Adios F/A-22?

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah, but when good guys and bad guys fly the same plane (Desert Storm, Iraqi and French F1's) being able to get an optical image (vs IR) can sure help. Even if it only adds 1 more mile to the "positive ID" range.

TISEO came about on late F-4E's I think, never read much about it. Got my F-4 book out at the moment, so might as well see what it says. ::reads:: Introduced on Block 48 F-4E's, which is also the block that introduced manuevering slats. Closed-circuit TV, multiple magnifications for target ident/acquire.

Yup, looks like it's the predecessor to the F-14's TCS. Especially considering they're both made by Northrop.

Edited April 20, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[ewilen]

Okay, last comment before I go home for the evening...

It occurs to me (and I'm surely not the first, in fact I'm probably repeating something I read) that the actual US strategy against the "Grey Threat" is wherever possible (i.e., known friendlies considering purchase of Rafale/Typhoon/Su) to crowd out the competition with sweet deals on current American fighter models and promises of future F-35's. Thus driving up the unit cost of the alternatives and if possible, killing the Western European fighter industry.

[SupremeKaioshin]

That's one ugly plane IMO.

Is it real or a Photochop job?

Graham

its a photoshop.

compare the direction of the peoples shadows with the planes.

ALSO THE FACT IT IS ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER!!!!!

Those aren't camera crew you know!

edit also note the shadow of the wing of the plane next to it. It comes up short of the wing itself while the UAV's shadow extends beyond its wing that would mean two different light sources.

If it launches it's going to clip that 18 and Prowler.

[Mislovrit]

ICBM and Pentagon spending related:

EPA Approved ICBMs

In order to comply with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations, and at a cost of about $5.2 million per ICBM, the rocket motors on 500 Minuteman III missiles will be replaced with new ones. These rockets will emit less toxic chemicals when used.

Thus, if the Minuteman III ICBMs have to be used in some future nuclear war, their rocket motors will not pollute the atmosphere. EPA regulations do not apply in foreign countries, so no changes are being made to reduce the harmful environmental effects of the nuclear warheads.

"snip"

Edited April 20, 2004 by Mislovrit

[J A Dare]

Personally, I doubt that UAVs/UCAVs will ever completely replace manned aircraft in every combat role.

I'm only a layman on this stuff, but there are a few things that concern me about UAVs: -

[*]The time lag it takes for the control signal to travel from the operator in his control room to the UAV. Even though it is very short, I would guess that there is still going to be some delay in response, compared to a pilot who is actually 'there'.

It's designed to be fully autonomous from the moment after pushing the "launch" button to landing...

Breaking new ground

The February test was the only time Northrop Grumman has flown the X-47. Program manager David Mazur says the work was “groundbreaking” in that the team successfully designed and flew a radar-evading but hard-to-control airframe, integrated and tested a relative GPS package previously used to perform unassisted carrier landings in an F-18 Hornet, and figured out how to manage failure modes in the plane’s dual-redundant systems....

Little will be lost, however. Shortly after the test, Northrop Grumman won a $160-million contract from DARPA to supply the Navy with two flying UCAVs by 2006. Engineers were “rolled” from the 31-month-long X-47A program to the X-47B, says Mazur. The B version, as yet unnamed, will sprout wingtip extensions that provide a more stable “cranked kite” design. These and other upgrades should help the plane endure the rigors of catapulted launches and cable-arrested landings, possibly on a carrier.

Dyke Weatherington, the Defense Dept.’s deputy to the UAV planning task force... that future work will zero in on suppression of enemy air defenses, strike, and airborne electronic attack—areas where today’s systems are mostly lacking and where UCAVs could excel. “The department believes the next step in that migration is a demonstration of real combat capability through vehicles like the UCAV programs,” Weatherington says....

....the military has a handle on UAVs in a reconnaissance role, but the goal of UCAV research will be to use the vehicles for strike capability as well. “The hunter/killer is an established element of future thinking,” he says. Like Predator and Global Hawk, notes Zaloga, the UCAV will be designed to “loiter” for long periods—the Predator can remain aloft for 40 hr—but will also carry a “modest” number of weapons and be stealthy and fast enough to deliver them directly to the target without being shot down.

[ewilen]

ICBM and Pentagon spending related:

EPA Approved ICBMs

In order to comply with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations, and at a cost of about $5.2 million per ICBM, the rocket motors on 500 Minuteman III missiles will be replaced with new ones. These rockets will emit less toxic chemicals when used.

