Losing Air Dominance

[Chuck17]

CAVEMAN -

Please for the love of mike tell me you have the clearance(s) and you know what the Raptor can do... because if you dont, then you truely ARE speaking without knowing the full picture.

If you do, I cant see how you can say anything you have...

If you do, youd know the ends justify the means...

If you do, you know 183 is NOT enough...

If you do, you know we faced the SAME problem in the 1970s when acquiring the F-15 and F-16. We bought them and we kicked ass when required.

If you do, youd know why we need them now every bit as much as we needed Eagles and Vipers back then.

You just sound terribly uninformed.

Chuck

[Guest CAVEMAN]

MKopack:

True, we cannot just start up the assembly line and roll them out when we need them.

Can we both agree that we could still produce reasonable numbers that will not put a strain on our Defense Budget?

I stand by my point. There is a point at which an additional F-22 or whatever F is next does not provide any additional benefit.

Chuck17:

I guess I over look some of its capabilites.

Let me ask you, do you think we are failing the troops on the ground or unable to achieve Dominance. We are still in the fielding stages of this thing so we do not have all the 183 or whatever number.

I think everyone needs to evaluate their position on the future of warfare. Conventional of Low Intensity type operations?

[AEWingsMN]

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?

HOLY SH!T I can't believe I just read that.

Even if we had R&D technology that could kick everyone's asses, if we don't actually have any of it, it's worthless. What you are saying is completely idiotic. If the time ever came that we needed the technology, as could happen, cuz you're right we don't know. If that time came, and we did need to have it, yeah we have the R&D done, but by the time we could purchase the technology in large enough quantities, produce those quantities, and then make those quantities useful, the day and age that we needed that technology to defend ourself would be well past and we'd already have bee F-ed.

This is not world war 2. Can't just pump the stuff out by the thousands over night.

Seriously dude, consider stopping posting in threads that require some sense of rationality.

Edit: After posting, I had to go take a Sh!t and low and behold, out popped and F-22. I guess I was wrong, we can produce them over night. My apologies Caveman.

Edited January 23, 2009 by AEWingsMN

[Guest CAVEMAN]

HOLY SH!T I can't believe I just read that.

Even if we had R&D technology that could kick everyone's asses, if we don't actually have any of it, it's worthless. What you are saying is completely idiotic. If the time ever came that we needed the technology, as could happen, cuz you're right we don't know. If that time came, and we did need to have it, yeah we have the R&D done, but by the time we could purchase the technology in large enough quantities, produce those quantities, and then make those quantities useful, the day and age that we needed that technology to defend ourself would be well past and we'd already have bee F-ed.

This is not world war 2. Can't just pump the stuff out by the thousands over night.

Seriously dude, consider stopping posting in threads that require some sense of rationality.

Read everything and not just the first line of my post.

Did I ever say we should not produce?

We cannot produce until we break the bank.

There is a number that we can produce that is reasonable to meet our security needs without cleaning our Defense Budget. Remember, the F-22's are not the only aircraft protecting the homeland. The Navy has to protect territorial waters as well.

Edited January 23, 2009 by CAVEMAN

[Mitch Weaver]

Taken from AFA Magazine April 2008

"Where does the figure 381 come from? Is it justifiable?

In simplest terms, the force-sizing exercise begins with the squadron, the basic unit of organization and building block of an AEF. The Air Force has determined that each AEF requires at least one F-22 squadron for air superiority, interdiction in high threat areas, and so forth.

The standard squadron contains 24 combat-coded fighters. The F-22’s Operational Requirements Document validated that metric. The ORD was signed by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Do the math: 10 squadrons times 24 aircraft equals 240 fighters."

"Does that mean that 240 F-22s are enough? No. Note that the requirement is for 240 combat-coded F-22s. In order to maintain that many fighters constantly in a combat-ready condition and able to deploy on a wartime mission, the Air Force needs more F-22s for other needs. The question is: How many?

The Air Force has analytic formulas for determining the answer. Here they are:

•For training, 25 percent of the combat-coded force, or 60 more fighters.

