Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 113

Thread: F-16 Replacement

  1. #81
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Cole:

    This is fun, alternating deconstruction of arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    We don't even know if its intent is more of a fighter or a bomber. Is it directed at us or a solution to the Indian PakFA? Even if it's high heading toward an F-35, it does not mean it can see the F-35 or successfully lock on to it, especially if it is being jammed and there are other decoys out and about. It's more likely focused on some distant larger radar target AWACS or an F-15 Golden Eagle or F-18E/F with upgraded AESA when it gets an AMRAAM from an unseen F-35 or F-22.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    Plus the F-35 splits up our fighter eggs, and gets them closer to the threat so we don't overcongest Guam.
    But if we are closer, aren't we more vulnerable to all those missiles the Chinese have, especially if our bases aren't hardened?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    Indians and Chileans? Wargames where we couldn't use all our capabilities of newest assets?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    Backward engineering is (I suspect) hard enough when you have the actual item let alone when you have drawings of something small and complex and no means of duplicating that item in quality mass production, and no current sample of the material helping making it low observable.
    It might be a mistake to underestimate the cleverness of those guys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    And meanwhile their oil is getting blockaded in the Straits of Mallaca and railways leading to air bases are getting bombed. Commuter rails are hit so millions of Chinese are stranded and a few good bomb hits on highways creates month long trafffic jams for both military and civil traffic.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    We have decoys (MALD) and means of jamming their data links too, I suspect. Folks forget that as we are running out of naval and shore SAMs, they are running out of aircraft. 100 quality aircraft with a 10:1 (and submit it would be more like 40:1 against most) air-to-air loss-exchange means we may lose 100 aircraft, but they will lose 1000 lesser quality and far fewer quality aircraft, plus whatever number are killed by the Navy and Patriots. Meanwhile, we still have lots of F-35s and more SAMs on the way.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    Can we afford to pay for excessive numbers of today's stealthy fighters that cost ten times as much? That is not a realistic outlook when 100 lost planes means nowhere near 100 lost pilots...
    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

  2. #82
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default Stealth from above-Cliff, I have a question.

    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

  3. #83
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Defend the mainland PRC

    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

  4. #84
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    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.
    Dave,Probably came from the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) part of SAC (Strategic Air Command). Ranged from total world war to single country attack plans.

  5. #85
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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.
    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

  6. #86
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  7. #87
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default Have to stay general...

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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?
    Can't really talk to specifics, but in general most stealth designs are optimized to be stealthy from certain angles. It totally depends on the design where these angles are.

    V/R,

    Cliff

  8. #88
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default F-22 numbers were cut

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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

  9. #89
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    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.

  10. #90
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default No lies...

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    carl, did the Air Force tell us a story? I remember them guarantying the F-22would be superior for like 50 years. Now it is just barely in service and China is already beating us something is kinda stinky about the whole deal.
    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

  11. #91
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    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.
    The technical term is Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). And it changes their defense budget a lot. Besides the fact that they lie through their teeth about what they actually spend.

    Of course, the PLA also has a huge stake in state owned businesses, so who knows?

  12. #92
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up Perhaps. But...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    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.

  13. #93
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    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
    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.

  14. #94
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  15. #95
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    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.

  16. #96
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Well aware of all that. We need a 'tongue-in-cheek' smiley...

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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.

  17. #97
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    even though I also added my comment on the big, slow, lumbering and very straight wing F3D shooting down one Mig (true)...
    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

  18. #98
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    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.
    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

  19. #99
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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.
    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.

  20. #100
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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.
    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).

Similar Threads

  1. Afghanistan's Drug Problem
    By SWJED in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 237
    Last Post: 11-13-2013, 01:25 PM
  2. DO is dead, hail Enhanced Company Operations!
    By Fuchs in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 06:56 PM
  3. Gen Mattis to CENTCOM
    By Cliff in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 08:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •