Aircraft VS super thread!

[Uxi]

I agree!!!!! Eagles, though very powerful and capable, are going old, and at least if the F-22 is replacing it, it will be replaced by something better than it in every which way not inferior to it.

That's how this aircraft neophyte feels about it, anyways.

[David Hingtgen]

Lakenheath is the closest major base to the Balkans. And the rest of the former USSR, which frankly, few of those nations are very "stable". Spangdahlem and Aviano are pretty much "F-16 staging grounds for when we can't use Turkey". Now that Bitburg's closed, it's the best bet. And most importantly, the UK likes us (at least, more than Germany and Italy at the moment). Diego Garcia--too remote for anything but a B-52.

As for needing something better than an F-15/air-threat: The F-15 is old enough now that even half-assed copies of modern fighters can probably beat it. Forget China, anybody with a few hundred million can get all the Rafales or Gripens they want, and blow any USAF plane but the F-22 out of the sky with pretty good odds.

And, going with Nied here---F-15's are *old*. 1973, 74, 75 builds are ALL in the desert to be scrapped due to age. 76/77/78 won't last much longer, despite being the nifty F-15A MSIP. 6 years from now, all F-15A's and half the F-15C's will be too old for anything but ANG training if that. Instead of $105million F-15K's that are obsolete for air-to-air the day they're built, get the slightly more expensive but 10x better F-22. (105 million each based on last reported price of the F-15K purchase)

[Skull Leader]

Just a reminder to those who might be getting worked up, let's step back and take a nice, deep breath. This is friendly conversation, no more.

David and Nied have a point. Most of the Eagles are just as old as the F-14 Tomcats (remember, even some B and D tomcats are nothing more than remanufactured As) and their service life is leading them well beyond what the Tomcat will see. Already it holds one of (if not *the*) LONGEST service records amongst United States fighter jets. The F-22 has more than proven itself as the F-15 successor (at least ONE branch of the service isn't getting butt-raped on new planes to fly, but that's a different argument). Much like the Tomcat, the Eagle has had a LONG and distinguished record. Now that a worthy sucessor has been found, they can hand off the torch.

Noyhauser, how can you speak of there not being a threat? There are any number of nations that don't like us flying something we call a FLANKER. While they may be technologically inferior to most US aircraft, in the right (trained) hands, they can give anything the US armed forces currently flies (with the possible exclusion of the F-22) a serious run for it's money. What the US fighters achieve through advanced technology, Flankers achieve through brute force. I would say that the F-22 is not only justified, but maybe even REQUIRED.

[Noyhauser]

Lakenheath is the closest major base to the Balkans. And the rest of the former USSR, which frankly, few of those nations are very "stable". Spangdahlem and Aviano are pretty much "F-16 staging grounds for when we can't use Turkey". Now that Bitburg's closed, it's the best bet. And most importantly, the UK likes us (at least, more than Germany and Italy at the moment). Diego Garcia--too remote for anything but a B-52.

I don't think you've noticed but the EU has pretty well taken over most of the Balkan missions, save for KFOR, which will likely go to them in the next couple of years. The Bosnian mission is now called EUFOR, and in KFOR there are very few US troops deployed. Moreover, I don't think the US will ever be fighting overwhelming numbers of serbian fighters, if such an improbable thing ever happened. We had enough F-15s to do the job in Operation Allied Force... how many serbian fighters did we take out?

Serbia wants to get into the EU, and most countries in Eastern Europe does as well. The former soviet union isn't going to do much. Look at Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova. These countries are trying to reform to western standards. Few of them have to money to rearm their forces at all, and we certainly don't need the most very advanced fighter to counter their meager forces, or deploy fighters into the area. If they were such a threat, why is the US closing most of its bases in germany?

I'm still waiting to hear of the monster threat to appear that a US air group will be completely outmatched in size and numbers of opposing forces.

Noyhauser, how can you speak of there not being a threat? There are any number of nations that don't like us flying something we call a FLANKER. While they may be technologically inferior to most US aircraft, in the right (trained) hands, they can give anything the US armed forces currently flies (with the possible exclusion of the F-22) a serious run for it's money. What the US fighters achieve through advanced technology, Flankers achieve through brute force. I would say that the F-22 is not only justified, but maybe even REQUIRED.

I think we've had this argument before... and its really a non starter. Number one, how many fighters would a prospective country be able to buy? Probably less than one squadron, two max.

That is a force that can be easily wiped out by a current US AEF, and isn't an airforce, unless their airforce consists of those fighters.Moroever the Eurofighter won't be sold to countries that are potential agressors due to German Constitutional laws which prohibit such a sale. Why do you think there are no Leopard IIS in the middle east? Saudi Arabia has said it wants them, but there is a constitutional law has barred its sale.

Number 2... Do you honestly think that the buyers will be able to keep up a training standards like the United States Navy and Airforce does? In the right "trained hands" well outside of the west there are very few "right trained hands" and most of them were actually trained by us in the first place. The Former Soviet Unions doesnt' have the training regimen that the west does at all, and most countries skimp on training anyways.

Number 3 ... Do you think the state would be able to buy the E-3 or E-2 behind it, which greatly enhances the capability of any fighter, or produce upgraded missiles like the US and the EU are able to? Probably no on all those cases. The United States will have overwhemling odds for the near future, it doesn't need a fighter designed to fight with the odds against it for the next decade or two.

Edited January 16, 2005 by Noyhauser

[Coota0]

You don't plan to defeat today's threat you plan to defeat tomarrow's, yes today it doesn't seem that we have any threat, doesn't mean there won't be athreat soemtime in the next 25 years, China is growing into more nationlistic country, with treaties with the Russians, whom have technology, while the Chinese have money. The EU is a growing threat, I don't care what you say, You have a country that started two wars in the last century, and a nationlistic France that refuses to admit that it is not a superpower both leading a conglomerate of nations that is becoming more unified by the day. We have to plan for the future.

New Discussion let's talk choppers instead of Jets for a change:

What do you think of the AH-1Z in comparison to the AH-64?

The UH-60 in comparison to the UH-1Z?

The Kiowa in comparison to the Longbow?

[Uxi]

Well can't rely on the Europeans to take care of the Balkans nor the former Soviet Republics. I wouldn't go as far as to say the Frogs and Krauts are enemies... yet... but just in case...

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Now that coota Brought up copters....

Ah-64 vs Commanche

We know the commanche was cancelled but how well would have it faired?

AndAH-64 vs MI-24 HIND

I always thought HINDS were awesome. Armored troop carriers. FLYING ones too!!

[VF19]

I'm fairly sure the commanche would win, as the APache isn't geared towards anti-air stuff. If I recall correctly, the Commanche did have the option of sidewinders. Now that I think about it, so did the Apache. I think the Commanche would take it, due to stealth and maneuverability.

As for HIND vs Longbow, I'd have to say the apache again, as it is infinitely more advanced than the HIND. Against the KA-52 Hokum/Black Gator/whatever, I don

t know.

[Mislovrit]

AH-64s, Apache Longbows, AH-1Zs and Kiowa Warriors can use the sidewinders in case an hostile fighter or helo tries to engage them. Through it is preferable to use ATGMs instead when dealing with enemy helos.

VF19 which Mi-24/35 you're using in the vs.?

Edited January 17, 2005 by Mislovrit

[Nied]

While a Fulda gap scenario with Soviet forces pouring into western europe isn't going to happen there's still plenty of threats out there to potential US dominance in a theatre of operations. The fact is that the last four major conflicts we fought were against foes who either had no airforce or thought air power was useless. In the first Gulf War Saddam Husein openly mocked the US reliance on airpower and felt his own planes were more useful sitting buried in hardened aircraft shelters (considering the IrAF's performans in the Iran/Iraq war that may have been true). In Kosovo the Serbian airforce had been sapped by the previous decade of civil war so that the vast majority of their aircraft were grounded (though they were able to fly a few low level bombing missions under the nose of NATO AWACs planes). In Afganistan, well Afganistan just didn't have an airforce besides a handful of grounded Hinds and two (count 'em) Mig-17s. And in the second GUlf War the IrAF had already been mostly destroyed in the first war. Now wingnut fantasies about going to war with France aside, there are plenty of good airforces that could (and more importently would) be capable of opposing the USAF.

North Korea. Aparently after the first Gulf War Kim Jong-Il wrote an essay lambasting the Iraqis for failing to contest Coalition Air superiority. THe NKAF isn't the most modern Air Force in the world (though they do have several squadrons of Mig-29s) but combined with the extensive redundancies in their air defence network, it could pose a signifigant challenge to US aircraft.

Iran. The IRIAF apears to have been hardened by the Iran/Iraq war rather than weakened. The Iranian aircraft industry is impressive, being capable of producing nearly all the spare parts needed for thier aircraft (including complex F-14 spares). The combination of at least a squadron's worth of F-14 Tomcats, and several squadrons of Mig-29s (some purchased from Russia, others "donated" by the IrAF), along with quite a few older aircraft (F-4s and F-5s mostly) would make them a powerful opponent.