•For test purposes, five percent of the total of combat-coded and training aircraft, or 15 more fighters.

•For backup inventory, 10 percent of the combat-coded, training, and test aircraft, or 32 more fighters.

•For attrition reserve, 10 percent of everything above, or 34 more fighters.

Those four categories, taken together, generate an additional requirement for 141 F-22s. Add up those fighters and the combat-coded ones and you come to—voila—381 fighters."

[ClearedHot]

I am seriously lost. Do you care to explain.

I am being serious here.

Cave, if you do not understand a response of Pearl Harbor to the question of why we need this plane and why we need to be prepared, then I can not help you and quite frankly, you have no business posting here.

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.

The Numbers...

Cave....I know the numbers, you obviously do not. Quoting open source numbers;

The United States Air Force originally planned to order 750 ATFs, with production beginning in 1994; however, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review altered the plan to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. The goal changed again in 1994, when it became 442 aircraft entering service in 2003 or 2004, but a 1997 Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339. In 2003, the Air Force said that the existing congressional cost cap limited the purchase to 277. By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft, which would save $15 billion but raise the cost of each aircraft, and this plan has been de facto approved by Congress in the form of a multi-year procurement plan, which still holds open the possibility for new orders past that point. The total cost of the program by 2006 was $62 billion.

In August 2007, the United States Air Force signed a $5 billion, multi-year contract with Lockheed Martin that will extend production to 2011, and as of 2008, F-22 Raptors are being procured at the rate of 20 per year.

In a ceremony on 29 August 2007, Lockheed Martin reached its "100th F-22 Raptor" milestone, delivering AF Serial No. 05-4100

By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one additional F-22 is around $138 million; decreasing with larger volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases

183 is a ludicrous number driven by politics and political staffers who do not understand Air Dominance. I do not argue the monetary issues of this program (or other expensive programs), but some things are absolutely must haves if we intent to remain a free nation. I would argue we need to find outside the box ways of paying for things we must have. There are ways to make this happen without breaking the bank.

[Duck]

Want to know how to fight this kind of war? Read "Devils Guard". Unfortunately, policy won't let us fight like this.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Mitch Weaver:

AF planning numbers are still driven by Cold War theories. Can we agree to that?

Back to what I said initially, the way you view the future of warfare affects how you think we should plan.

CleardHot:

I think I answered the Pearl Harbor deal. I am NOT againt production.

Yes, we would be foolish if we did not prepare.

I am not following F-22 acquisition. I hope our politicians are right and everyone else is wrong.

Do you mind talking about ways we can afford the required numbers of F-22(381) that you think is necessary for Air Dominance.

[MKopack]

Taken from AFA Magazine April 2008

"Where does the figure 381 come from? Is it justifiable?

In simplest terms, the force-sizing exercise begins with the squadron, the basic unit of organization and building block of an AEF. The Air Force has determined that each AEF requires at least one F-22 squadron for air superiority, interdiction in high threat areas, and so forth.

The standard squadron contains 24 combat-coded fighters. The F-22’s Operational Requirements Document validated that metric. The ORD was signed by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Do the math: 10 squadrons times 24 aircraft equals 240 fighters."

"Does that mean that 240 F-22s are enough? No. Note that the requirement is for 240 combat-coded F-22s. In order to maintain that many fighters constantly in a combat-ready condition and able to deploy on a wartime mission, the Air Force needs more F-22s for other needs. The question is: How many?

The Air Force has analytic formulas for determining the answer. Here they are:

•For training, 25 percent of the combat-coded force, or 60 more fighters.

•For test purposes, five percent of the total of combat-coded and training aircraft, or 15 more fighters.

•For backup inventory, 10 percent of the combat-coded, training, and test aircraft, or 32 more fighters.

•For attrition reserve, 10 percent of everything above, or 34 more fighters.

Those four categories, taken together, generate an additional requirement for 141 F-22s. Add up those fighters and the combat-coded ones and you come to—voila—381 fighters."