Thus, if the Minuteman III ICBMs have to be used in some future nuclear war, their rocket motors will not pollute the atmosphere. EPA regulations do not apply in foreign countries, so no changes are being made to reduce the harmful environmental effects of the nuclear warheads.

"snip"

As reporters go, James Dunnigan is a great game designer. Actually, I have lots of respect for the man, but he's clearly not going to let facts get in the way of a good story.

Here's the environmental assessment report on the Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP). PDF format, 2.8 megs.

As noted in the report, the motors must be replaced if the Minuteman force is to remain viable through 2020. The environmental stuff is incidental to the replacement program, and environmental considerations went into the design of the new motors to make them "more environmentally safe in production, operation, maintenance and disposal." As one commentor at the strategypage.com site notes, operation is likely to mean test-firing. Thus the environmental protections will help safeguard the health of Americans who live downwind of the missile sites, and near the production and disposal facilities.

I don't know where Dunnigan got the info that the new motors will reduce the range of the Minuteman, but since they are fixed missiles with fixed targets, I don't see how it would matter operationally even if true.

Also--how is this relevant to the F/A-22?

[Lindem Herz]

ICBM and Pentagon spending related:

EPA Approved ICBMs

In order to comply with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations, and at a cost of about $5.2 million per ICBM, the rocket motors on 500 Minuteman III missiles will be replaced with new ones. These rockets will emit less toxic chemicals when used.

Thus, if the Minuteman III ICBMs have to be used in some future nuclear war, their rocket motors will not pollute the atmosphere. EPA regulations do not apply in foreign countries, so no changes are being made to reduce the harmful environmental effects of the nuclear warheads.

"snip"

As reporters go, James Dunnigan is a great game designer. Actually, I have lots of respect for the man, but he's clearly not going to let facts get in the way of a good story.

Here's the environmental assessment report on the Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP). PDF format, 2.8 megs.

As noted in the report, the motors must be replaced if the Minuteman force is to remain viable through 2020. The environmental stuff is incidental to the replacement program, and environmental considerations went into the design of the new motors to make them "more environmentally safe in production, operation, maintenance and disposal." As one commentor at the strategypage.com site notes, operation is likely to mean test-firing. Thus the environmental protections will help safeguard the health of Americans who live downwind of the missile sites, and near the production and disposal facilities.

I don't know where Dunnigan got the info that the new motors will reduce the range of the Minuteman, but since they are fixed missiles with fixed targets, I don't see how it would matter operationally even if true.

Also--how is this relevant to the F/A-22?

Dunno man, but if there IS a future nuclear war, I think a few less tons of toxic gases in our atmosphere would be the LEAST of our worries...

[mighty gorgon]

Okay, last comment before I go home for the evening...

It occurs to me (and I'm surely not the first, in fact I'm probably repeating something I read) that the actual US strategy against the "Grey Threat" is wherever possible (i.e., known friendlies considering purchase of Rafale/Typhoon/Su) to crowd out the competition with sweet deals on current American fighter models and promises of future F-35's. Thus driving up the unit cost of the alternatives and if possible, killing the Western European fighter industry.

Remember the LAVI...

(edited for spelling)

Edited April 20, 2004 by mighty gorgon

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Okay, last comment before I go home for the evening...

It occurs to me (and I'm surely not the first, in fact I'm probably repeating something I read) that the actual US strategy against the "Grey Threat" is wherever possible (i.e., known friendlies considering purchase of Rafale/Typhoon/Su) to crowd out the competition with sweet deals on current American fighter models and promises of future F-35's. Thus driving up the unit cost of the alternatives and if possible, killing the Western European fighter industry.

Remember the LAVI...

(edited for spelling)

They doing that to the EF2000 and the Rafale now in Singapore. The F-15E is probably going to win the deal.

[Mislovrit]

ICBM and Pentagon spending related:

EPA Approved ICBMs

In order to comply with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations, and at a cost of about $5.2 million per ICBM, the rocket motors on 500 Minuteman III missiles will be replaced with new ones. These rockets will emit less toxic chemicals when used.

Thus, if the Minuteman III ICBMs have to be used in some future nuclear war, their rocket motors will not pollute the atmosphere. EPA regulations do not apply in foreign countries, so no changes are being made to reduce the harmful environmental effects of the nuclear warheads.

