Losing Air Dominance

[ClearedHot]

Aaaahhhhhh!!

:beer:

Fantastic point. I mentioned it earlier. I do not fall in love with the hype. We only know the capabilities we have. Do we know what the enemy has?

Granted the Russians are out of cash, I will not put anything past Ivan. He still wants to destroy you as much as you will destroy him.

Let us think for once that the Soviet tomorrow start selling SAMs to countries like Iran and say Pakistan that provide great threat to our F-22 assets. Let us also assume that we did not know this until 2 aircraft were downed. What do we do?

Speed up production to buy more, stop production or hold it.

Great point Budha. The F-22 is the Fighter pilots dream hands down. I will NEVER argue that. But............

Slacker:

I was not offended. No worries man. I like your kindergarten analogy. I think the same.

Let us keep this alive. Budha has made a great point. You owe him a response.

You do NOT know our capabiliies. Stealth is not the only advantage the F-22 has.

I would also venture to guess the only time you have seen the inside of an airplane was as a passenger.

[slacker]

Slacker:

I was not offended. No worries man. I like your kindergarten analogy. I think the same.

Let us keep this alive. Budha has made a great point. You owe him a response.

I'm done- sorry buddha, no response from me. (today)

[MKopack]

I'm 100% for maintaining air dominance. There are plenty of placed I don't feel like going until someone else drops some bombs.

That being said, I think the article is a bit misleading. Instead of "Losing Air Dominance", it should be titled "Losing Manned Fighter Dominance", which is a different issue. I don't think most opponents to large F-22/35 acquisitions within the establishment (DoD types, so I'm excluding hippies) aren't saying we should risk our air superiority. They're doubting that the F-22/35s are the best way to get it. The picture is much bigger.

When we talk about F-15/16s going up against a real IADs, at least for now, the question isn't whether or not we will win or lose, but what losses we'll sustain. (I'm not a fighter guy, so I might be way off base, but I'm willing to bet we'll ultimately prevail through 2025 at least, especially with China and Russia out of cash for the time being). Now, I think its fair to say "We should have as few as technology will allow.", which is the quintessential argument for a large procurement of F-22/35s.

The problem comes when the F-22/35 inevitably become vulnerable (their generation of stealth is not a cure-all). So sometime in 25 years, we're back to the "acceptable losses" argument. If the answer remains "zero" or "as few as technology will allow", we're right back to another massively expensive procurement program.

Now, consider the alternative. You buy a limited number of F-22s, and instead focus your R&D dollars on solving the problems involved in a UCAV. Strictly speaking, that would guarantee the fewest losses if you could make it work. Plus, when their stealth abilities eventually become obsolete, it doesn't matter. By that time, the technology will be dirt cheap and we'll be able to roll off new ones. 50% losses? Who cares? And there's no need to run another procurement program. Just build more disposable UCAVs.

Are there problems with that plan? Sure. My point is that when you ask "Why aren't they listening?", the answer is that they're not listening because they're having a very, very different conversation from the one everyone on this board is. If you want them to listen, you need to talk about what they're talking about. Nobody in power is talking about voluntarily surrendering air dominance.

You're right, there will be a time in the future when "the competition" will catch up to the F-35 and F-22, just as they did to the SPAD, the P-51, the F-86, the F-4 and the F-15 and 16 and an 'acceptable losses' argument will come up. In my view, as long as we're strapping our young men and women into aircraft and sending them into combat, we need to keep that number as close to zero as we possibly can. Can UCAV's help in doing that? Should we keep working that direction? Of course, but a 'disposable' Predator or Reaper won't cut it in a high intensity conflict against an enemy with an air defense system. How long will it be before a UCAV increases in complexity (and cost) until it becomes an unmanned F-22 or F-35 (which we could probably do today) and the cost is basically what we have now - minus the pilot. Look at some of the unmanned systems in development today. Capability = cost, unfortunately, and with capability, you lose your disposability.

It doesn't matter whether dominance is acquired through manned or unmanned systems, or flocks of ninja birds trained to fly down enemy intakes, dominance means when the guy on the ground looks up, the aircraft overhead is one of his.

