Re: F-35, not F-22, to Protect U.S. Airspace

[T.L. Davis]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike >
wrote:

....By 1997 officials
>had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in
>Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11,
>2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United States.

Unbelievable, isn't it? 14 aircraft to protect the entire continental
United States... This was what NORAD was reduced to?? Pitiful.
What was the defense budget in 2001?? Who got all the money?

What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears
and long range escorts?

Just incredible. I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft
available on 9/11. I overestimated. This is what happens when a
country becomes grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's
happened before.

At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia".

And the best is too good for America. F-35s are good enough.

TL

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 1, 1:16*am, T.L. Davis > wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike >
> wrote:
>
> ...By 1997 officials
>
> >had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in
> >Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11,
> >2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United States.
>
> Unbelievable, isn't it? *14 aircraft to protect the entire continental
> United States... *This was what NORAD was reduced to?? *Pitiful.
> What was the defense budget in 2001?? *Who got all the money?
>
> What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears
> and long range escorts?
>
> Just incredible. *I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft
> available on 9/11. *I overestimated. *This is what happens when a
> country becomes grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's
> happened before.
>
> At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia".
>
> And the best is too good for America. *F-35s are good enough.
>
> TL

I think the early-warning radar still works. Those waves of Bears are
about gone. Total 64 in service, guess 40 would be the most they could
muster for waves, 15 hour plus flight time, I think we might be able
to handle them. You don't?

[damarkley]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Feb 1, 1:16 am, T.L. Davis > wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike >
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...By 1997 officials
>>
>>> had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in
>>> Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11,
>>> 2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United States.
>> Unbelievable, isn't it? 14 aircraft to protect the entire continental
>> United States... This was what NORAD was reduced to?? Pitiful.
>> What was the defense budget in 2001?? Who got all the money?
>>
>> What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears
>> and long range escorts?
>>
>> Just incredible. I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft
>> available on 9/11. I overestimated. This is what happens when a
>> country becomes grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's
>> happened before.
>>
>> At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia".
>>
>> And the best is too good for America. F-35s are good enough.
>>
>> TL
>
> I think the early-warning radar still works. Those waves of Bears are
> about gone. Total 64 in service, guess 40 would be the most they could
> muster for waves, 15 hour plus flight time, I think we might be able
> to handle them. You don't?
Yes, there are no more "waves" of Bears. And the number of Blackjacks
is almost insignificant. There is no plausible reason for Russia to use
those planes in such fashion. I am curious as to what a "ong range
escort" would be.

Dean

[Peter Skelton]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 04:43:59 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On Feb 1, 1:16*am, T.L. Davis > wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike >
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...By 1997 officials
>>
>> >had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in
>> >Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11,
>> >2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United States.
>>
>> Unbelievable, isn't it? *14 aircraft to protect the entire continental
>> United States... *This was what NORAD was reduced to?? *Pitiful.
>> What was the defense budget in 2001?? *Who got all the money?
>>
>> What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears
>> and long range escorts?
>>
>> Just incredible. *I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft
>> available on 9/11. *I overestimated. *This is what happens when a
>> country becomes grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's
>> happened before.
>>
>> At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia".
>>
>> And the best is too good for America. *F-35s are good enough.
>>
>> TL
>
>I think the early-warning radar still works. Those waves of Bears are
>about gone. Total 64 in service, guess 40 would be the most they could
>muster for waves, 15 hour plus flight time, I think we might be able
>to handle them. You don't?

The 14 aircraft do not include those in Alaska and the Canadian
Forces aircraft. In other words, they don't include the folks
tasked with providing defense against the threat he's ranting
about.


Peter Skelton

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:16:27 -0600, T.L. Davis wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike >
> wrote:
>
> ...By 1997 officials
>>had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in
>>Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11,
>>2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United
>>States.
>
> Unbelievable, isn't it? 14 aircraft to protect the entire continental
> United States... This was what NORAD was reduced to?? Pitiful. What
> was the defense budget in 2001?? Who got all the money?
>
> What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears and
> long range escorts?
>
> Just incredible. I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft available
> on 9/11. I overestimated. This is what happens when a country becomes
> grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's happened before.
>
> At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia".
>
> And the best is too good for America. F-35s are good enough.
>
> TL

Perhaps F-35s _are_ good enough. Do you really think that there's a risk
of advanced enemy fighters, ones so advanced that only the F-22 can take
them on, swarming into US airspace any time in the near or long-term?
Where would they come from?

About the only place where some adversary could base these advanced
fighters is south of the border (eastern Siberia would be ridiculous -
it's too far away). And I do believe we'd notice these fighters being
based in Cuba or Mexico...in enough time to shift F-22s in.