"snip"

As reporters go, James Dunnigan is a great game designer. Actually, I have lots of respect for the man, but he's clearly not going to let facts get in the way of a good story.

Here's the environmental assessment report on the Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP). PDF format, 2.8 megs.

As noted in the report, the motors must be replaced if the Minuteman force is to remain viable through 2020. The environmental stuff is incidental to the replacement program, and environmental considerations went into the design of the new motors to make them "more environmentally safe in production, operation, maintenance and disposal." As one commentor at the strategypage.com site notes, operation is likely to mean test-firing. Thus the environmental protections will help safeguard the health of Americans who live downwind of the missile sites, and near the production and disposal facilities.

I don't know where Dunnigan got the info that the new motors will reduce the range of the Minuteman, but since they are fixed missiles with fixed targets, I don't see how it would matter operationally even if true.

Also--how is this relevant to the F/A-22?

How and when the Pentagon spends its money is very relevant to the F-22.

[ewilen]

I see. So you're saying that America's land-based nuclear deterrent should be allowed to decline into decrepitude so that we can fund the F/A-22?

[Anubis]

Rocket motors only last so long before they need to be time changed. There is an accuracy improvement built into the upgrade as well, so if anything the missles will become more reliable. A time mandated upgrade, so nothing really surprizing there. It just happens to have a more environmentally friendly (and probably technician safer) new rocket motor.

Edited April 20, 2004 by Anubis

[David Hingtgen]

If you read/click all the links, you'll see that test-firings of ones even 33 years old still performed to full specs. Old, but still working fine. Rocket motors sure need periodic replacement, but at this point it's purely for environmental reasons, not degradation.

Next thing you know, they'll want to re-engine every Sidewinder and Sparrow and Phoenix... (AMRAAM's have less visible smoke, and if it LOOKS clean, people think it is clean)

[Anubis]

Next thing you know, they'll want to re-engine every Sidewinder and Sparrow and Phoenix... (AMRAAM's have less visible smoke, and if it LOOKS clean, people think it is clean)

That's a bad assumption people make. Just because it looks clean doesn't mean it won't kill you any slower.

Hydrazine, anyone?

[ewilen]

If you read/click all the links, you'll see that test-firings of ones even 33 years old still performed to full specs.  Old, but still working fine.  Rocket motors sure need periodic replacement, but at this point it's purely for environmental reasons, not degradation.

Sorry to disagree with you, David, but the opening paragraph of the report I linked says

The Air Force intends to execute the Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP) at Hill Air Force

Base (AFB), Utah. The primary objective of the PRP is to extend the service life of the Minuteman III (MM III) missile.

Or elsewhere

The purpose of the Propulsion Replacement Program (the program) is to extend the service life of the Minuteman III weapon system by remanufacturing and replacing the three solid rocket stages of its propulsion system before age-out occurs.

See also http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/ns...tives/mmprp.htm

Analysis of the fielded Minuteman III (MM III) weapon system has predicted ageout of the Stage 1, 2, and 3 rocket motors. To support MM III weapon system requirements into the 21st century, a replacement/refurbishment of the MM III rocket motors including ordnance and integrating hardware is required. The PRP will: 1) provide technology insertion of changes to the existing motor/ordnance designs and processes to replace unavailable or environmentally unacceptable materials, components, and processes in addition to correcting known hardware problems; 2)provide updated flight constants for guidance and targeting software that is verified and validated for operational use; and 3) provide a remanufacture phase which will replace the existing MM III motors before they exceed their service lives.

[...]

The PRP extends the life, maintains the performance, and improves the reliability of the MM III operational force by replacing the solid propellant propulsion subsystems prior to ageout. The solid propulsion systems now in the force are projected to begin aging out in 2002 and must be replaced in order to support current force planning.

Have we been sidetracked sufficiently? Maybe this will help us get back on track. I've only scanned it but it looks like an interesting read:

UCAV – THE NEXT GENERATION AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER?

By Major William K. Lewis (Thesis Presented to the faculty of the school of Advanced Airpower Studies, Air University, Maxwell AFB; PDF, 1 megabyte)

[Mislovrit]

I see. So you're saying that America's land-based nuclear deterrent should be allowed to decline into decrepitude so that we can fund the F/A-22?

One overlooked problem is the timing of the motor replacements when the money is needed elsewhere like the troops in Iraq. During peacetime this wouldn't even be a negative issue.