Mike

[Steve Davies]

Of all the counter 'buy more F-22' arguments put forth so far in this thread, yours is by far the most compelling, IMO. I am still going to try and pick holes in it, however :)

They're doubting that the F-22/35s are the best way to get it. The picture is much bigger.

I think that this is a particularly insightful remark. There is more than enough ancedotal and documented evidence to suggest that the US has been developing and, in some cases, actually fielding still-classified UCAVs, for decades. Equally, there are some very strong pointers that indicate the US has developed demonstrators of manned fighters that eclipse even the F-22.

The picture you talk about will have a significant 'black' element to it that is certainly worth considering. The very black nature of both the F-117 and (defunct) A-12 programme are historical pointers that can be used to support the theory that what the majority of us see - even those with the highest security clearances and need to know - is very rarely the same as what the decision makers are going on.

When we talk about F-15/16s going up against a real IADs, at least for now, the question isn't whether or not we will win or lose, but what losses we'll sustain. (I'm not a fighter guy, so I might be way off base, but I'm willing to bet we'll ultimately prevail through 2025 at least, especially with China and Russia out of cash for the time being).

I think that if you look at the pure numbers that a Chinese IADS would present, then that assertion is contestable. Whether you win or lose is directly tied to how many assets are attrited by the enemy, and what you hope to accomplish - it could be only 25 per cent of your forces, but if the remaining 75 per cent is insufficient to get the job done, then you have lost.

Now, I think its fair to say "We should have as few as technology will allow.", which is the quintessential argument for a large procurement of F-22/35s.

That's fine if you have really, really good FME, espionage and counter-espionage capes. The US certainly has the first, might have the second, but so far has a less-than-stellar record in the third. With this in mind, the 'buy as many as we can afford' philosophy should apply.

The problem comes when the F-22/35 inevitably become vulnerable (their generation of stealth is not a cure-all). So sometime in 25 years, we're back to the "acceptable losses" argument. If the answer remains "zero" or "as few as technology will allow", we're right back to another massively expensive procurement program.

I don't agree.

No generation of stealth will ever be a 'cure-all', yet you make it sound as though it might one day be so. It's not as though Lockmart or Boeing will be able to design a forever stealthy fighter in 25 years' time. The reality is that military procurement programmes are expensive and *cyclical*; buying UCAVs is not going to change that reality.

Now, consider the alternative. You buy a limited number of F-22s, and instead focus your R&D dollars on solving the problems involved in a UCAV.

I think that this is the most important point of the entire discussion... it is also the one that undermines, in my view, the suggestion that more F-22s are not being bought because UCAVs are being considered the way forward.

I would like to assume that the Air Force bases its purchasing requirements on the possibility that it may be required to perform in any war zone at any time. If that is correct, then the major limfac with UCAVs - bandwidth - is not going to go away anytime soon. So, you can design a fantastic UCAV, but if you dont have the bandwidth or the bandwidth security to operate them in sufficient numbers to break down the IADS and clear a path for the F-22, F-35 and 4th Gen fighters, then the solution does not lie with unmanned aircraft... today. It may well in five or ten years time, but what if war with China breaks out in two years' time?

Plus, when their stealth abilities eventually become obsolete, it doesn't matter. By that time, the technology will be dirt cheap and we'll be able to roll off new ones. 50% losses? Who cares? And there's no need to run another procurement program. Just build more disposable UCAVs.

I think that you have to be cautious and work on the basis that by that time the Chinese will have long had the capability to deny you the bandwidth you need to operate them: it'll be able to score hard kills against your satellites. As of now, the US still supports the Star Wars ban, so I hope that your passive counter capes are being developed in earnest!

And this suggestion that you can simply allow the technology to become obsolete - and to revert to the Communists' numbers vs quality argument - doesn't make complete sense to me. Building more obsolete UCAVs that you can't fly in sufficient numbers because you can't get the bandwidth is not going to win the war for you. Of course, by then the US will have its manned (and unmanned) new long range bomber, so perhaps it is a moot point? But what happens in 50 years' time, when the new bomber is obsolete?

Again, just as throughout history, you end up back in an expensive procurement programme. It matters not whether it is manned or unmanned.

