Stuck Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 What do you think we'll look like in 10 years? https://www.afa.org/Mitchell/Reports/0908air_dominance.pdf Cheers, -Stuck
Guest Krabs Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 What do you think we'll look like in 10 years? One giant reflective belt.
StoleIt Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 One giant reflective belt. More pen pockets in our next non functional utility uniform...which will also have built in reflective material...but we will still need a reflective belt anyway.
Guest Krabs Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 In all seriousness though. The article is very good. Well written, and some good points in there. Everyone should read it. What I think the author is trying to say: We need more F-22s. Do I agree. Of freaking course I do. My opinions based on the article: - We need more of everything, not just 22s - The 35 is not a lame as the author makes it appear - I think both the 22 and 35 are being asked to do too much, which is why we need cheaper (perhaps non-stealth) aircraft to fill some roles. For every job there is a tool...sometimes a fighter is not the tool. - Seriously, we need more F-22s.
brickhistory Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 More F-22s, F-35s, KC-X, new E-3s, airlift, etc, etc, etc. Same for the other services. We need to replace/repair the worn out sh1t. Sure seems like critical national infrastructure and job creation/protection to me. Wonder if any of the spending orgy will go towards this? Rhetorical....
Guest CAVEMAN Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Krab: I really sense that you are trying to stir the pot. I am all for Research and Development (R&D). If we don't do it, we cannot sustain the edge. We need to constantly engage our scientist and tech folks. And as everyone knows, you have to produce a certain number to break even. That is the problem with F-22. I really do not think we need that many of those things. The current theater we are in today quite frankly does not require an F-22. CAS aircraft like A-10's are what we need. A stealth fighter does not grant us any edge against guys with RPG weaving and ducking through city streets. F-35 will fall into the F-22 category. They are a nice to have but ....... At least the price tag is manageable compared to the F-22 Cave
Magnum Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 The current theater we are in today quite frankly does not require an F-22. CAS aircraft like A-10's are what we need. A stealth fighter does not grant us any edge against guys with RPG weaving and ducking through city streets. Here's the thing. We aren't R&D'ing and manufacturing for today's war. If that is the case we are too far behind to catch up. We need to be buying for the next conflict, the Iran, the Strait of Taiwan, the you fill in the blank where were are fighting 690 MKI's with PL-12 which are CAPing in a SA-20 JEZ etc, etc, etc. The conflict X years from now is what we need to be preparing for and frankly, our F-15's and F-16's are going to have more than a difficult time dealing with it. More Raptors? Yes. More -35's? You bet. Don't know what briefs you've seen on the -35 but it's A-G capes are incredible.
Duck Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Here's the thing. We aren't R&D'ing and manufacturing for today's war. If that is the case we are too far behind to catch up. We need to be buying for the next conflict, the Iran, the Strait of Taiwan, the you fill in the blank where were are fighting 690 MKI's with PL-12 which are CAPing in a SA-20 JEZ etc, etc, etc. The conflict X years from now is what we need to be preparing for and frankly, our F-15's and F-16's are going to have more than a difficult time dealing with it. More Raptors? Yes. More -35's? You bet. Don't know what briefs you've seen on the -35 but it's A-G capes are incredible. Doing R&D after the war starts is how the Army manages things (no dissing there, learned it during Army History back in college, taught by an Infantry Officer). They are always playing catch up. They get the job done, but it costs a lot of lives and money that way.