[ewilen]

Since testing was complete and the first full rate production contract had already been awarded by October, 2001, I imagine it would be difficult and expensive to pause, not to mention pointless since it would only put off a necessary expense. That is, unless you consider maintaining the land based missile force optional.

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?D...79376064&num=12

[mighty gorgon]

But we don't need an F-22 to fight third world nations. So people point to China. (I'm going to ignore India until someone presents evidence that India is considered a likely adversary.) 

Just found this today in Yahoo! and remided me of this old topic. Seems that somebody found the evidence that India must be taken seriously...

Regds,

Gorgon

(edit: simplified the quote by ewilen)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

"WASHINGTON - The success of the Indian air force against American fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air Force general said Wednesday.

"We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we were," said Gen. Hal M. Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command, which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.

The U.S.-India joint exercise, "Cope India," took place in February near Gwalior in central, India. It pitted some F-15C Eagle fighters from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, in mock combat against Indian MiG, Sukhoi and Mirage fighters.

The F-15Cs are the Air Force's primary air superiority aircraft. The Indian fighters, of Russian and French design, are the type of planes U.S. fighters would most likely face in any overseas conflict.

Hornburg, speaking to reporters, called the results of the exercise "a wake-up call" in some respects, but he declined to provide details, other than to suggest the Indian air force scored several unexpected successes against the American planes.

For the last 15 years, the U.S. military has enjoyed almost total command of the air during conflicts. A few fighters and fighter-bombers have gone down, usually victims of surface-to-air missile fire, but in general, American planes have been able to target enemy ground forces at will.

In the most recent invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s air force stayed grounded.

Still, new tactics, better Russian fighters like the Su-30, and a new generation of surface-to-air missiles mean that U.S. dominance could be ending, said Loren Thompson, who follows military issues for the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank.

"The United States has grown accustomed to having global air superiority, yet we haven't put much very much money in the last generation into maintaining that advantage," he said, noting the F-15 first flew in the 1970s.

"So of course the rest of the world is finally starting to catch up," he said.

Hornburg said the exercise shows the need for some new Air Force fighters, particularly the F/A-22 Raptor, which is intended to replace the F-15C. But critics deride the aircraft as too expensive and built to counter a threat that hasn't existed since the Soviet Union collapsed.

Edited June 23, 2004 by mighty gorgon

[That NOS Guy]

To be blunt, the land based missle defense is a thing of the past. With our boomer fleet alone we could do away with those relics and save some money in the process.

[Anubis]

If every other branch can get their new toys then the AF can get its badly needed F-22's.

Bush is even pushing development of new smaller scale tac nukes. Why? Shift that money, and several other of these guys' wasteful pet project funds where it's needed. Start with the missle shield, which still doesn't work right. No one in their right mind would launch an ICBM at us, so it's a waste of money to build this thing. The worry is the vending machine nuke.

At least the brass is coming out and saying we need these jets. Hopefully the bean counters notice.

It's a shame it takes actual "they got us pretty good" data to make someone jump.

Edited June 23, 2004 by Anubis

[fearyaks]

Start with the missle shield, which still doesn't work right. No one in their right mind would launch an ICBM at us, so it's a waste of money to build this thing.

I think the bigger nail in the shield's coffin would be that it basically doesn't work, is a waste of money, and as you pointed out, 'vending machine nukes' or suitcase ones. I think the problem with the F/A-22 that others probably pointed out is that in this war on 'terror' a F-15 can do the same job the Raptor can.

The article referring to India's pilots scoring hits on US planes doesn't say that India is a threat but that we're getting lazy and working on pet projects like Anubis pointed out.

Personally? I don't really see a reason for the F/A-22 when we can't even get basic body-armor and rifles to the troops in Iraq.

[ewilen]

The article referring to India's pilots scoring hits on US planes doesn't say that India is a threat but that we're getting lazy and working on pet projects like Anubis pointed out.

Quite. In fact, I think I referenced the COPE India exercises earlier in this thread, and the fact that such an exercise was conducted strongly suggests that India is regarded as an ally. Whatever information actually comes out of that is likely to be strictly controlled by both countries. Note that no real data has been made available.

Hornburg, speaking to reporters, called the results of the exercise "a wake-up call" in some respects, but he declined to provide details, other than to suggest the Indian air force scored several unexpected successes against the American planes.

[...]

Hornburg said the exercise shows the need for some new Air Force fighters, particularly the F/A-22 Raptor, which is intended to replace the F-15C..

