Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

In article ,
on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:18:39 GMT,
R. David Steele VE attempted to say .....


It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and
2012.

That's when the PRC has the next Chinese Civil war and breaks apart..

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:47:53 GMT,
R. David Steele VE attempted to say .....


| Not everyone keeps up with various policies and DoD planning.
| the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, was picked
| to plan for this potential war.
|
|Actually, you're the one who seems out of touch. The Joint Staff plans for
|all sorts of wars all the time. But Presidents don't pick Chairmen of the
|JCS to plan any particular wars. Indeed, the Chairman's job is mostly to
|supervise current ops; the Staff does long-term planning regardless of who
|is in charge.

There were several articles in the Washington Post here, when the
GWOT started (just after Sept 11th), on how Gen. Myers was
selected to plan for a possible war with China. And how he was
out of his element with the GWOT. It is common knowledge, at
here in DC, that we do have a war in the making with China. It
would be nice to avoid that war. But Gen Myers does have that
mission.


That is hardly a ringing endorsement for your sources.
And if such a thing is "common knowledge" then some folks need to be both
fired AND thrown in jail.




| China has let it be known, there
| are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
| school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
| east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
| Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.
|
|China's policy appears to be primarily focussed on ensuring that no one else
|interfrres with their own territory.

And they define that "territory" as everything from India to
Australia to Siberia and Japan. The whole of the far East. This
has been China's "domain" for thousands of years. The question
is do you want to be shut out of that area?

They haven't ruled it in a thousand years. And couldn't if they tried.
In fact they seem to be having a hard time ruling the territories they
currently occupy.



| Also China has sent it agents off its soil as it never has in
| 5000 years. They now run the Panama Canal. Have bases all
| throughout the Caribbean. Now own a port (former naval base) in
| San Diego. And they have extensive operations all throughout
| North Africa.
|
|Oh, good grief. China has commercial intereasts worldwide, yes. But
|there's no evidence that running port operations in Panama (NOT running the
|Canal proper, BTW) translates into any sort of aggressive intent. INdeed,
|the company that runs those ops is a Hong Kong-based multinational, not
|controlled by the Chinese government as the fearmongers would have you
|believe.

Since much of "business" in China is owned by the People's
Republican Army (PRA), business is seen as an arm of the
military.

Where, did you say you worked ? A contractor doing Intel ?
It's the "People's Revolutionary Army"



Whether we like it or not, things change. China has been looking
for a chance to be player. With the USSR gone, and Russia weak,
they have their chance. Most of us have no problem if they play
fair and equal. But if they treat business much the way the
mafia does then we will have to learn to be equally aggressive.

The party elite like their MB limo's too much to cause problems.


Not everyone in the world sees appeasement as being fair minded.
Many see those who use appeasement as being weak thus prey.




--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:04:20 GMT,
Chad Irby attempted to say .....

In article ,
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote:

On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article ,
"R. David Steele" wrote:

China has let it be known, there
are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.

Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic
exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies.

Yeah, but suddenly deciding to build up to four aircraft carriers on a
rush program is a bit, well, *interesting*...


They won't have operational CV's and airwings for 20 years. And the PRC
won't last that long so it wont matter.


Especially after they decided to buy some Su-30s. Kinda makes you
wonder if they really bought the naval variant, plan on doing the mods
themselves, or have a naval version of their own somewhere.





--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article t,
Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,
on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:04:20 GMT,
Chad Irby attempted to say .....

In article ,
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote:

On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article ,
"R. David Steele" wrote:

China has let it be known, there
are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers
school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far
east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to
Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia.

Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic
exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies.

Yeah, but suddenly deciding to build up to four aircraft carriers on a
rush program is a bit, well, *interesting*...

They won't have operational CV's and airwings for 20 years.

Only if they're following the US model. You should know that they've
been having their pilots practice carrier landings on mockups on ground,
for example. If they're going up against anyone but the US, all they
have to do is be able to do fair-weather ops.

With a couple of wings of moderately-new knockoffs of some of the
Russian planes, they'd go from no real naval air to the second or third
biggest carrier-borne air capability in just a few years.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Frijoles wrote:

snip

On the warfighting side, if fighting an air war was simply a matter of
stacking jets somewhere, we could cover the entire battlespace with B-1s or
B-2s. (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the
same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?) And
if tanking isn't an "issue," what's up with all the bragging about what a
great tanking capability the Navy's brand new STRIKE aircraft provides...?

Especially since they had to send four more F-18Es to the theater during the
war, to boost the navy's own tanker assets (and of course, taking away airbridge
tanker assets from other jobs, to get them there).