Saudi Arabia. While it seems that the house of Saud has at least for the time being quelled a rebellion, the country remains worryingly unstable. It's easy to imagine a coup taking place putting the Saudi kingdom (and the highly advanced RSAF) in the hands of an extreme right wing Islamist, perhaps even Osama Bin Laden himself. Being armed with F-15Cs, downgraded Es and E-3 Sentries the RSAF would surely pose a grave threat to US operations in the gulf should it turn beligerent (the same could be said for many of the other authoritarian regeimes proped up by the US in the gulf).

There are other examples are imagineable, war in the Taiwan straits is still a posibility, or if we ever decide to get off our asses and do something about the many atrocities in Africa we'd run in to some decently equiped air forces. But the quality of our potential enimies is almost besides the point. Like I said our F-15s are soon to be unflyable, we can either build new F-15s for $105 million and hope that the threats I just mentioned aren't as bad as I made them out to be, or we can spend an extra $10 million and build Raptors that could take on the worst case scenario and still win.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

To follow up on what Nied said,

From what I read the Saudi's also have tornado F3ADV(few on loan from UK) and some tornado IDS. Sure the tornado is not much in a knife fight, but it sure can do BVR, and heck it's also got AMRAAM.(newer ones upgraded). Don't the Saudi's also have F-15S's?(F-15E export to SA).

If I recall correctly, the DPRK also has some flankers too. Though not the super special ones the indians have, nonetheless flankers are highly capable. History repeats itself. If we think stealth and precision strike is everything, then we are putting ourselves in the very minds of those in the late 50s who thought that BVR was going to rid the world of dogfights. It didnt work then and it doesn't work now. The Israeli's had sparrows during the bekaa valley incident and yet what scored the most kills? Sidewinders. Same with the gulfwar. And yes sure the attacks against us are unlikely but as many of us have said, the A2A threat STILL exists regardless. I wouldn't want to fly a B-2 deep into enemy territory without any type of escort, and at least with raptor escorts I know they could hit the enemy fast and before they even realize how they got blown out of the sky. Sure the premise of aerial warfare is to controling the skies but you can't control the skies without any fighters reigning high overwatching the ground troops.

[Nied]

Just another thought on the costs of replacing F-15s with F/A-22s vs the costs of replacing them with more F-15s. If the extra $10 million is still to much to swallow, consider that the current F-15 fleet could be replaced with about 2/3rds to half the number of F/A-22s. If we replace them with more F-15s it would have to be pretty much a one for one replacement.

[grss1982]

and when the hell is Russia and USA going to collaberate with an airplane! Just think about the possibilites!  Radical Design (Su-37,47 and so on) with the latest technological crap in avionics (Fly-by-wire, super computers all that jazz).  I cant imagine what kind of an extreme plane it would be!

a bit Off topic:

If that ever happens, we might be seeing valks flying by 2009 in time for the the zentraedi invasion.

Edited January 18, 2005 by grss1982

[Skull Leader]

and when the hell is Russia and USA going to collaberate with an airplane! Just think about the possibilites!  Radical Design (Su-37,47 and so on) with the latest technological crap in avionics (Fly-by-wire, super computers all that jazz).  I cant imagine what kind of an extreme plane it would be!

a bit Off topic:

If that ever happens, we might be seeing valks flying by 2009 in time for the the zentraedi invasion.

Ummm, this is the ONE thread where that aircraft should not be mentioned In fact, that's pretty much why it exists, to discuss real-life aircraft in combat roles, hypothetical or otherwise. Just to head off any potential snowballing!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Yea bringing the VF-1 into this thread would make it more "fake aircraft" and would end up becoming a VF-1 vs yukikaze thread. So to be fair, I think that is why none of us bring it up. Not to mention aside from thust vectoring, it has only spoilers and flaps as control surfaces so I figure it really wouldn't be that manueverable.

But anyways thats on the border of OT relatively speaking & would belong more in the tv series thread.

Nied, I agree with the raptor replacements making up for the total force of eagles with half the raptors. The capability of the raptor is exponentially greater than that of the eagle, and even externally, can carry a lot of missles as well.I know internally the limit is 8, but outside I think the limit is 8 A2A missles as well making for 16 missles altogethere, and since the one engine has 2x the power of F-4s(read this in a book), then that would lead me to conclude that 8 missles and drag associated would be compensated by the large amount of thrust.

[ewilen]

The F-15K purchase by South Korea has been reported as $4.2 billion for 40 planes, which comes out to roughly $105 million/plane. However, using these numbers for the flyaway cost is problematic, since S. Korea is going to get a lot more than just the aircraft--things like support, training, weaponry, and technology transfers. On the other hand, there were apparently some of "deal sweeteners" on the part of Boeing and the US Government.