Are there problems with that plan? Sure. My point is that when you ask "Why aren't they listening?", the answer is that they're not listening because they're having a very, very different conversation from the one everyone on this board is.

I agree. But I suspect that they are coming at it from a slightly different perspective to you.

No, it's not. It is, however, the main intrinsic advantage.

I don't think so. There is much more about the F-22 that is intrinsic - such as netcentric capes - than is immediately obvious. Even I know that, and I don't even have SIPRNET!

Edited January 24, 2009 by Steve Davies

[slo_goin]

You know guys, none of this is going to matter... In fact, the F-22 might just be the last great fighter the US is able to develop on its own. We've lost most of our manufacturing capability to outsourcing, and now we are starting to lose the edge in R&D to. F-22s don't just grow on trees - its not even about money. All the dollars in the world won't buy one single F-XX if we continue to bleed engineering talent and skilled labor.

To expensive to build? Why don't we give China the plans and let them manufacture them for a quarter the cost! We've done it with everything else... These things are expensive because we've lost most of our capability to build them! Most new military technologies are crippled by single source parts which has driven the cost up and forced the government to scramble for alternative vendors.

Even the big ugly three (Northrup, Lockheed, Boeing) struggle to produce marginal products that cost the government 10x more than they ever should (and take 10x longer as well) - and they don't even build the stuff! They pass the work along to subcontractors and bathe in the G/A money.

I see an alarming trend and the hemorrhaging is going to get worse. I think "how many F-22s should we buy" is the least of our problems.

Edited January 24, 2009 by slo_goin

[Duck]

Yeah, I am in the military.

The Civil Air Patrol is not the military.

Sorry man, I couldn't resist. I appreciate your service.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

leadeagle05:

CHEAP !!

Anything else?

I also appreciate your service Airman.

Steve Davies:

You bring up good points. I will let Buddha reply you since it is his show.

I don't think Buddha was against the F-22 program.

Slo goin:

I am sure we can afford every number AF Generals call out. Do you for once think the Defense Budget is made exclusively with AF in mind?

The Navy cannot replace all its aging fleet of ships. They have more going to the yard than they have more coming out. There are Admirals out there warning us that this is dangerous. I am sure they will also tell you that "Sea Power" is at stake. So who is more important, who should the lion share of Defense Budgets go to? NAVY TACAIR is drastically reducing. Before we know it, all they will have is the FA- 18 and the JSF when it comes onboard. And as you already know, they do not have a Stealth Fighter either. So I guess they are really hanging out on gods mercy.

Slacker:

If I were you, I would not want to feed a troll !! :) LOL

Steve Davies did it. That was EASY

[Stuck]

I started this thread because I thought it was truly relevant to the professions of most members on this forum. I did NOT start this thread to hear the short sided, incoherent babblings of you, Caveman. I'm a flipping cadet and I know more about this stuff than you. You need to truly learn to never pass up the opportunity, my friend. There are people around here that can teach you things. So PLEASE, STFU.

Buddha, Eagle, Steve and ClearedHot, thank you for staying on glideslope.

Please press, gentlemen. A friend of mine at Lockheed Martin shot me this article, and I really want relevant, (RELEVANT, Caveman) feedback.

Christ, if a cadet knows more about this sh1t than you do, maybe you should get a new profession.

-Stuck

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Stuck:

I will get another profession once I retire.

Good you know more. I am happy you do. In the very near future, you will be standing tall ready to serve this country.

It would not really matter whether we have 381 or 183 F-22's. What would really matter is that fact that you are ready to lay your life down for your fellow man and would do that selflessly.

My friend, don't take that for granted. In the end we will all be serving our great nation.

I think you are insulting the other distinguished members that you left out in your recognition. They also helped to keep it on track.

I suggest you pose some questions for the members that have contributed to enlighten you. That might help keep this puppy on the glideslope.

Cave

[Vprdrvr69]

I am not quite sure where to start. I am not going to pick apart this thread with attacks on comments (or members- CAVEMAN) or rebut everything that has been pointed out; many of you see the light. I reference the report often because it is open source and unclass. I have been preaching about how Fuc$ed up our air capes are/ will be for quite a while- My bitching fires up everytime I hear people complaining about the F-22 or the F-35. This report is (for the most part) SPOT ON! Pretty scary but also pretty damn accurate (and it is unclass).