Guest Krabs Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Krab: I really sense that you are trying to stir the pot. I am all for Research and Development (R&D). If we don't do it, we cannot sustain the edge. We need to constantly engage our scientist and tech folks. And as everyone knows, you have to produce a certain number to break even. That is the problem with F-22. I really do not think we need that many of those things. The current theater we are in today quite frankly does not require an F-22. CAS aircraft like A-10's are what we need. A stealth fighter does not grant us any edge against guys with RPG weaving and ducking through city streets. F-35 will fall into the F-22 category. They are a nice to have but ....... At least the price tag is manageable compared to the F-22 Cave Me? Pot stir? Essentially you agree with me from what I can tell. I'm also a huge proponent of CAS, hence my point about cheaper non-stealth stuff. However, no CAS aircraft will work if we don't have control of the sky, which is where F-22s come in. 35s weren't built for air dominance. Can they help? Sure, but for each job, a tool, and for air dominance it's the 22. In the article the author says that irregular warfare is taking away from air dominance preparation. I would say that isn't quite true since getting air dominance in places like Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't been the toughest task the Air Force has ever undertaken. Stuff is being used in irregular warfare because that's what we are fighting, not because we chose to fight irregular war with conventional war aircraft. Now, do we build and buy for irregular warfare? Or do we build and buy for the future of air dominance? The answer in my opinion is that you can't make that call, and you shouldn't have to. My main point is that we need more of everything so that we are prepared for both scenarios. However, in the context of the article talking specifically on air dominance, we specifically need more F-22s for that mission.
MD Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 More F-22/F-35? How bout we concentrate first on getting a KC-X. Maybe getting that right might set a good precedent. Oh, and a CSAR-X wouldn't be bad either.
ClearedHot Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 That is the problem with F-22. I really do not think we need that many of those things. The current theater we are in today quite frankly does not require an F-22. CAS aircraft like A-10's are what we need. A stealth fighter does not grant us any edge against guys with RPG weaving and ducking through city streets. F-35 will fall into the F-22 category. They are a nice to have but ....... At least the price tag is manageable compared to the F-22 Cave Nothing personal, but this post is ignorant in so many ways... A stealth fighter DOES grant us an advantage against guys with RPGs, if you can't or don't understand that, I can't help you. We are doing ok in today's fight last time I checked. Do we need more things like AT-6B, yes, but those programs are small potatoes. "Nice to have"...UFB! Cost...stop reading the hype and try the facts. If the USAf bought the 790+ that was orgnally planning the cost would be mich closer to the F-35. By lower the buy to a moronic level we have dogpiled the R&D into just a few airframes
zmoney Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) More F-22s? More F-35s? Where's the money coming from? We're ****ing broke. We can't even afford to keep Finance offices and MPFs staffed at tolerable levels. Those two functions, and lots of our COMM is now outsourced to San Antonio. The actual manning levels at the bases are *extremely* low. Plus, our economy is in the crapper. In these times its going to be guns or butter... Edited January 23, 2009 by zmoney
FallingOsh Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Discuss… None needed. Good post. Nice way to make a re-entrance.
donkey Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 None needed. Good post. Nice way to make a re-entrance. 2
HuggyU2 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 So if the F-22 cost $1B per copy (instead of $328M), would that be too much?