The F-15I (upgraded F-15E sold to Israel) was about $84 million in 1998. (Source.) In 2001, the Air Force bought 10 F-15E's for about $57 million each. (Source.) Overall, I'd say a flyaway cost in the $45-$60 million range is what the USAF would pay for an F-15K equivalent.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about air superiority and how it is achieved. Leaving aside the fact that, with or without the Raptor, the USAF's air-air capability will be unchallenged for the foreseeable future due to numbers, infrastructure, training, and--yes--technology, air superiority is not achieved solely or even principally by engaging enemy fighters in the air. The main threat to American use of the skies is enemy SAMs; as for enemy fighters, in any serious conflict the bulk of them will be destroyed on the ground. Their runways will be holed, and the ground-based sensors and air defense networks on which they rely for guidance will be destroyed. As for enemy attempts to conduct attacks through the air, the bulk of the threat is (again) missiles. Most enemy attack aircraft will be neutralized on the ground, and the remainder, if any, will run into an iron wall of interceptors and SAMs if they attempt offensive operations.

[Mislovrit]

Most enemy attack aircraft will be neutralized on the ground, and the remainder, if any, will run into an iron wall of interceptors and SAMs if they attempt offensive operations.

Not sure what mean by interceptors is it AAA, UAVs or conventional interceptor fighters? Usually something have to go wrong if the U.S. Army and the USMC ground forces have to defend themselves from hostile enemy fighters.

[Noyhauser]

Also a quick one from me... I've got to finish a essay about Airland Battle and the Soviet Operational Maneuver group...

The cost of 115 million for the current batch of F-22s, and it itself is a very politicized number... The next batch will involve far higher costs as it does not figure in the cost of having to redevelop the avionics hardware because they cannot build anymore fighters after the first 155 built. This will take at least 5 to 6 years if everything goes to plan, and the costs of just the engineering alone is 300 million. You may think that is not much but.. because the manufacturing is delayed you run into massive cost overrun. Essentially everything stops for production, bbecause nobody knows what the flight architecture will look like, And the DoD is still required to pay the manufacturors to keep their staff and production facilities idle, as well as their subcontractors as well. I wouldn't be suprised if the actual cost for the next batch won't top 200 to 250 million dollars per aircraft, when it is all said and done and the cost for the new avionics is factored in.

So no matter what The next F-22s won't arrive for at least 2010... if that... and a far higher cost than just 115 million. If that is the case, would you seriously consider buying one F-22 over 3,4 or 5 JSFs?

[Nied]

Frankly I'm not as certain that an alternate source of chips could be found for the F-22 avionics. We're talking about fabing chips not building new tooling for a major airframe component, having the same company gear up for another production run, or having another company do it shouldn't cost too much money. And it's definetly be far cheaper than the scenario you mentioned.

Frankly even at an $85 million flyaway cost building new raptors is still cheaper. Remember if we replace our existing F-15s with new F-15s they are going to need to be on a near one-to-one basis, that's over 500 fighters, even at $57 million a copy that's a $30 billion dollar order. While the Raptor is effective enough to be bought in smaller numbers than the Eagle, If we go with the pre-cut production run of 270 examples, we get a price tag of about $31 billion.

[Noyhauser]

There is no way it will cost 85 million, when its flyaway is 115 million now. Honestly you're looking at a 200 to 250 million fly away cost in 5 years (the expected time for the avionics suite to be designed, I'd say its more realistically closer to 7 years) when you factor in cost overruns, and the redesigned suite.... right when the JSF project is running up into production, which is a larger budget priority, and a far more efficient and effective use of funds. Even if the JSF has 1/2 the capability of the F-22 (when it most certainly doesn't) its still more effective to buy JSFs instead of the 22.

[Noyhauser]

oops, I see you meant the F-15.... but again the 115 million fly away cost is for the Current batch of F-22s... not what should be called the F-22Bs

*Edit*... and I misread again....

I'm using GAO figures Nied, as well I can extrapolate figures for what the cost overrun will be for the next generation from other programs if you wish, it will take awhile but I can't see it being under 200 million especially with the previous funding allotment.

Edited January 18, 2005 by Noyhauser

[Noyhauser]

To clarify, its a complete avionics rebuild actually, This is from the GAO website

http://www.gao.gov/atext/d04391.txt

The primary processor in CIP is the Intel i960MX

microprocessor,[Footnote 12] which is used strictly for avionics

processing. This microprocessor is based on 1990's technology and has a

32-bit processor that operates at speeds of 25mhz. By today's

technology standards, the processor is considered obsolete and cannot

support spiral developments beyond the Global Strike Enhanced. In mid-

2003, the manufacturer of the microprocessor informed the Air Force

that it planned to permanently shut down the i960MX production line by

January 2004 because the microprocessor was no longer a viable product

for the company.