One topic that it does not speak to is EA. Everybody talks about fighters as though everything is riding on the aircraft itself. Not only are our 4th Gen fleets old as sh!t and in near states of disrepair- but how are the technological capes (the shit on board) when compared to these NEW and much more advanced 4th gen jets being produced in large numbers. The report touched on radars and illustrate the disadvantages we could face. What about EA? Seems to me that when we dumped our funding into stealth, other countries pumped up there EA at exponential levels. Everybody else has some pretty fancy crap and lots of it is even integrated on the aircraft (what a novel idea- I bet it doesn't even get cold soaked). I noticed in the pic the nice 9-M's hanging on the Viper performing ONE (sounds familiar to me). That is a pretty effective weapon especially against non-fighter targets in the CONUS. So is this our air superiority fighter when Venezuela strolls across the borter with a formation of Flanker variants? Or are we even going to see the F'in thing on our radar? Or are we even going to be there due to all our Guard units being Brac'd and our other resources being too busy or mismanaged?

On an offensive note, how well are these legacy aircraft (I know, they may not all be but this is an open forum) going to fare when the baseline threat is a Flanker with 100% EA! Not to mention many countries will flat out outnumber us! We tend to allow ourselves to be vulnerable for reasons I don't understand. We spent a decade with inferior IR (9M) technology knowing we would lose that fight if encountered. Now (like the report illustrates) we have all of our ducks in the AMRAAM when their are similar capes out there (PL-12, also in the report). Why do we do this to ourselves? On a similar note, why was 9/11 a fuc%ing surprise???

Unfortunately, I think the only way this problem will be resolved is for someone to kick us square in the nuts! Otherwise, the powers that be will continue to send every fighter pilot to a pred, boneyard fighters by the dozens and continue the warrior effort by designing yet another PT uniform or redesigning the service dress. Maybe we can have an entire Airforce fleet of modified civilian airplanes; this would reduce the R&D costs significantly...The USAF is missing the point and reports like this should make an impact- but it won't!

I could go on and on (and will but not here) but it only angers me. I took an oath to defend this great county and yet I sit back and watch decisions being made that are crippling us or putting our country at risk. It flat out pisses me off yet there is jack shi% I can do about it. Maybe our aircraft should just rejoin with the army (and we can fully scrap the F-22 and F-35) and leave the space and cyber stuff for the air force (or rename it space force). I think that is about where we are at. As far as the fight we are encountering today, we lack enough flexibility to do what needs to be done. Eight years of chasing TB through Afghanistan and we still don't have an aircraft that caters to IW yet we will fly other fighters (that may cost over $13k hour) to pursue the enemy. My concern here is, we are not going to get more fighters, lets not kill the ones we have, lets adapt to the fight. Thoughts and spears always welcome...

[Guest CAVEMAN]

My concern here is, we are not going to get more fighters, lets not kill the ones we have, lets adapt to the fight. Thoughts and spears always welcome...

Thanks.

Edited January 24, 2009 by CAVEMAN

[slacker]

Buddha, Eagle, Steve and ClearedHot, thank you for staying on glideslope.

-Stuck

Stuck- please, please do not use the gay ass term "staying on glideslope," unless you're actually flying an approach. My life is filled with too many meetings, working groups, etc, with a bunch of non-flyers using terms like staying on glideslope, or warrior ethos, or bombs on target, time on target, good news story, etc.

Leave terms like that to the shoes.

edit- i spel reel gud.

Edited January 24, 2009 by slacker

[Vertigo]

Stuck- please, please do not use the gay ass term "staying on glideslope," unless you're actually flying an approach. My life is filled with to many meetings, working groups, etc, with a bunch of non-flyers using terms like staying on glideslope, or warrior ethos, or bombs on target, time on target, good news story, etc.

Leave terms like that to the shoes.

Glad I wasn't the only one who had the word douchebag run through his head when I read that phrase.

[slacker]

Glad I wasn't the only one who had the word douchebag run through his head when I read that phrase.

Mark this day down- we agree on something.

cheers.