Guest CAVEMAN Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) Everyone is talking as if we are certain the war of the future is a Conventional War. I suggest you all read on 4th Generation Warfare. The theory was proposed by a William Lind in an article in the Marine Corps times. A guy called Thomas X. Hammes also wrote a book called the The Sling and The Stone. . They both address the same issue. I am looking at it this way. This Counterinsurgency/ 4GW deal is going to morphe into a 5th GW type war. Let us forget about Desert Storm. Saddam was foolish and no other country is going to ever come toe-to-tow with us again. We already have superiority. For foolish regimes like Iraq, we will destory. It is the low intensity conflicts that we cannot manage. I understand Russia is still a threat and China is looming. All those countries are not foolish. If you think they will for once venture into a conventional war with us, then you are wrong. It will be more along the lines of proxy wars. Ofcourse F-35's are not F-22's. If for nothing else, one is a 35 and the other is a 22. More F-22's is not going to increase the Air dominance we already have. Think for a second that you assigned 1 Sky Cop(SF) to guard a room. He has a Machine Gun (MG) and everyone around knows this. He has establised a prescence that will deter a theif. Do you really think we need to 10 more SF guys with MG to guard the same room? Yeah, you might reinforce your dominace but when we are talking in terms of cost to the tax payers, Could you alternatively supplement the 1 SF guy with contract security that will patrol around the area. Applying 10 SF guys to the situation above would be how the AF approach My point is this, we have F-16 and F-15 that are still capable to deliver. They can augment the fleet of F-22. We also have F-35 coming onboard in the near future. We do not need to clean out our Bank Account to satisfy AF Generals. Are we going to cry Air Dominance until the country is borke and is not worth defending? There needs to be a medium here. Cleardhot: Who cares if the guy weaving and ducking through city streets does not know you are there? We already have aircrafts that can patrol and acquire targets. That is all we need. We want to capture or kill those fvckers. There is no secret to that. There shouldn't be. Ask the A-10 guys whether they can achieve stealth. Now ask them how many kills they have compared to the Viper guys. Leadeagle05: I will disagree with you to a degree. Ground warfare is very basic and there is no way to forecast it. If we knew IED's were going to be a threat in Iraq, we would have gotten upper armored Humvee's and MRAP's. This is warfare, your enemy is living and breathing. They also think just like you. The dirty act of fighting and killing is not going to change. Our gear might change or we might get newer weapons but that is about it. Unlike the Army, Aircraft technology continues to get better. This is tech vs. tech here. Like I said, there is not a whole lot to ground warfare. I will also say that we have advanced weapon systems that were not as a result of catch-up. You have to remember that in Desert Storm we had M1-A1 Tanks which were the best on the battlefield. We still have the deadliest Tank on the battlefield (M1-A2). So I will not exactly say we are playing catch-up. I wonder what your professor actually meant. I really like to hear the examples you have to support your point. I already mentioned the MRAP example. What others? Edited January 23, 2009 by CAVEMAN
RTB Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 OK, I don't post much but I have to throw in my $.02. BeerMan and ClearedHot - Right on. Caveman, That is the problem with F-22. I really do not think we need that many of those things. The current theater we are in today quite frankly does not require an F-22. A stealth fighter does not grant us any edge against guys with RPG weaving and ducking through city streets. Why do you assume that 'the theater we are in today' will look anything like tomorrow's, or next decade's theater? Today, I agree, Raptors aren't needed in Iraq or Afghanistan, but to use that as you argument not to buy them is just frighteningly short sighted. no other country is going to ever come toe-to-tow with us again. Very dangerous assumption in my book. My point is this, we have F-16 and F-15 that are still capable to deliver. They can augment the fleet of F-22. Eagles and Vipers are still very capable, assuming we don't face modern SAM systems. As BeerMan states, access is what the Raptor gives you. We won't always have a completely permissive air environment. We already have aircrafts that can patrol and acquire targets. That is all we need. Seriously? Wow. Very much disagree. Ask the A-10 guys whether they can achieve stealth. Now ask them how many kills they have compared to the Viper guys. A-10s and F-15Es are the stars of this show, no doubt about it. I assume you're just trying to stir the pot here. Because looking only at today's fight when determining the future structure of our force would be a horrible mistake.
