QDR and Strategy Changes

[Cliff]

Cliff, as far as USAF fighter systems are concerned, in the last 30+ years the only single purpose fighter aircraft that we have fielded that have not been adapted to a multiporpose role are the F 22, the A 10 and the F 14. The latter has gone out of the Navy inventory and the F/A 18 has been adapted to carry out air superiority missions. Even the Harrier was adapted by the Brits for an air superiority role in the Falklands which it did well enough. The Air Force never liked the A10 and was trying to retire it before DS/DS but its mission is CAS and CAS alone. The F 22 has never been used for any purpose and is not particularly likely to be used. Both the F 15 and F 16 have been used for air superiority, air interdiction, and CAS. The Joint Strikefighter (F 35?) is supposed to be a multirole aircraft that will replace all of the above, as i understand it. In a relatively austere time, doesn't it make more sense to close down the F 22 line and start up the Joint Strikefighter line bringing a new and "better" multirole aircraft online to replace the aging fleet of F 15s, 16s, 18s? Seems to me, this makes more economic and strategic sense. Of course, it might just be a bust - or not as good as advertised like McNamara's TFX.

Cheers

JohnT

JohnT-

I have to disagree on the F-22, sir. It is certainly not a single-role aircraft... it is capable of performing ISR, DEAD, and Strategic Attack. The Raptor actually practices doing TST and CAS as well... although not optomized for either, all it is really lacking is a targetting pod... which could be added fairly easily. Just as the Eagle spawned the Strike Eagle, so will the Air-to-Ground capes of the Raptor build as it matures. If we had a few more Raptors, we would have enough to cover our other commitments and deploy some for OIF/OEF support, and I think you would see them actually being used.

The F-15C always has been and remains a single-mission fighter - Air to Air being the only role.

I laugh when folks claim that the F-22 doesn't represent a joint capability (it is a single service solution) and therefore we should move on to F-35. The Navy, Marines, and most of the USAF are out of the Air Supremacy business- as you mention, the Navy quit back when it turned the Tomcat into the Bombcat around 1993 or so. The entire US military depends on the F-15C and F-22 for Air Superiority. If you look at the results of any big exercise (Red Flag, Northern Edge, etc) on the 1-2 goes per exercise that the other fighters take the air to air hammer, you'll see that you can get the job done but it's going to cost you about like 66-68 in Vietnam did in terms of exchange ratios (2-1 or 1-1, at times worse...). Aegis and Patriot are at best local solutions, which can keep your FOB or CVBG from being attacked, but can't protect a theater.

I'm not saying the Navy or Marines or anyone else can't do it... I'm saying no one practices it because they are focusing on the current fights in OIF/OEF. They can do this and not have excessive risk because someone is practicing it. The F-15C and F-22 allow them to do this. Cut them, and either you accept losing a lot of folks or you make all the air to ground folks practice air to air enough to be viable... which means they will suck at supporting the folks on the ground. So really the F-22 is huge for supporting the trooops.

The risk of losing air superiority isn't great right now... but it's a lot higher than folks think. 187 F-22s isn't a viable community... oh by the way, when you deploy your Raptors (you'd have to send almost all of them, expecially since DOD is cutting most of the F-15Cs) who is left at home to train, or do Homeland Defense? Once you get there, all your adversary needs is 60-100 flankers and some double digit SAMs, and presto, no ISR, no airlift, no CAS... The F-22 exists to enable the rest of the military to do its job and not have to worry about getting bombed. Folks don't realize how good they have it... What happens when your drones get shot down, and you have no air support, oh yeah, and you can't get medevaced or re-supplied by air because the airlifters and helos got themselves shot down?

The F-35 doesn't have the same ordnance or capabilities in the air to air arena the F-22 has. It is stealthy, but it is speed limited... which means it is more vulnerable, especially to SAMs. The F-15C/F-16 hi-lo split worked well... and that seems like what the F-22/F-35 should be... unfortunately you need a minimum number of F-22s to make the force viable, otherwise you have too few to even do one war.

I don't think asking for 2-3 more years of F-22s (60 ish more) to bridge the gap between now and the F-35 reaching full rate production is asking for the moon. The military requirement for the F-22 is 384.... 240 is the moderate risk force.

I guess what I am saying is I think the country can afford to hedge its bets and at least make sure the F-35 works before we bet our airpower overmatch on it. I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I just don't want to see us end up like we did at the start of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, where we lost air superiority quickly and had to fight to get it back- I don't think we have the resources to take the losses that would entail anymore.

V/R,

Cliff

[Steve Blair]

I guess what I am saying is I think the country can afford to hedge its bets and at least make sure the F-35 works before we bet our airpower overmatch on it. I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I just don't want to see us end up like we did at the start of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, where we lost air superiority quickly and had to fight to get it back- I don't think we have the resources to take the losses that would entail anymore.

V/R,

Cliff

I wasn't aware that we ever LOST air superiority over Vietnam. When exactly did this happen?