And applying the same percentages to the currently planned 183 buy, leaves roughly 115 combat-coded F-22's available to cover any contingency that may arise. About 4 1/2 squadrons to cover the world, not enough in my book, but hey, I'm just an ex-maintainer...

To put the F-22's value another way, my squadron was tasked to strike targets in Baghdad on 19 Jan 1991 as part of Package Q, the largest strike package flown during the Gulf War, made up of 72 F-16's, F-15's flying MiGCAP, F-4G's as Weasels / SEAD, EF-111's in their EW role, E-3's watching and directing everything as it unfolded, and a fleet of tankers to keep everyone flying. Two of my friends were blown out of the sky that day - and fortunate to spend the next six weeks being tortured as POW's. Had F-22's been available that day, six to eight aircraft would have completed the mission with a couple of tankers to them top off, and the Iraqis wouldn't have known anyone was there until the weapons were on the ground, and the attackers were out of harms way.

I'll bet Tico and Cujo would like the math on the F-22 side in that one.

Mike Kopack

Edited January 23, 2009 by MKopack

[ClearedHot]

CAVEMAN, if you think Puff Daddy and the R&B world are going to somehow defend our country, then maybe you ought to be looking for a job with MTV or something.

Well played sir...

[Guest CAVEMAN]

We are not dumping our inventory of Vipers, Hornets, Falcons. Why is everyone sounding like we are bare?

There is soo much going on in a war. To say your friends would not have been shot down is to forget the other aspects of war. Do you think the enemy would have planned differently if they knew we had F-22's in our inventory. You also have to remember that our adversaries react to our actions. Iraq may not be the best measuring stick. Think of Russia. I think we are now playing Monday morning quarterback.

The enemy is living and breathing. Don't fall in love with the Aircraft.

Like I said, we will know in the next few years if we made the right decisions about the F-22.

I am sure the F-35 programs will also get their cut-backs.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

CAVEMAN, if you think Puff Daddy and the R&B world are going to somehow defend our country, then maybe you ought to be looking for a job with MTV or something.

After reading through your posts int his thread, I get the impression that you have never flown a strike aircraft, that you have very, very little experience in any real-world operations, and that, quite possibly, you have never even been given a classified briefing or even know what SIPR is.

Please tell us you are not a high school student or cadet...If you are not, how long have you been in the Air Force, are you a pilot, and do you get away with talking out of your ass this way at work?

123abc:

We are both not making the decision. No one on here is affecting anything so let us freely EXPRESS!! The good thing is that we can both walk away without having responsibilities for our opinions.

I listen to Classified briefings. I just don't drink too much Kool-Aid.

I am sitting next to a SIPR.

No, I don't talk like this at work. I am too Liberal for that. I like to keep my friends. I don't discuss Politics, Religion and US Military dominance.

I like to hear guys like you pound their chest and proclaim "Air Dominance".

No, I did not do ROTC. Highschool was 11 years ago.

[brickhistory]

Ummm, when did the last -C model Eagle roll off the line? Which air dominance fighter some want to count on for the next war broke apart in flight because, basically, it was older than dirt (yeah, I know, slightly substandard milled part, yada, yada, yada, but still....).

What premier CAS platform has/had wing problems? How old do we let the Vipers get?

So we depend on increasingly old fighters to win a potential war against an enemy that does have an air threat? Guess you don't mind paying the bill with explosions and dead crews. Seems like that's a lesson learned from the current conflict and the IEDs from the ground side.

How about both high tech and lower tech? The toolkit analogy is very accurate. Have the right tool on hand now, not wait to run down to Ace Hardware and hope the burst pipe doesn't flood your house.

And for the 'tards, it's another analogy...

[Mitch Weaver]

Mitch Weaver:

AF planning numbers are still driven by Cold War theories. Can we agree to that?

Not when you read the second line of the post:

"In simplest terms, the force-sizing exercise begins with the squadron, the basic unit of organization and building block of an AEF.. "

AEF: implemented in January 2000- not a "Cold War theory".

Here's a general ROT: STFU when you don't know what you're talking about. When you do, be able to back it up.

[slacker]

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.

