F-16 Replacement

[William F. Owen]

I don't know if the J-20 is superior to the F-22 but it is most definitely superior to everything but the F-22.

Really? Where is the evidence? One photograph of the plane?

It is entirely possible that the J-20 may have abysmal manoeuvring characteristics, may not be that stealthy and have a wealth of serious systems issues. ....and it may not. One good airplane type, does not a serious threat make.

[Entropy]

I've gotta agree with Wilf here. I don't understand the hyperventilating over the J-20. No one knows what it's capabilities are. And there is, of course, a long history of impressive looking aircraft that turned out to be crap.

Regarding two vs. one engined aircraft, all else being equal, two engines is much safer. The statistics on that score are incontrovertable.

[carl]

Really? Where is the evidence? One photograph of the plane?

It is entirely possible that the J-20 may have abysmal manoeuvring characteristics, may not be that stealthy and have a wealth of serious systems issues. ....and it may not. One good airplane type, does not a serious threat make.

The engineers and the fellows in the trade press are pretty good at determining general performance from the configuration and size of the airplanes, not perfect but pretty good. The air molecules are only going to act one way and gravity is a constant. Besides, they have a lot of photos to work with so I tend to believe them when they say this thing looks like a high altitude, long range, missile toting supercruiser.

It is true that the J-20 may be a flop. 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. In that case we have big problem, and depending upon what we have to fight with, maybe one that can't be solved.

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.

Conversely, the F-15 couldn't be matched by the MiG-21 and 27. Big problem for the Russians until they made the SU-27 and MiG-29. But there was a span of years there they were quite vulnerable.

The point of the above two paragraphs is the threat airplanes were matched and the problem reduced. 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.

[Fuchs]

The J-20 may be(come) a failure, but let's not overshoot the target.

I've read more than enough remarks about it that resembled very much the "Japanese aircraft are made of bamboo and paper" mentality of the U.S. before the Pearl Harbour raid and the following half year of getting beaten up by A6M fighters.


The competence of a nation or industry in a certain area can advance spectacularly in a few years; much faster than distant observers tend to take notice.

[slapout9]

It is probably not prudent to base your planning on that assumption.

That is real problem. Link to Long Range Planning By Colonel Warden

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/joi...Warden-PPT.pdf

[William F. Owen]

The engineers and the fellows in the trade press are pretty good at determining general performance from the configuration and size of the airplanes, not perfect but pretty good. The air molecules are only going to act one way and gravity is a constant.

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?

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.

Concur 100%. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

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.

So would you feel comfortable saying, without the F-86, the UN would have lost the Korean War?

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.

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.

[carl]

So would you feel comfortable saying, without the F-86, the UN would have lost the Korean War?

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?

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.

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.

[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.

[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.