That said, I don't have a beef with the F-22 as a tech test bed, but I have yet to be convinced that anyone is going to send it into a SEAD environment where it might get shot down (and I mean a real war environment, not an exercise). Remember the fuss when one F-117 got knocked down? A-10s can manage to a great degree because they can take lots of physical damage. Stealth aircraft simply cannot. And as so much of procurement is political, that explains much of the white noise that emanates from congressional hearings. Congress has always liked airpower because it's sexy and (more to the point) because its most strident advocates always promise that it brings war on the cheap.

I don't think anyone's proposing the M-60A3 analogy, but I do think there is a growing sense that the F-22 might be a "bridge" aircraft between the F-15 and the F-35.

[Cliff]

I wasn't aware that we ever LOST air superiority over Vietnam. When exactly did this happen?

That said, I don't have a beef with the F-22 as a tech test bed, but I have yet to be convinced that anyone is going to send it into a SEAD environment where it might get shot down (and I mean a real war environment, not an exercise). Remember the fuss when one F-117 got knocked down? A-10s can manage to a great degree because they can take lots of physical damage. Stealth aircraft simply cannot. And as so much of procurement is political, that explains much of the white noise that emanates from congressional hearings. Congress has always liked airpower because it's sexy and (more to the point) because its most strident advocates always promise that it brings war on the cheap.

I don't think anyone's proposing the M-60A3 analogy, but I do think there is a growing sense that the F-22 might be a "bridge" aircraft between the F-15 and the F-35.

We certainly had localized air superiority at best over Vietnam, and lost a lot of aircraft. We could not afford that loss rate now, at least not with 187 Raptors.

The F-22 is the only aircraft we'd send into such an environment... The F-117 was old enough that it was not survivable, hence why it got shot down. The F-22 actually has a number of survivability enhancements as well.

The F-22 is not a "bridge" to the F-35... the F-35 is inferior to the F-22 in many ways, especially in air-to-air and DEAD. Not as survivable against SAMs either - the F-35 needs the F-22 to be a viable platform in the face of any adversary with double digit SAMs.

And yes, I know, I should follow Entropy's lead and just accept that I am not changing anyone's mind. Guess I'm just too stubborn to give up.

V/R,

Cliff

[Steve Blair]

We certainly had localized air superiority at best over Vietnam, and lost a lot of aircraft. We could not afford that loss rate now, at least not with 187 Raptors.

Loss rates in Vietnam are interesting things, and had a great deal more to do with politics (both in terms of the Johnson administration and the Air Force's own doctrinal preconceptions) than they did airframes. Ken already ran the numbers side, so I won't rehash that ground. But when you consider that SAC's own way of doing business had a large role in the losses suffered during the first phase of Linebacker II it gives you pause.

I'm well aware that the F-22 and the F-35 are not the same. But I'm also not willing to be convinced in the perfection of the F-22 based on exercise results. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[John T. Fishel]

I know when I'm out of my depth

Been wondering though, Cliff, are you an F 22 driver perchance?

Cheers

JohnT

[Cliff]

Loss rates in Vietnam are interesting things, and had a great deal more to do with politics (both in terms of the Johnson administration and the Air Force's own doctrinal preconceptions) than they did airframes. Ken already ran the numbers side, so I won't rehash that ground. But when you consider that SAC's own way of doing business had a large role in the losses suffered during the first phase of Linebacker II it gives you pause.

I'm well aware that the F-22 and the F-35 are not the same. But I'm also not willing to be convinced in the perfection of the F-22 based on exercise results. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sir-

I agree that politics had a lot to do with the less than optimum execution of the air war in Vietnam.

SAC's micro-management of the BUFF tactics definitely had a lot to do with their losses in LBII.

However, I was referring to the pre-1968 bombing halt loss rates.

The SA-2 and the MiG-21 combined had a huge impact on our loss rates until we developed effective SEAD aircraft and jammers, as well as tactics.

We started Vietnam with poorly trained crews flying 15-20 year old tactics, with missiles that didn't work, and jets not designed for the roles they were fulfilling. Not knocking the F-4, but it was originally designed to shoot non-manuevring bombers prior to them attacking the carrier... not for OCA/DCA against fighters and SAMs...

What turned it around? Training was huge... Top Gun, USAF FWS, Red Flag all had a huge impact. Improved F-4s with systems and missiles that worked a lot better made a huge difference as well. EA pods, PGMs, etc were big for the A-G folks.

The new double digit SAMs and Flankers with EA are the equivalent of the SA-2 and MiG-21 of Vietnam. I don't think the F-22 is perfect... but it is the only airplane we have that will be able to go up against advanced SAMs.

There's a reason why the F-15C was 104-0... and it wasn't just training. Training was definitely a huge part of it, but superior airplanes with better training are even better.

It seems like all of this is going to be a moot point anyway... see here.

I sincerely hope that the folks on SWJ are right about the future of war in the next 20-30 years...

V/R,

Cliff