As a result, the Air Force decided in November 2003 to replace its

computer architecture and avionics processors to support the F/A-22's

expanded capabilities. In December 2003, the Air Force purchased its

last i960MX microprocessors when it bought 820 of the microprocessors.

According to program officials, this quantity and previously purchased

quantities are sufficient to support production of 155 F/A-22 aircraft.

These officials believe that with some minor upgrades to improve

processing capacity, these processors will be able to support the

baseline aircraft and the developmental spirals--Global Strike Basic

and Global Strike Enhanced. However, the Air Force plans for the

remaining production aircraft to include a new computer architecture

and avionics processor needed to support the final two planned spirals-

-Global Strike Full and Enhanced Intelligence, Surveillance, and

Reconnaissance.

At the time of our review, the Air Force believed its best long-term

solution to its avionics architecture and computer-processing

shortfalls was a new, modern, open system architecture. Rather than

start a new development program, the program office plans to leverage

two other ongoing Air Force development or modification programs for

this processing capability: the new architecture being developed for

the F-35 and the new commercial off-the-shelf general-purpose

processors designed for newer versions of the F-16. According to F/A-22

program officials, this new architecture will be state-of-the-art and

will have ample processing capacity to accommodate all future air-to-

ground capabilities as currently planned. These officials do not expect

the new architecture to be fully developed and ready for installation

in the F/A-22 for at least 5 to 6 years.

F/A-22 program officials acknowledge that this mass changeover of

the F/A-22 computer architecture and avionics processor will be a

time-consuming and costly effort and will likely create additional

program risks. Air Force cost estimates are not yet available.

Nevertheless, program officials estimate the nonrecurring engineering

costs alone could be at least $300 million. At the time of our review,

the Air Force had not made a decision about retrofitting aircraft

equipped with the i960MX microprocessor. Additional risks are likely

because the new processor and architecture are being developed by other

major aircraft programs and will require extensive integration and

operational testing to ensure that the F/A-22 program does not

encounter similar problems that have delayed integration and testing of

the F/A-22's current avionics suite.

So you've got the cost of the engineering to do the upgrade (300 million is probably a very conservative number), The cost to hold the production lines (because you can't build these fighters without the avionics suites), which have already been produced, and a whole host of other problems. Maybe 250 is a bit high, but I certainly can see 200million when all the costs are said and done. And the USAF is not going to buy these things when its paying for the JSF at the same time.

[ewilen]

Most enemy attack aircraft will be neutralized on the ground, and the remainder, if any, will run into an iron wall of interceptors and SAMs if they attempt offensive operations.

Not sure what mean by interceptors is it AAA, UAVs or conventional interceptor fighters? Usually something have to go wrong if the U.S. Army and the USMC ground forces have to defend themselves from hostile enemy fighters.

Conventional interceptors.

The point being that warheads delivered by enemy aircraft will simply not be a factor, whether it be in tactical situations (enemy infantry calling in CAS) or deep strikes against American bases and lines of communication. If a few enemy bombers or fighter-bombers manage to get off the ground, even if escorted by a handful of Flankers or Fulcrums, the USAF will make quick work of them with or without the F/A-22. In the unlikely case that they penetrate friendly airspace, then SAMs such as Patriot and Hawk will provide effective insurance.

On the other hand, enemy ballistic and cruise missiles are a more serious threat. Compared to aircraft, they require far less training and maintenance to operate; launched from hardened silos or mobile launchers, they can't be neutralized by wrecking a runway. They're also much, much harder to intercept than aircraft. But the Raptor won't do anything to neutralize or intercept these weapons which can't be done by other tools in the US inventory. The Raptor will have some anti-cruise missile capability, but that same ability could be built into the F-15; one news article states that the airforce wants to keep it off the Eagle because it doesn't want the F/A-22 to have any competition in the role. At great cost and significant risk, the F/A-22 is slated to acquire improved air-to-ground capability (current estimates are up to $11.7 billion depending on the degree of improvement). However, these abilities are already in the F-15 (and/or future variants) and will be in the F-35.

[Nied]

That's with current plans though. Plans that were written up before we went on a collosally expensive snipe hunt in the middle east. The air Force chose to go with re-developing the avionics because they felt it was a viable option. That no longer apears to be the case, however that doesn't mean that there are no other options. As I said re-opening or opening a new fabrication facility for the i960MX chips would be far cheaper than re-designing the avionics system. It would allow that F-22 to get into the air (with quite a bit of strike capability), and a new avionics system could be designed after the F-35 program is more mature.