45% of Marine CAS sorties during OIF were flown by Harriers -- that's hardly
a trivial number, particularly if you're on the ground getting shot at, or
facing the prospect of having to deal with massed armor and indirect fires.
IIRC, about 1500 strike sorties were flown off L-class ships, principally
Bataan and BHR which each operated 20-25 jets. A couple hundred were flown
from a "recovered" airfield within 10 minutes of Baghdad.

snip

Would you happen to know which airfield? I've found one source that says it was
"60nm south" of Baghdad, but no other details. Looking at a map,

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...print_2003.jpg

Shayka Mazhar and Al Iskandariyah New appear to be too close to the city, Salman
Pak East is too close and too far east (although the Marines did go by there
IIRR). An Najaf New is due south of Baghdad and about the right distance, but
AFAIK the marines weren't near there in any strength, having crossed the
Euphrates at Nasiriya before heading up between the rivers towards Baghdad. The
Shaykh Hantush Highway Strip seems to be the closest match for distance and
direction, but the marines also went through al Kut, which puts An Numaniyah (I
know they took that) or Al Jarrah in the picture (although they're more SE than
S), and possibly the fields south and/or east of Al Kut, altough they're a bit
far and definitely southeast.

Guy

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

On 2/28/04 11:06 PM, in article
, "Guy Alcala"
wrote:

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin
Brooks" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
SNIP
The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
have".


CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is
on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and
loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of
aircraft, and a good DASC.

That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down
SNIPPAGE... Lots of tanker stats
on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy
wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around
al-Kut.

There's a shortage of USAF tankers in EVERY conflict--especially since the
demise of the A-6 and proliferation of the Hornet. Citing AV-8B ops in OIF
is only slightly relevant. Of course, if you have STOVL capability, use it
(OIF)--providing the threat will permit it. You've already sunk the blood
sweat and tears into it. My point is, the excessive risk in peace time and
the reduction in payload/range isn't worth the small war time advantage, and
the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had the Harriers not
been around to help out.

Yes, it's romantic to operate from austere bases in country... Leap-frogging
your way to Bagdad. No, it's not worth the risk/hassle.

Tell it to the attack helo guys, who leap-frogged their way to Baghdad. Is there
some reason why FARPS for helos to avoid the round trip to Kuwait make sense, but
doesn't for STOVL fixed-wing a/c? The benefits are the same, a mix of more time on
station/shorter cycle time/fewer hours on the airframe/less fuel wasted in transit.

SNIP
And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a
somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile
one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able
to operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a
good thing?

Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a
STOVL F-35 being built.

That and the fact that (AFAIK) the A-10s have been the only (USAF) attack a/c based
in Afghanistan since OEF. Along with the Harriers.

Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF is
jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other
low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking
about.

If you've got at least 3-4,000 feet of usable runway, it might be. Anything less
and it's just as useless as all the other conventional fixed-wing strikers.



SNIP
What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too
many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that
cost.

And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get
rid of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping
like flies.

Guy

Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a bona fide mission--and
can auto-rotate. Why would you want to get rid of them?

Because they're more dangerous than pure fixed-wing a/c, of course. The same
justification you use for saying that STOVL isn't worthwhile. As to auto-rotation
ability, that doesn't seem to have kept the helo crew/pax casualty count down very
much in the current war. Damaging/destroying the tail rotor, its controls or the
drive shaft makes auto-rotations rather difficult.

Guy

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

Not surprising for Puke Bear.

Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ?

I once thought you were an intelligent person.

Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a
case of Berteimania ?


Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

Not surprising for Puke Bear.

Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ?

I once thought you were an intelligent person.

Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a
case of Berteimania ?

YOU sound hysterical.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message

snip

Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR
the
STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well...

Brooks


Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation?

When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in our
manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at least
one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second
ejection
from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd
returned
to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I knew
of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The only
flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier. (Sorry,
that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I
was
on a roll.)

Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to me.

snip

The Harrier accident rate is and has been noticeably worse, Kevin. How much of
that is due to accidents during transition/hovering (which would be the only
relevant stat, to compare with CTOL accidents during landing), I don't have the
data for. The AV-8B is apparently a lot easier to handle in the transition and
hover than the AV-8A was owing to its SAAHS and aerodynamic improvements, and
the F-35B will be even easier (accounts I've read suggest its trivial), probably
owing to a combination of different aerodynamic design and FBW controls. After
all, the basic Harrier design dates to about 1960, or even 1958.

Guy

"José Herculano" wrote:

snip

I may understand why the Marines want some fixed wing capability on their
assault ships, although the plan to replace their Hornets with the STOVL
rather than the CTOL F-35 is looking dumber by the minute.

Why? The F-35s have considerably better range than their F-18A/Cs, and
apparently equal or better range than the F-18E/Fs.

Now the USAF wanting some STOVLs... I can only reason that some political
generals are bowing to the pressure of some politicos that want a larger
numbers of the jumpers to decrease the unit price the UK and others will
have to cough. A CAS F-35? All that costly stealth platform carrying a bunch
of stuff under the wings and looking like the Statue of Liberty on the radar
on account of that, and with a questionable ability to take punishment from
bellow and still be useful on its original role?

snip

As was mentioned in the Comanche decision briefing, when doing CAS (at least
recently), RCS has been irrelevant. IR, visual and aural signatures are far
more important, along with sensors and weapons. The F-35 has all of those, PLUS
radar stealth for those first night of the war missions. And for BAI, INT, OCA,
DCA, etc.

Guy