[Wolf424]

Stuck- please, please do not use the gay ass term "staying on glideslope," unless you're actually flying an approach. My life is filled with too many meetings, working groups, etc, with a bunch of non-flyers using terms like staying on glideslope, or warrior ethos, or bombs on target, time on target, good news story, etc.

Leave terms like that to the shoes.

edit- i spel reel gud.

Whew, thanks for clearing that up, I couldn't tell if were were talking about 22s, or that shitty ILS I shot the other day.

[Stuck]

Much apologies. Continue...

-Stuck

[Stuck]

Oh, and by the way, have any of you heard anything on the Russian/Indian PAK-FA project? Most online stuff is crappy speculation.

Cheers,

-Stuck

[Guest Cap-10]

When we talk about F-15/16s going up against a real IADs, at least for now, the question isn't whether or not we will win or lose, but what losses we'll sustain. (I'm not a fighter guy, so I might be way off base, but I'm willing to bet we'll ultimately prevail through 2025 at least, especially with China and Russia out of cash for the time being). Now, I think its fair to say "We should have as few as technology will allow.", which is the quintessential argument for a large procurement of F-22/35s.

Sorry if this link has been posted already (didn't see it), but for Buddha or anyone else that thinks China isn't a threat until 2025 or later, check out this Unclas Report done by RAND in Aug 2008. There is a 2020 China Scenario about 40 slides in.....scary stuff!!!!!

Cap-10

EDIT: I spell goodly.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Cap-10

[busdriver]

Caveman: No one with a half a brain would stand toe to toe with us now is only because we pose a credible threat. If we do not continue to advance we will pose less and less a threat, until the incentive to shut up and color won't be there anymore. On the other hand, I agree that most of the wars we will fight in the future will not be full up industrial scale conventional conflicts and we need to focus some attention on small unconventional wars.

As to the cost of the F-22 and stealth. I don't really think the two are as directly connected as some people imply. A modern fighter with all the avionics of the Raptor would cost very close to what the Raptor costs. The basic shape hasn't changed much since the prototype, so I'm led to believe that the stealth aspect is a pretty known commodity, the avionics and software development is what I would think costs so damn much. But I don't really know, I'm just speculating.

EDIT: for grammar

Edited January 26, 2009 by busdriver

[Guest Krabs]

As to the cost of the F-22 and stealth. I don't really think the two are as directly connected as some people imply...The basic shape hasn't changed much since the prototype, so I'm led to believe that the stealth aspect is a pretty known commodity, the avionics and software development is what I would think costs so damn much. But I don't really know, I'm just speculating.

100% agree. It's all the electro-wizardry that drives cost up.

From Ben Rich's memoirs about working at the Skunk Works: it took Lockheed less money to develop the F-117 than it took Ford to develop the Taurus (yeah, that probably includes factory re-tooling etc., but it's still impressive).

[LockheedFix]

This website was linked as an ad from Drudge Report. Thought some folks on this board might be interested.

Save the Raptor Petition

[Wolf424]

This website was linked as an ad from Drudge Report. Thought some folks on this board might be interested.

Save the Raptor Petition

I saw that too. I wish you could see who is running the website.

[MKopack]

I saw that too. I wish you could see who is running the website.

Several years ago there was a similiar 'campaign' based around the Canadian Snowbirds Demo team - 'Newjetsforsnowbirds.com' that was found to be paid for by BAe - the expected supplier of the potential 'new jets'.

I signed the Raptor petition and received a message back from the website that really led me to believe that LM is behind the site (which I'm sure we all expected). It described new F-22's as a grand jobs program for America. While personally I do believe that there's a need for further Raptor, I believe that the need is based on capability, not just in pumping $$'s into the contractor which would undoubtably save jobs, but would do more for LM's bottom line.

Mike

[Vertigo]

I saw that too. I wish you could see who is running the website.

Whoever is running the site went through some lengths to hide themselves. They used a company called Domains by Proxy to purchase the website through GoDaddy thereby hiding themselves.

[Wolf424]

Whoever is running the site went through some lengths to hide themselves. They used a company called Domains by Proxy to purchase the website through GoDaddy thereby hiding themselves.

I guess it would sound more like BS to people if LM posted their name all over it. Although the way they describe it leaves little doubt about who created it.