I don't beilieve that the F-35 is capable of taking on the mission of the F-15, it wasn't designed for that and it simply does not have the capability for it. It has neither the range nor payload to take on the air superiority mission of the Eagle. It's a hell of a replacement for the F-16 and Baby Hornet, but it's not an air superiority fighter by a long shot.

[Noyhauser]

That's with current plans though.  Plans that were written up before we went on a collosally expensive snipe hunt in the middle east.   The air Force chose to go with re-developing the avionics because they felt it was a viable option.   That no longer apears to be the case, however that doesn't mean that there are no other options.   As I said re-opening or opening a new fabrication facility for the i960MX chips would be far cheaper than re-designing the avionics system.   It would allow that F-22 to get into the air (with quite a bit of strike capability), and a new avionics system could be designed after the F-35 program is more mature.

I don't beilieve that the F-35 is capable of taking on the mission of the F-15, it wasn't designed for that and it simply does not have the capability for it.   It has neither the range nor payload to take on the air superiority mission of the Eagle.   It's a hell of a replacement for the F-16 and Baby Hornet, but it's not an air superiority fighter by a long shot.

I don't think the equipment exists anymore to build those chips. The Tools have probably been trashed, and recycled... it was intel who told the Airforce it was closing it down, not the other way around.. if there was any possibility of it opening up, why would the airforce buy 800 chips at the very end? No I'm quite sure there is no ability to go back. Opening up a chip manufacturing facility would be a horrendous waste of money, It would be far in excess of 300 million because the facilities are probably long gone, they would likely have to be rebuilt from scratch.. and the USAF would be the only customer, for a technology that is 10 years obsolete. Its not a cost effective solution... and it would prevent the F-22 from being upgraded to later capabilities. The F-22's flight architecture would be over 20 years old by 2010, and 40 by 2030. If a new batch comes along, its better to bite the bullet pay for the upgrade, adn then retroactively upgrade the previous fighters. But I doubt that would happen.

I think the F-22 is dead after the next 155, product of bad timing, poor management and most importantly the lack of a global threat to US air superiority. There is no threat. No matter the circumstances the USAF can overwhelm any potential adversary in the air for the next 5 to 10 years, if not the next 15.

As for the JSF being a replacement for the F-15, one of the key traits for the JSF is modularity, I'm sure if it really got that bad, the USAF would have a spiral dedicated to putting in a new radar, uptuned engine and all sorts of goodies needed for it to be a smallish air superiority fighter.

Edited January 18, 2005 by Noyhauser

[ewilen]

Nied, I don't know if you're replying to me or not. If you are, you've missed the key thread of my argument, which is that there's no serious threat to American air superiority, in the sense of using airplanes to shoot down airplanes.

That's why it would be (there's no polite way to put it) ridiculous to envision building the Raptor without intending to give it the ground attack capabilities which have been promised. The -A in the name was added because without the upgrades, the Air Force couldn't justify it.

When I first began to look seriously at the worth of the F/A-22, I wasn't entirely sure which side I would come down on. However, the bogus and desperate arguments emanating from the Air Force in favor of the Raptor--from the misrepresentation of the COPE India exercises to the "Flanker beats an Eagle by executing a perfect Doppler-rader evading maneuver" story--have convinced me, as much as my own research, that it really is a program worthy of the axe.

[David Hingtgen]

Is there any way to calculate "prestige"? If 5 years from now, 90% of our front-line fighters are F-15's and F-16's, while smaller nations have EF-2000's, Gripens, and Rafales---regardless of quantity/training, it just plain doesn't look good on the world scene. Same as a carrier battle group--a big chunk of the effectiveness is its mere presence/existence in an area. But a bunch of old F-15's? Not very "intimidating".

[ewilen]

I'm sure AF will deploy the intimidation factor when their backs are really up against it...

Anyway, even with the current cuts, we'll probably have more Raptors than anyone else has of practically anything else...except maybe Mig-21's.

Edited January 19, 2005 by ewilen

[Noyhauser]

#1 the EF-2000 won't be sold to anybody the US deems a threat in the near future... Germany and the UK will see to that. Rafales, maybe, but I doubt it.