The Air Force wants the F/A-22, they can see it's in trouble, and instead of actually justifying the program, they're simply telling the Congress and the American people "trust us". That's the whole point of this article.

There was another article pointing to a supposed vulnerability whereby an F-15 could be ambushed by an Su which performed a complex maneuver. Of course, the scenario was completely artificial--but the Air Force has tried to hype it in order to promote the Raptor. (Here's a thread where we discussed it.)

[ewilen]

To be blunt, the land based missle defense is a thing of the past. With our boomer fleet alone we could do away with those relics and save some money in the process.

You may be right, but I wonder if Mislovrit agrees.

In any case, the Minuteman modernization program (propulsion replacement and guidance replacement) is supposed to cost about $4.5 billion total, as far as I can tell, so it's ridiculous to compare it either to F-22 or the ongoing costs of the Iraq conflict in terms of budgetary impact.

[David Hingtgen]

Gotta agree with that--what's the point of even keeping the Minuteman around? The Trident II is superior in every way, and much newer, and portable/hidden. And with the first couple of Ohio's being converted to SSGN's, we can now increase the number of warheads in the others, to FINALLY have the FULL capability of the Trident II missiles. Darn nuclear proliferation treaties... And we're also finally converting the Trident I Ohio's to Trident II (Those which aren't becoming SSGN's at least). They're more effective now than when they were first put in service.

[RichterX]

is the F-22 the Raptor?

[Mislovrit]

Gotta agree with that--what's the point of even keeping the Minuteman around?

Iirc it was something to with land-based nukes having better accuracy over sea-based nukes.

[VF-19]

is the F-22 the Raptor?

The F/A-22 is known as the Raptor. Originally it was called Lightning II.

Heck I like the look of the plane so much I'm braving the Italiari 1:72 kit of it... So far so good... Just the usual warped parts.

[Stamen0083]

Heck I like the look of the plane so much I'm braving the Italiari 1:72 kit of it... So far so good... Just the usual warped parts.

You must post progress shots.

I've been considering that model. Sadly, no other model of the Raptor exists. Italeri has a 1/48 but I hear it sucks. The Tamiya 1/72 is just a reboxed Italeri 1/72.

[mighty gorgon]

Quite. In fact, I think I referenced the COPE India exercises earlier in this thread, and the fact that such an exercise was conducted strongly suggests that India is regarded as an ally. Whatever information actually comes out of that is likely to be strictly controlled by both countries. Note that no real data has been made available.

Yes, but other countries like China and Russia also have, or can reasonably have the Su-30... And warping a little your sentence I can honestly say that "...the fact that such an exercise was conducted strongly suggests that the Su-30 is regarded as possible -and underestimated- foe".

just my 2c

Regds,

G.

[VF-19]

Heck I like the look of the plane so much I'm braving the Italiari 1:72 kit of it...  So far so good...  Just the usual warped parts.

You must post progress shots.

I've been considering that model. Sadly, no other model of the Raptor exists. Italeri has a 1/48 but I hear it sucks. The Tamiya 1/72 is just a reboxed Italeri 1/72.

Initial impressions:

Interesting parts breakdown. The main body is composed of 4 pieces. 2 form the nose, and 2 form the rear of the plane. On mine one of my nose pieces was badly warped, and the wing halves on the body are also warped. Luckly the nose was fixed by simply bending the plastic back to where it was supposed to be, and then using tape to hold it in position while the glue dried. The body halves will be easier as it's not badly warped, just the wings are sticking out at odd angles. Missile bays can be done open or closed, and on mine, they're going to be closed. I just don't want do deal with the tiny parts that make up the open missile bay. I'm also leaving off the wing pylons, as I don't think I've seen Raptors with them on.

So far, all I've done on the kit was the nose, and I'm currently waiting for the putty to dry so I can sand.

David: I hear the Italiari kit is flawed, what's "wrong" with the 1:72 kit? It looks ok to me... Aside from the missing gack in the wheel and missile bays, the overall shape looks fine. Also, do Raptors have optional wing pylons, and if they do, won't they ruin the stealthyness of the airplane?

[David Hingtgen]

I don't have one myself, but people I respect say that basically every square inch is off. It's like YF-17 vs F-18. Very similar, but totally different.

AFAIK, the best -22 kit is actually the Airfix YF-22.

Pylons--yup, and it totally ruins the stealth. Main uses will be for ferry flights, and after you've already achieved air superiority.