So generally speaking the ASA mission is going to be checking out
commercial aircraft, not fighters, and in some extremely unlikely
scenarios dealing with a handful of bombers bent on suicide. Why exactly
would you need F-22s to handle any of this?

Granted, the F-22s are better air superiority ac. Precisely the reason
why they'll end up where they're needed, which is not being wasted for
ASA. After all, we're only going to end up with a puny number of F-22s.

Here's the other thing. Given that the most dangerous thing these ASA
aircraft are going to encounter is a manned bomber, on rare occasions,
but more typically a commercial airliner, and they have lots of
intercepts to do in the course of a year, *and* there is an urgency
involved in eyeballing an unknown aircraft, the ASA mission is better
served by having more F-35s spaced out at more bases, rather than having
a tiny number of F-22s located at just a few bases.

After all, while the F-22 is certainly faster, it's not better on range
than the F-35. And 9/11 showed that the threat can come from inside the
border - there is very little response time. Having a super-capable F-22
based 500 nm away from where it needs to be isn't all that useful.

Incidentally, this is not a question of overconfidence...it's a question
of money. Our aircraft cost way too much, and the problem is only getting
worse. You think it's bad now? Wait until the next round of this
discussion, say around 2050, when the US debates whether they should buy
75 replacements for the F-22, or settle for 50.

AHS

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 04:43:59 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> > wrote:
>
>>On Feb 1, 1:16 am, T.L. Davis > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...By 1997 officials
>>>
>>> >had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in
>>> >Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11,
>>> >2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United
>>> >States.
>>>
>>> Unbelievable, isn't it? 14 aircraft to protect the entire continental
>>> United States... This was what NORAD was reduced to?? Pitiful.
>>> What was the defense budget in 2001?? Who got all the money?
>>>
>>> What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears
>>> and long range escorts?
>>>
>>> Just incredible. I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft
>>> available on 9/11. I overestimated. This is what happens when a
>>> country becomes grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's
>>> happened before.
>>>
>>> At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia".
>>>
>>> And the best is too good for America. F-35s are good enough.
>>>
>>> TL
>>
>>I think the early-warning radar still works. Those waves of Bears are
>>about gone. Total 64 in service, guess 40 would be the most they could
>>muster for waves, 15 hour plus flight time, I think we might be able
>>to handle them. You don't?
>
> The 14 aircraft do not include those in Alaska and the Canadian
> Forces aircraft. In other words, they don't include the folks
> tasked with providing defense against the threat he's ranting
> about.

True, but I think the Canadian aircraft only bring the total to 20, 22 at the
most. I am not sure how many QRA are stood to in Alaska at any one time.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Dan[_12_]]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Feb 1, 1:16 am, T.L. Davis > wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike >
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...By 1997 officials
>>
>>> had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in
>>> Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11,
>>> 2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United States.
>> Unbelievable, isn't it? 14 aircraft to protect the entire continental
>> United States... This was what NORAD was reduced to?? Pitiful.
>> What was the defense budget in 2001?? Who got all the money?
>>
>> What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears
>> and long range escorts?
>>
>> Just incredible. I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft
>> available on 9/11. I overestimated. This is what happens when a
>> country becomes grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's
>> happened before.
>>
>> At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia".
>>
>> And the best is too good for America. F-35s are good enough.
>>
>> TL
>
> I think the early-warning radar still works. Those waves of Bears are
> about gone. Total 64 in service, guess 40 would be the most they could
> muster for waves, 15 hour plus flight time, I think we might be able
> to handle them. You don't?

Not to mention Russia has nothing to gain using bombers instead of
ICBM and SLBM if they wish to start something stupid.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

damarkley wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 1:16 am, T.L. Davis > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...By 1997 officials
>>>
>>>> had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in
>>>> Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11,
>>>> 2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United
>>>> States.
>>> Unbelievable, isn't it? 14 aircraft to protect the entire continental
>>> United States... This was what NORAD was reduced to?? Pitiful.
>>> What was the defense budget in 2001?? Who got all the money?
>>>
>>> What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears
>>> and long range escorts?
>>>
>>> Just incredible. I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft
>>> available on 9/11. I overestimated. This is what happens when a
>>> country becomes grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's
>>> happened before.
>>>
>>> At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia".
>>>
>>> And the best is too good for America. F-35s are good enough.
>>>
>>> TL
>>
>> I think the early-warning radar still works. Those waves of Bears are
>> about gone. Total 64 in service, guess 40 would be the most they could
>> muster for waves, 15 hour plus flight time, I think we might be able
>> to handle them. You don't?
> Yes, there are no more "waves" of Bears. And the number of Blackjacks
> is almost insignificant. There is no plausible reason for Russia to use
> those planes in such fashion. I am curious as to what a "ong range
> escort" would be.
>
> Dean