Lets make a little scenario. Lets say a emirate buys 20 or even 40 rafales (3.2 Billion dollars is quite alot) and somehow keeps ALL its planes running at one time. Even if a third of them are deployed the US would have 50 F-22s(1/3rd of their capability) and a shedload of F-15s 16, 35s 18s ect All with far higher quality of pilots, an E-3 behind then guiding them and all the missiles to spare in the world. the US would literally remove them from the skies in a matter of days, if not hours, and if they didn't want to come out and fight they would be destroyed in their shelters.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

You know regardless of whether a threat exists or is not as active as it was before(lord knows it can turn drastically overnight it has in the past numerous times), we should ALWAYS have the best air superiority planes just in case. I don't think any military servicemen would like going to war knowing he doesn't have the best he can have, just something good enough or so. For example. My home country the philippines(actually I was born here but ehh yea anyways thats my ancestry homeland). The PAF only has F-5's and even then only 5(last I read these were bought from thailand discounted). In that region, do you think my people even have a chance of fighting off an invasion simultaneously attacked by air and ground? Hell no! Heck vietnam could take us down and look how badly their military was affected by the nam war way back, but heck in SE Asia they got a good fighting force.

Fact of the matter is this.

Will we face the flanker in the future? Most likelly no but noone envisioned the 5th largest airforce and pro american IRIAF become taken over by fundementalists and turned against the USA. So there is a possibility that one day one country could fight us and use flankers. Slim chance but heck the chance is out there. And....

In terms of capability what does the F-15C really have against the Su-30MKI? It's known that sukhoi flankers are relatively cheaper than eagles, which is why sukhoi is quick to export the brand outside of russia. Which increases the chances of us encountering them. They have IRST, a longer range missle(AA-12 adder) and along with the high AOA, thrust vectoring. Can an F-15 pilot 1v1 defeat a flanker? Possibly. is the F-15C virtually outclassed by the MKI? I'm reluctant to say this but yes. Th flanker has come a long way. but the MKI definitely has an edge not to mention a 2nd crewperson. So SA aside from the bad behind view of the cockpit is increased.

What in the US inventory is better than the F-15C in A2A and yet also better than the MKI? The F-22.

EF-2000 avionics to my knowledge is only 2nd to the raptor and is a lot cheaper. Who knows it could be used by a potential enemy. A F-15C doesn't stand a chance against a typhoon either. ANd the typhoon has passive IRST as well.

The F-22 has all the good qualities of the MKI plus stealth and does it better. Except 3d vectoring.

And to me it would be stupid not to implement A2g capability into the raptor. If it can be built in by all means implement it. It worked on the so called "not a pound for a2g eagle"

[Nied]

I don't think the equipment exists anymore to build those chips. The Tools have probably been trashed, and recycled... it was intel who told the Airforce it was closing it down, not the other way around.. if there was any possibility of it opening up, why would the airforce buy 800 chips at the very end? No I'm quite sure there is no ability to go back. Opening up a chip manufacturing facility would be a horrendous waste of money, It would be far in excess of 300 million because the facilities are probably long gone, they would likely have to be rebuilt from scratch.. and the USAF would be the only customer, for a technology that is 10 years obsolete. Its not a cost effective solution... and it would prevent the F-22 from being upgraded to later capabilities. The F-22's flight architecture would be over 20 years old by 2010, and 40 by 2030. If a new batch comes along, its better to bite the bullet pay for the upgrade, adn then retroactively upgrade the previous fighters. But I doubt that would happen.

I think the F-22 is dead after the next 155, product of bad timing, poor management and most importantly the lack of a global threat to US air superiority. There is no threat. No matter the circumstances the USAF can overwhelm any potential adversary in the air for the next 5 to 10 years, if not the next 15.

As for the JSF being a replacement for the F-15, one of the key traits for the JSF is modularity, I'm sure if it really got that bad, the USAF would have a spiral dedicated to putting in a new radar, uptuned engine and all sorts of goodies needed for it to be a smallish air superiority fighter.

Computer chips are not large structural components, the tooling to create them is not that large or expensive (especially when we are talking about older components like these). THe Air force decided to switch to a new architechure because at the time the money was there to do it and it would give the airplane room to grow in the future if it is needed. However the current spiral upgrades ought to make the Raptor quite capable for the time being, and it could still be upgraded at a later date.

The JSF may be modular but nothing short of a re-design could turn it into an air superiority fighter. It's a strike plane with good self defence capabilities but like I said it just doesn't have the payload or the range to do the F-15's mission as good as the F-15 does, let alone better.

[Noyhauser]

The question is "numbers" The USAF will have more fighters, with far better pilots, and better support. Name me a country you think that would be able to outstrip US fighter production... and actually could deploy more fighters than several US carrier task groups, and 4 or 5 Air expeditionary wings + allied contributions where available. The US will always have over 1500 combat aircraft ready, with more than 200~400 heavy fighters available at any given time. Even china would be extremely hardpressed against that.