PS--the -22 kit's potentially biggest flaw is not "missing" stuff in the wells and bays, but the the fact that what is there is 100% fake. P-51 details would be more accurate.

Myself (and others) are waiting for the Hasegawa F-22. Which will arrive within the next 5 years if we're lucky... (If the 18th wing gets some, Hase will start work on it the next day)

Edited June 24, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[VF-19]

Interesting... Every square inch you say... I'll try to remember to post a picture of it when the whole thing is put together (but before painting, like one of WM's in prog shots). Then you can have the pleasure of pointing out all the things wrong with it. On a side note, I saw some film of the actual Raptor, and the model looks pretty good, although it was in-flight footage, so the camera wasn't really lingering on the plane for any length of time...

[David Hingtgen]

Would you rather I just copy+paste quotes from reviews and comments? It'd be easier. I don't think I have any of them saved, but I could find them easy enough I think. Or you could just google the "rec.models.scale" newsgroup and see what you get.

I learn much of my aircraft subtle differences from model kit reviews. I swear 90% of my F-15E knowledge comes from people pointing out all the flaws in the Hase kit. Similar situation for late-model F-16's.

Combined with the fact I've never seen one in real life, I'm not really the person to ask. Perhaps Nied?

(There's just something about seeing something in real life that you can't get from photos)

Edited June 24, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Quite. In fact, I think I referenced the COPE India exercises earlier in this thread, and the fact that such an exercise was conducted strongly suggests that India is regarded as an ally. Whatever information actually comes out of that is likely to be strictly controlled by both countries. Note that no real data has been made available.

Yes, but other countries like China and Russia also have, or can reasonably have the Su-30... And warping a little your sentence I can honestly say that "...the fact that such an exercise was conducted strongly suggests that the Su-30 is regarded as possible -and underestimated- foe".

just my 2c

Regds,

G.

well said. Also China can have the Su-30, I was reading Janes all teh worlds aircraft 2001-02 edition in the campus library and in fact I believe I read that china was recieving upgrade kits for their flankers to update to SU-30 standard. India is not an ally like britain. This is not to say that they will turn on us but you can never fully say who will STAY allied with us if tensions flare. Bear in mind we are also allied with pakistan and pakistan and india have always been at each others throats. IF theres was a war between the 2 and the US jumps in who do you think we will suppport? Remember Iran and Iraq were once allied with the US in the early 80s late 70s. By the end or mid 80s they were both against us. Not just one, BOTH. And to make matters worse Iran had some US hardware, TOMCATS!! (luckily grumman officials sabotaged workable parts or most of them before evacuating).

Russia might get their hands on Su-30s but india is not the only customer. Sukhoi has been making rounds around asia and I believe malaysia is a high contender for it. Many other nations as well. China can have it but shoot even if they dont they have more than enough airplanes to make up for it. Hell they might just go to SU-35 standard.

Air supremacy is dictated by being ready to take on any threat no matter how unlikely. Bear in mind in vietnam people thought dogfighting was dead and done till they saw expensive ass interceptor phantoms knocked out the sky by 50s era gun laden migs. Case in point? Better to be prepared than to think nothing will happen because the moment someone thinks that, deja vu happens.

[ewilen]

"Why keep Minuteman?"

Yes, until Trident, SLBMs weren't as accurate as ICBMs. Minuteman and Peacekeeper (MX) are accurate enough to be used as "counterforce" weapons, i.e., they can knock out Soviet nuclear silos. Polaris/Poseidon (and if I'm not mistaken, early version of Trident) were not believed to be effective in that role. The whole concept of "counterforce" gets into the difficult logic of nuclear strategy, but to the extent it's needed, SLBM's couldn't provide it until recently.

These days, I'd say the main argument for American ICBMs is insurance against a military/technological revolution in antisubmarine warfare. If our subs suddently become vulnerable, we'll still have the land-based missiles. I'm not sure that's a compelling argument, but it makes a certain amount of sense. Of course that begs the question of our overall nuclear needs as well. I'm sure another reason for retaining ICBMs is that the Air Force is loathe let the Navy be the only one holding the keys to The Bomb.

* * *

Mighty Gorgon--if you look upthread, I think you'll see that I've recognized China as a potential adversary, but regardless of the ability of individual airplanes, the PRC's air force isn't going to be a threat to American air dominance for quite some time. Please look back and see if I've missed something.

Edited June 24, 2004 by ewilen