You try to fight the next war with R&D, let me know how that works out. How do I get into a R&D squadron and what are their deployments like?

I am like most people, but what I see here is a moron trying to argue a weak position.

I'm done feeding this troll. You're ridiculous.

[Shortbus]

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.

What tomorrow's actual theater will be is speculative. The current and emerging threats are known - although apparently not by you.

We are not dumping our inventory of Vipers, Hornets, Falcons. Why is everyone sounding like we are bare?

There is soo much going on in a war. To say your friends would not have been shot down is to forget the other aspects of war. Do you think the enemy would have planned differently if they knew we had F-22's in our inventory. You also have to remember that our adversaries react to our actions. Iraq may not be the best measuring stick. Think of Russia. I think we are now playing Monday morning quarterback.

The enemy is living and breathing. Don't fall in love with the Aircraft.

Like I said, we will know in the next few years if we made the right decisions about the F-22.

I am sure the F-35 programs will also get their cut-backs.

OMG!! We have BOTH Vipers AND Falcons! Best of both worlds I must say...

[Alpharatz]

My Uncle flew P-38's with 94th Pursuit prior to Pearl Harbor...then out of Long Beach...for gunnery practice they shot clay pigeons except "no one really wanted to spend the extra money for shotgun shells". From time to time he would get a little feisty and snort that " I never want to see the U.S. military that un-prepared again". He isn't around to ask BUT I have to believe that ....

He would be happy with F-22's OR F-35's

He would believe that "stealth is life"

He would not be happy with 50 y.o. tankers; and fighters falling apart mid-air

Now my thoughts....

How do you SNEAK UP on a target with an airplane that is twice as noisy as an F-16? How do you train with it when even neighbors who are obviously noise tolerant don't want it around?

All stealth all the time

If I was the CNO I would be mighty nervous about those Carrier Battle Groups.

MORE B-2's and the F-35 should be a two seater.............

................."Pilots man your cubbies......Away all Alert Drones....Coffee to Hot Battery Bus"........

[Chuck17]

Chuck17:

I guess I over look some of its capabilites.

Let me ask you, do you think we are failing the troops on the ground or unable to achieve Dominance. We are still in the fielding stages of this thing so we do not have all the 183 or whatever number.

Bro I dont think you know a thing about their capes other than what is released to the public. No big deal, it just hurts your stance a little. They are at my base, Ive flown against them and with them. We need more of them, and I am glad they are on our side.

But 183 is still not enough.

Where are we failing the troops, may I ask? The Navy is building new carriers. The ground pounders are driving MRAPs, not Humvees now... Casualties are WAY down compared to 2 years ago, the new guy in the office at 1600 PA Ave is starting to move toward us moving out. But guess what? The SAME THING is going to happen to the USAF that happened in the Gulf War... when all the ground pounders leave, we will still be there (because there is no Iraqi air force capable of defending Iraq!!)! And we need to have the capes in theater to make sure no one fncks with us while we are there. Not just fighters either.

Granted we are waaay short on the new tanker buy, but I dont REALLY expect any movement on that until one breaks up over the Atlantic on AR20 in some turbulence at night while refueling a C-17... cause thats gonna have to happen before we do the standard "OH SHIT!!! WE NEED TANKERS RIGHT FnCKING NOW!!!" reaction that is now a USAF hallmark.

We need to be able to CONTINUE to achieve air dominance. If you think a Viper or Strike Eagle will be able to take down the double digit next-gen SAMs and the Flankers forever and ever... well... nothing we can say will change your mind.

Chuck

Edited January 23, 2009 by Chuck17

[Duck]

CAVEMAN, you are leaving your mark all over this forum! First the Obama thread then here!

[Guest Krabs]

In fact, did you even READ the Losing Air Dominance article? I don't think you did because it addresses many of the questions that you have already asked. Specifically, one example is the comparison of the F-22 and F-35 operational capabilities.

I think that's it right there. A for BeerMan

So, for those of us that read it can I say that we agree we need more F-22s to maintain/reacquire air dominance?