Also the question of "always must be better" is a very shallow argument to defence planners. ITs a question of "value for money." The US can spend billions even trillions on "possible threats." The british did so in 1909 with the Dreadnought scandal where Germany was supposedly building 20 dreadnoughts and the UK would only have 12 or there abouts. Britain almost bankrupted itself building 20, and at the end of the war, it was found out that the germans barely had 8. The US doesn't need more F-22s, I'm a strategic analyst by trade, and almost everybody I knows agree. I can't stress this enough. Only the Japanese or the EU has the the economic power to put up a challenge, and if that is the case we should maybe stop giving the Japanese their fighters, and buy the rest of the European inustries (thats a lot of Sarchasm right there). Really I think people should be worried about Europeans doing to little, then them doing too much... in truth though with the creation of a European security and defence program, its likely they will be valuable partners in any threat to the west. They have a vested intersted in the maintence of the International system as it is, they make too much money off of it.

The USAF will have more F-22s than any other small airforce we may potentially fight has fighters. This will not change anywhere in the near future.

[Nied]

Nied, I don't know if you're replying to me or not. If you are, you've missed the key thread of my argument, which is that there's no serious threat to American air superiority, in the sense of using airplanes to shoot down airplanes.

That's why it would be (there's no polite way to put it) ridiculous to envision building the Raptor without intending to give it the ground attack capabilities which have been promised. The -A in the name was added because without the upgrades, the Air Force couldn't justify it.

When I first began to look seriously at the worth of the F/A-22, I wasn't entirely sure which side I would come down on. However, the bogus and desperate arguments emanating from the Air Force in favor of the Raptor--from the misrepresentation of the COPE India exercises to the "Flanker beats an Eagle by executing a perfect Doppler-rader evading maneuver" story--have convinced me, as much as my own research, that it really is a program worthy of the axe.

Actually I was responding to Noyhauser. But in response to your comments I'd say that we do have threats to our air superiority. Certainly we don't have to worry about an enemy nation launching a strike on our bases of operation, but there are plenty of nations with the capability to deny thier airspace to our aircraft. Like I said on the last page the last real operational Integrated air defense network we faced was Iraq's in the first gulf war, and they chose to tie one hand behind their back and leave thier air force on the gorund. Most potential adversaries that we'd face in the next few years (let alone 10-20 years down the road) do have an actual air force and have publicly demonstrated thier willingnes to use it.

And I haven't said that the Raptor shouldn't be given ground attack capabilities, it already has those (they are somewhat limited yes but more than effective). I've only advocated delaying further upgrades until the budget situation gets better.

[Nied]

The question is "numbers" The USAF will have more fighters, with far better pilots, and better support. Name me a country you think that would be able to outstrip US fighter production... and actually could deploy more fighters than several US carrier task groups, and 4 or 5 Air expeditionary wings + allied contributions where available. The US will always have over 1500 combat aircraft ready, with more than 200~400 heavy fighters available at any given time. Even china would be extremely hardpressed against that.

Also the question of "always must be better" is a very shallow argument to defence planners. ITs a question of "value for money." The US can spend billions even trillions on "possible threats." The british did so in 1909 with the Dreadnought scandal where Germany was supposedly building 20 dreadnoughts and the UK would only have 12 or there abouts. Britain almost bankrupted itself building 20, and at the end of the war, it was found out that the germans barely had 8. The US doesn't need more F-22s, I'm a strategic analyst by trade, and almost everybody I knows agree. I can't stress this enough. Only the Japanese or the EU has the the economic power to put up a challenge, and if that is the case we should maybe stop giving the Japanese their fighters, and buy the rest of the European inustries (thats a lot of Sarchasm right there). Really I think people should be worried about Europeans doing to little, then them doing too much... in truth though with the creation of a European security and defence program, its likely they will be valuable partners in any threat to the west. They have a vested intersted in the maintence of the International system as it is, they make too much money off of it.

The USAF will have more F-22s than any other small airforce we may potentially fight has fighters. This will not change anywhere in the near future.

I doubt any nation can outstrip our manufacturing capabilities. However that is no the issue. The issue is how easily we can defeat a nation that we deam to be a threat to our interests. I don't think anyone here is argueing that we are about to enter another World War in which having the F-22 will be crucial to secruing the borders of the United States. But we will enter into conflicts where establishing air superiority over a target area will be signifigantly harder than it has been in the past. Like I have said, the only working IADN we have faced was Iraq's in the first Gulf War, Serbia's was destroyed by ten years of civil war, Afganistan's didn't exist, and Iraq's was destroyed after the first gulf war (after they decided not to use thier airforce). We won't be so lucky in the future.

[Zentrandude]

Name me a country you think that would be able to outstrip US fighter production... and actually could deploy more fighters than several US carrier task groups, and 4 or 5 Air expeditionary wings + allied contributions where available.

canada