MKopack Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Current day, I'm pretty confident that the aircraft we have will do quite well, but we need to keep planning for 10, 15 and 20 years from now, in a day when the Eagles, Vipers and Warthogs - and even our Predators and Reapers may not be sufficient. The current plan is to replace a large number of legacy fighters with UAV's (look at the ANG today), which work well over Iraq, but would not over Russia, China, etc... ARe we currently building building for what five years from now will be thought of as the 'last' war, rather than the 'next'? People ask if we can afford to build more Raptors, and it's a valid question. It is an aircraft designed and built for the Cold War - but just yesterday Russia announced that their 5th generation fighter would make a first flight in 2009, and China with their new (Walmart, etc.) wealth may be an ever larger technological threat. Can we afford NOT to build more F-22 when each fraction of dominance that we lose, will translate directly to higher loss rates in aircraft, and service people in a future conflict. The difference between using F-22's and legacy fighters (F-15, F-16) as air superiority aircraft in a future conflict could come down to when one of our Grunts on the ground calls for CAS whether the next aircraft he sees is an allied A-10, or an enemy Su-25 - something our guys on the ground haven't had to consider in more than a generation. It could be that simple. Mike Kopack
Guest CAVEMAN Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 RTB: You are right, I do not know what tomorrows theatre looks like neither do you. So how would you justify buying several F-22's when you don't know? I also did not say we should not continue R&D. I just do not think you can justify the amount we are spending to buy several F-22. Let us keep a sufficient fleet to maintain Dominance. Unless you foresee another Cold War. I think much should change in the wy of military structure.
MD Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 An American soldier or sailor has not been harassed by enemy air forces since World War II. I think the Army and the Marines have forgotten that. Cheers, BeerMan Not entirely true. During the Vietnam War, 19 May 1972, the USN destroyer USS Higbee (DD-806) was attacked by North Viet MiG-17s during the battle of Dong Hoi and was hit by 250lb bombs on it's stern, destroying its aft 5-inch mount and wounding 4 sailors.
slacker Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 RTB: You are right, I do not know what tomorrows theatre looks like neither do you. So how would you justify buying several F-22's when you don't know? Wow. We don't know so let's not do anything. Great logic. Cave- you never cease to amaze me. Everytime I think I have read your dumbest post, you pull out a jewel.
ClearedHot Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 RTB: You are right, I do not know what tomorrows theatre looks like neither do you. So how would you justify buying several F-22's when you don't know? Simple answer - Pearl Harbor Let us keep a sufficient fleet to maintain Dominance. Exactly, and 183 is NOT it.
MD Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Exactly, and 183 is NOT it. Wasn't that number even reduced fairly recently?
Guest CAVEMAN Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Wow. We don't know so let's not do anything. Great logic. Cave- you never cease to amaze me. Everytime I think I have read your dumbest post, you pull out a jewel. Slacker: It takes great skill. If you go to the next line in the same post. I said we have to continue R&B to maintain the edge. I never said we should fold our hands and let the whole pass us bye. I am happy I amaze you. You however don't amaze me. Just like most people, you see only what you want to see. Simple answer - Pearl Harbor I am seriously lost. Do you care to explain. I am being serious here. Exactly, and 183 is NOT it. I think 183 is not bad. I honestly cannot justify why 150 is a better number than say 183 other than the fact that it saves the tax payers. Since you think 183 is insufficient, do you mind explaining how you came up with your numbers. This is a dialogue and not a personal attack.
MKopack Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 RTB: You are right, I do not know what tomorrows theatre looks like neither do you. So how would you justify buying several F-22's when you don't know? I also did not say we should not continue R&D. I just do not think you can justify the amount we are spending to buy several F-22. Let us keep a sufficient fleet to maintain Dominance. Unless you foresee another Cold War. I think much should change in the wy of military structure. R&D is great, and of course we need to keep pushing the technological boundries (as our potential foes are as well) but R&D isn't a usable weapons system when we need it - as ClearedHot mentioned Pearl Harbors have a tendancy of happening - and we don't need to be caught again with a fleet of obsolete P-35's and P-40's. The YF-22 was great R&D, it brought fighter technology almost to what we thought was, at the time, a 'fictional' level, but it required the actual production to become an actual operational weapons system. The YF-22 was selected over the YF-23 during the spring of 1991, it became operational, what, two years ago? Where would we be today if we'd 'held' it at an R&D level? Raptors are expensive today, buying them at the leisurely pace that we are, imagine what they'd be if we had to have them overnight, based upon an imminent threat? (Even if an 'emergency' production arte were possible - we're not talking riviting together Spitfires during the Battle of Britain...) Mike
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now