And is there a way that we can maintain or improve the irregular warfare capability of our force, but still prepare for what we are REALLY there for which is air dominance?

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Not when you read the second line of the post:

"In simplest terms, the force-sizing exercise begins with the squadron, the basic unit of organization and building block of an AEF.. "

AEF: implemented in January 2000- not a "Cold War theory".

Here's a general ROT: STFU when you don't know what you're talking about. When you do, be able to back it up.

You got one on me. I did not see that. Good point.

Slacker:

The only argument I had was over numbers. How do we justify every one we get. There has to be a point where every additional F-22 we get is not work tax payers dollars.

Did I ever say we should not get the F-22?

The prevailing argument is that we should get more. I think Mitch came up with 381 vice 138. What is your magical number, 500?

You are angry and all worked up on just a discussion. Do you control F-22 acquisitions? So what is the deal? Who killed your puppy?

Typical of workplace discussions. You don't have to agree. Your opinions are yours and you have every reason to be passionate about it.

Leadeagle05:

I think we all have our opinions. I might not agree with you but I respect your opinion. After all, FREE speech is guaranteed in our Constitution.

Do you stop talking to you squadron mates because you do not like their views on certain issues. It is petty if you do

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Beerman:

As airmen we need to have that same clarity and allegiance.

If I understand you correctly, you advocate that Airmen should have allegiance to "Air Domination". I do not disagree with you but this is a cultural thing. It is really hard to live and breath the Air Dominance ethos. I agree, that should be the focus of the warrior culture. Remember the average soldier(Enlisted and Officer) is trained in some infantry skills. The Marine(Enlisted and Officer) is trained to be a rifleman. How does the common Airman practice Air Domination in day to day activities ? I hope I understood you correctly.

The vast majority of service member are conservative in their views. People cannot hold an open discussion without getting offended before the end of the day. I watched a guy get into a long debate over his view and he later lost his place. It is a nice idea to be vocal and passionate but in the end most people will still stick to what they believe. I do not think differently of people despite where they stand.

But you can see what it looks like. Half the people here don't even know me but then you can see how this has gone south. People calling names and everything else. I understand people are passionate about their point of view but no one is directly influencing this acquisition program. I am sure there are AF generals that are stressing the importance of the F-22 program. If their advice is not heeded then we have no say.

Edited January 23, 2009 by CAVEMAN

[slacker]

No one is calling you names, and everyone has answered all of your questions with supporting evidence. It is clear that you are the one who is unable to carry out a logical discussion.

I think I called Caveman a moron, so...sorry.

Caveman-

No one killed my puppy. I just see no benefit in arguing with you, it is about as effective as arguing with my kindergartener. You can know you're right, but if she feels like saying, "because," 100 times, there is no point.

this thread has outlived its usefulness.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Yeah, I am in the military.

I never contested Air Dominance. Damn it!!

I am in support of F-22. I never said kill or stop the program.

Yes I read much of the article. I went back to read it again. I don't think my opinion has changed.

I buy into the reasoning but the only problem I have is buying PLENTY of it. I just think it is alot of money we are paying for one of this things.

There are many other things that are necessary for the prosecution of war. We exactly do not have the money. This is no magic here!

That was why I kept saying how many of these things do we need to get to still maintain Air Dominance. We still have 16,18 and 35 which is coming online. So we cannot say we are totally bare of TACAIR assets. Maybe not enough. Leadership needs to say, we are not getting what we need but we need to plan with what we have. Well, that is what is going to have to happen.

Good, you voted for Obama. I am not sure McCain was really in a position to stop the 183 they are buying unless you are talking of additional buys.

You asked why I do not express my views and I told you why. I don't need to voice my opinion to feel good about my point of view. I voice them when they matter. It will not affect what the DOD decides to do with TACAIR.

I never advocated that the people should not have impact on policy. Do we always have a say in everything that takes place in the military? That was the point I was trying to raise. We keep talking about how we need more but I am sure those hard numbers are not changing. We can have a debate but at the end of the day, you and I walk away and still have no say. If Generals are unable to change the situation.........

[Guest CAVEMAN]

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.

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.