, some with PhDs.
..but its a very long road from 1 flying prototype to an effective in service aircraft. Not least, what about the weapons system?
Concur 100%. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.It is probably not prudent to base your planning on that assumption. It is more prudent to assume they will get it right and assume that the airplane will do what it appears capable of.
So would you feel comfortable saying, without the F-86, the UN would have lost the Korean War?One good airplane type does a serious problem make. The MiG-15 was very serious problem for the west. The only thing that helped with that problem was the F-86. If for some reason or other the F-86 hadn't been there, we would had exactly zero airplanes that could have kept the MiGs from killing everything.
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.By our refusal to make more than that mighty 187 or so F-22s, we have consciously chosen not to match the threat. When those 187 are used up we will have big trouble.
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
I think without the F-86, we may have had to do without interdiction, close air support and transport missions close to the front lines. The Communists would have been rather more confident also. What would have resulted, who knows?
Agreed. However the F-22 is the only thing we have to work with. There is nothing else and because of the disease, there will be nothing else...in time.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
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.
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...So would you feel comfortable saying, without the F-86, the UN would have lost the Korean War?
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.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.
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
In 2006 I took a class on Asian security. I vividly remember being told that China has 5,000 aircraft, only 1,000 of which can be considered modern.
They've got a long way to go before they have parity, or can even get close.
Now, can they close off their airspace with ADA? Different story.
But I have yet to see any indication of a capable expeditionary threat.
Slap, the AF didn't lie about the F-22. The big issue is numbers- only 187 F-22s is an issue if our adversaries have significant numbers of even somewhat inferior fighters.
I don't think anyone is saying the J-20 will be as good as the F-22... but if they buy a lot of them they don't have to be.
OBTW, it is a lot easier for the Chinese to buy things like this cheaply since the key industries are state owned and not subject to having to make profits, pay union wages, or pay taxes like LockMart or Boeing.
V/R,
Cliff
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.
Cliff, I don't think the Air Force lied but simply made a statement about the future that cannot be sustained. One of the weaknesses of Capitalism against a state controlled armaments industry is that technologies leak out to the enemy to make money. China can skip the research and development costs by simply buying the most current technology indirectly through trade deals through foreign corporations.
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.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
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.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Totally true -- but it was the granddaddy of the F-86. My indirect allusion was to that factAlso 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 FJ-3 was a Sabre and didn't make it into service prior to the end of the war.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 other straight wing jets had no chance at all against the MiG-15 which is why they were all turned into light bombers.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 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.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...The Air Force didn't get Sabres over there quick for nothing.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, ...It really was one of those times in history where a single weapon made a critical difference.
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.
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.
Last edited by carl; 01-18-2011 at 05:20 PM. Reason: typo
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
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.
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 fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
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.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
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).
Bookmarks