"Long range escort" = call girl along for the ride?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Skelton]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:51:56 -0500, "Andrew Chaplin"
> wrote:

>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 04:43:59 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 1, 1:16 am, T.L. Davis > wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...By 1997 officials
>>>>
>>>> >had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in
>>>> >Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11,
>>>> >2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United
>>>> >States.
>>>>
>>>> Unbelievable, isn't it? 14 aircraft to protect the entire continental
>>>> United States... This was what NORAD was reduced to?? Pitiful.
>>>> What was the defense budget in 2001?? Who got all the money?
>>>>
>>>> What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears
>>>> and long range escorts?
>>>>
>>>> Just incredible. I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft
>>>> available on 9/11. I overestimated. This is what happens when a
>>>> country becomes grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's
>>>> happened before.
>>>>
>>>> At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia".
>>>>
>>>> And the best is too good for America. F-35s are good enough.
>>>>
>>>> TL
>>>
>>>I think the early-warning radar still works. Those waves of Bears are
>>>about gone. Total 64 in service, guess 40 would be the most they could
>>>muster for waves, 15 hour plus flight time, I think we might be able
>>>to handle them. You don't?
>>
>> The 14 aircraft do not include those in Alaska and the Canadian
>> Forces aircraft. In other words, they don't include the folks
>> tasked with providing defense against the threat he's ranting
>> about.
>
>True, but I think the Canadian aircraft only bring the total to 20, 22 at the
>most. I am not sure how many QRA are stood to in Alaska at any one time.

Four at each of two bases on immediate plus eight each that could
be available in time less whatever has been siphoned off by Noble
Eagle isn't it?


Peter Skelton

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:01:51 -0600, Dan wrote:
[ SNIP ]
> Not to mention Russia has nothing to gain using bombers instead of
> ICBM and SLBM if they wish to start something stupid.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

What's your take on the core question? Namely, the adequacy of F-35s for
this role?

AHS

[damarkley]

Dan wrote:
> damarkley wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 1:16 am, T.L. Davis > wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:32:20 -0800 (PST), Mike >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...By 1997 officials
>>>>
>>>>> had suggested a "four corners" defense, maintaining alert sites in
>>>>> Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and Florida. By September 11,
>>>>> 2001,only 14 interceptor aircraft were sitting alert in the United
>>>>> States.
>>>> Unbelievable, isn't it? 14 aircraft to protect the entire continental
>>>> United States... This was what NORAD was reduced to?? Pitiful.
>>>> What was the defense budget in 2001?? Who got all the money?
>>>>
>>>> What if Russia had launched an old style attack with waves of Bears
>>>> and long range escorts?
>>>>
>>>> Just incredible. I had thought that we had all of 16 aircraft
>>>> available on 9/11. I overestimated. This is what happens when a
>>>> country becomes grossly overconfident in its own defenses, and it's
>>>> happened before.
>>>>
>>>> At times we are truly "The United States of Amnesia".
>>>>
>>>> And the best is too good for America. F-35s are good enough.
>>>>
>>>> TL
>>>
>>> I think the early-warning radar still works. Those waves of Bears are
>>> about gone. Total 64 in service, guess 40 would be the most they could
>>> muster for waves, 15 hour plus flight time, I think we might be able
>>> to handle them. You don't?
>> Yes, there are no more "waves" of Bears. And the number of Blackjacks
>> is almost insignificant. There is no plausible reason for Russia to
>> use those planes in such fashion. I am curious as to what a "ong
>> range escort" would be.
>>
>> Dean
>
> "Long range escort" = call girl along for the ride?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
The Russians do claim to be capitalists, so its possible!

[Peter Skelton]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:33:08 GMT, Arved Sandstrom
> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:01:51 -0600, Dan wrote:
>[ SNIP ]
>> Not to mention Russia has nothing to gain using bombers instead of
>> ICBM and SLBM if they wish to start something stupid.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>What's your take on the core question? Namely, the adequacy of F-35s for
>this role?
>

The issues are probably will be:

1) detector coverage, AWACS, ground-based and in the interceptors

2) response time

3) weapons compatibility

The job could be done with anything from century series fighters
on, the issue with F15's is the aircraft. wearing out, and the
lower maintenance associated with newer technology.

As potential opponents move into stealth, the money will need to
go into detection (and weapons integrated into better detection).



Peter Skelton

[Ian B MacLure]

Peter Skelton > wrote in
:

[snip]

> The 14 aircraft do not include those in Alaska and the Canadian
> Forces aircraft. In other words, they don't include the folks
> tasked with providing defense against the threat he's ranting
> about.

I think the al-Qanadian contribution might have amounted to maybe
8 aircraft on a good day. They only have some 4 dozen or so in
in service.

IBM