If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 6, 1:33*pm, hcobb wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:35*am, Ed Rasimus wrote: Today our real concern is total numbers. With the Raptor buy apparently over, we really don't have a nucleus of a globally effective operational fleet. 187 aircraft, minus not-in-commission frames, minus training aircraft, minus periodic maintenance aircraft leaves you with roughly a half-dozen squadrons. You've got to have more airplanes and that means F-35 numbers in the absence of F-22s. The flexibilty of the F-35 with A/G optimization and reasonable A/A capability makes it the next iteration of F-16 paired with F-15 air superiority. Against which nation will the USAF require more than six squadrons of Raptors to shoot down all of their high end fighters? *Either now or anytime in the next two decades. The F-16 comparison is apt. *The F-15 and the F-22 were designed for the BVR long range high speed interceptor mission that the USAF has never ever done. *The F-16 and the F-35 were designed for the swing missions of dog fighting and ground support that have been very common. The T-50 is a stealth compromised airframe precisely in the way those last generation engines are mounted onto that airframe. *The PAK-FA can either go forwards with some RAM spackled onto that cow or start from scratch and have a fifth generation fighter ready to build in two decades. The F-35 will not fly as high, as fast or as far as the PAK-FA. *It won't out turn it and it won't be able to chase it down. What will happen is that the F-35 will do its missions and when the PAK-FA comes into range the only thing it will see are incoming missiles mysteriously appearing from out of the blue. *Sometimes it may even spot these in time to evade them. -HJC More you have to think of any mission/war in which the United States will not be the attacking nation. The Pentagon has been looking for a near-peer, a nation that might want to fight the U.S.. for about 20 years. There do not seem to be any. The F-22 and possibly even the F-35 seem to be over designed for the real probable use, ground support in a distant battlefield. Imagine the current situation in Afghanistan with only those two aircraft for support. The FA-18 can do that job, now. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 6, 12:42*pm, Jack Linthicum
wrote: On Mar 6, 1:33*pm, hcobb wrote: On Mar 6, 8:35*am, Ed Rasimus wrote: Today our real concern is total numbers. With the Raptor buy apparently over, we really don't have a nucleus of a globally effective operational fleet. 187 aircraft, minus not-in-commission frames, minus training aircraft, minus periodic maintenance aircraft leaves you with roughly a half-dozen squadrons. You've got to have more airplanes and that means F-35 numbers in the absence of F-22s. The flexibilty of the F-35 with A/G optimization and reasonable A/A capability makes it the next iteration of F-16 paired with F-15 air superiority. Against which nation will the USAF require more than six squadrons of Raptors to shoot down all of their high end fighters? *Either now or anytime in the next two decades. The F-16 comparison is apt. *The F-15 and the F-22 were designed for the BVR long range high speed interceptor mission that the USAF has never ever done. *The F-16 and the F-35 were designed for the swing missions of dog fighting and ground support that have been very common. The T-50 is a stealth compromised airframe precisely in the way those last generation engines are mounted onto that airframe. *The PAK-FA can either go forwards with some RAM spackled onto that cow or start from scratch and have a fifth generation fighter ready to build in two decades. The F-35 will not fly as high, as fast or as far as the PAK-FA. *It won't out turn it and it won't be able to chase it down. What will happen is that the F-35 will do its missions and when the PAK-FA comes into range the only thing it will see are incoming missiles mysteriously appearing from out of the blue. *Sometimes it may even spot these in time to evade them. -HJC More you have to think of any mission/war in which the United States will not be the attacking nation. The Pentagon has been looking for a near-peer, a nation that might want to fight the U.S.. for about 20 years. There do not seem to be any. The F-22 and possibly even the F-35 seem to be over designed for the real probable use, ground support in a distant battlefield. Imagine the current situation in Afghanistan with only those two aircraft for support. The FA-18 can do that job, now. Big problem is range. That was a problem in the Libya mission in the 80s, it was a problem in Afghanistan. Carriers are nice if you are going against coastal nations, supporting Marines hitting a beachhead, or islands. Start looking a huge hunks of territory, you need an Air Force and that means bases, tankers, and a bunch of grunts to keep the bad guys away from the air conditioned O club that is serving steaks. Hanging a ton of stuff on fighters is nice. Sometimes you just need a damn boat load of bombs over a target. Bombers do that well. Or you need a lot of bombs that can loiter over an area for hours and hours. Bombers did that really well in Afghanistan for probably the first time. Add on smart bombs to the mix, its one bomb one target. The gomers aren't as stupid as we think they are. Get a fighter on target they can count for a half an hour or whatever until he's out of gas. Time on station depends on range and gas. You can rotate out and tank but for the most part, you build lots of iddy biddy airplanes and send them over in waves. Thing is, we can't build them cheap anymore. And I don't think Republic has a locomotive works. Sorry, can't see us buying Mitsubishi for fighters. Its as much funds as the willingness to just say we need fighters, bombers, tankers, destroyers, carriers, subs, whatever. Block it out. Just because we built one doesn't mean we can sit on our laurels and say the world is fine. That way you end up with sometimes something that doesn't work, is obsolete quickly (mother nature is a bitch, but technology is a real mf..) or you wake up and surprise 30 year old airframes. Technology is nice, keep the mark I brain out of the cockpit, but remember when in Desert Storm somebody started to tally up the cost of each of those $2 million Tomahawks that were neat to watch on the news. Compare that to a $500 Mk82, or even a smart bomb, and you know what the heck all those Tea Party people are going to say, and they're not on this list and they vote. Or at least make a lot of noise. Which drives rationality from any congressperson. Frankly I don't see a lot of work on either this is a defense strategy for the uber long term, a way to cut costs, and getting what the warfighter needs being done. Lots of contractors with slick brochures and suits. But they've been along for decades. We used to be a lot smarter at doing all this. We may be getting a lot closer to that old joke about the AF spending all its budget on one airplane. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1.The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of ironflowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by"Lawless" Bushite | frank | Naval Aviation | 1 | August 30th 08 12:35 PM |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1. The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of iron flowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushi | Charlie Wolf[_2_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 29th 08 03:19 AM |
Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take [bushite] Marines" -American corporations actively attempt to MURDER American women, and American"Men" refus | WiseGuy | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 9th 08 02:50 PM |