F22's

[Flash]

Stinky,

I know the fear of many US fighter pilots is to have a bunch of older fighters, Mig-21/F-7, will be equipped with the latest and greatest weapons and gadgetry and then be a threat in masse. With what I know about the R and D in the PRC, they have severe problems in that area, even with the basics. The overweight issue with the JSF is very minor compared to what kind of stuff they have problems with. Their whole bueracracy and infrastructure is a huge problem as well. While I do not underestimate the Chinese work ethic and the caliber of their people, the fundamental problems with how their defense industry is set up is going to take years, or even decades, to fix.

Remember, it’s very healthy to question our war fighting ability. If we tell ourselves we’re the greatest all time, we’re gonna get lazy and soft.

Remember this: It’s not that we’re the world’s greatest air power; we just suck less than everyone else.

I do agree that the US cannot rest on its laurels as the guys who suck the least on the block in ACM (except the Israelis). I am worried that the aggressor programs will be further cut in the future, but I am not the decision maker on that.

And just because some booger eater in air intelligence told you that the Chinese pilots suck, doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong.

I don't trust Intel O's as far as I could throw them. I have seen them fly several times with my own eyes, they can't even fly form all that well. I also have some more revealing personal experience with them and that is even more of an eye opener. A handful are ok but 98% are straight and level day VFR flyers. It took serious and fundemantal change in their military system to even get to a competent level.

China's got hundreds of antiquated bombers-but those bombers carry antiship missiles w/huge warheads and a few hundred SSKs

They actually have very few bombers that can carry ASM's.

The seed for the JAG episode was a real incident. A retired Marine general, I believe it was VanRiper, was given the job of leading the OpFor during an exercise. He did a bunch of things very outside the box, and allegedly outside the guidelines of the wargame. These led to his getting fired.

Retired LGEN from the Marines. Quit the excercise becase of constraints put on his ability to fight. Stayed on as an advisor for the rest of the excercise. That is the kind of threat I am most worried about, assymetrical.

 

[kmac]

You guys actually watch JAG too.... phew. I thought I was alone.

Can someone explain the whole surge concept when it comes to CVBGs? I thought the point was to be able to call it up near immediately (in its surge window) for action if need be. Am I understanding this incorrectly?

 

[stinky]

I am worried that the aggressor programs will be further cut in the future, but I am not the decision maker on that.

The potential loss of Adversaries for the Navy is a big issue, I agree. With the plan for Active Duty/Reserve integration (ARI) the Navy stands to lose a good deal of its Adversary assets.

VFC-12, 13 and the F-16s’s at NSAWC are the only dedicated Navy Adversary Squadrons (the Marines have VMFT-401) and VFA-201, 203, & 204 are basically Adversary assets even if we have to play a little mobilization game every now an then. But, with the exception of the Air Force weapons school, our sister service has none.

Now neither of the VFC’s are slated to go away and the NSAWC assets are solid but are only for graduate level training (Airwing/SFARP/Topgun) but the rest of CVWR-20 is under the gun. VFA-203 is all but gone (there’s 15% of the Adversary program) and if Admiral Fallon and Malone have their way, so will VFA-201 & 204 (Almost 50% of all Adversaries when combined with the VFA-203 loss).

The Air Force is learning the hard way that taking frontline F-15’s and F-16’s and using them at an average cost of $40, 000 to $50,000 per flight hour in a Red Air role is not cost efficient. It cost’s the Navy $45,000 per flight hour to use your standard fleet Hornets while in comparison, the F-5 cost’s about $15,000 per flight hour.

We are doomed to repeat the same problem the Air Force is experiencing if we don’t learn from their mistake.

Incidentally, the Navy uses the term Adversary. Aggressor is the Air Force Synonym. It’s a common mistake I hear a lot.

Oh by the way, I haven’t had the chance to mention that I think this is a great forum for Naval Aviation discussion and gouge. Golf clap for Thanks for letting me interject my 2 cents (even if it is only about a half a cent worth).

Stinky

 

[Darin]

I don’t know any Russians of other pilots who have flown a thrust vectored Su-27

If this meant that no else other than Russians have flown thrust vectored Su-27's, it is incorrect...

To clarify, I was saying I don't know anyone who has flown it personally. Nothing to do with who actually has them.

Now, unrelated to above, a lot of arm-chair Military Analysts forget that there is more in the Tech sector to the F-22 than just an upgrade in avionics, thrust vectoring, and a stealthy profile.
But a lot of this stuff you don’t see in magazines so much, so it is understandable that people don’t realize this stuff.

The F-22 is making a whole new doctrine for air superiority. People are looking at it like it is just an extension of the F-15, only better. It isn’t. Think again. It is really designed to fight the same battles in an entirely different way. But, again, arm-chair analyst’s don’t seem to have the tools to look at this aspect.

One example is someone mentioning a “swarm” attack on an F-22 based air defense system. This is really ironic, because “swarm” technology is on of the things the F-22 was designed for. The bandwidth problems were huge for the F-22 because it is designed to eventually control a fleet of UAVs. Engaging MANY targets simultaneously was one of the main objectives. (That and silent designation of targets, but that is a whole different story).

It just seems like too many people are speculating on what they think the shift in technology is aiming for. After a few briefs on the mission objectives of the insanely expensive systems for the F-22 you can see that it is looking to move air combat to a different level. Trying to compare it to current systems is really a little silly. The only way to compare them is in effectiveness, but we can’t do that yet.

 

[Broadsword2004]

Okay I can see this thread is OLD but I just wanted to say one opinion here, because I like this thread a lot; from what I have read, saying the F-22 was designed for a war that no longer exists (i.e. Cold War) I think is kind of foolish, I mean, you never know what could happen in the world in the next 40-50 years. No one does. It should always be of top priority, in my opinion anyhow, to have the top of the line technology military-wise and training. As for the funds of the F-22 program taking away money that could be used for more active army divisions and such, it was the Clinton Administration that slashed the military budget down so far. Had they not done that, it might not be as large a problem.

And I wouldn't think the F-22 is going to be obselete anytime soon either (some people have said this); pilots will be needed for awhile. Things like the unmanned aerial combat aircraft still have lots of variables that a pilot can do, such as controlling them---what happens if the enemy gains control of them off of you, or what happens if you lose control. And other things I am forgetting. Pilots I think will be around for awhile. Air-to-air combat may totally change but pilots will still be around for a long while I would think.

 

[perchul]

In my humble non-flying opinion with next gen aircraft are no where near as important as next gen missiles...with where the US missile tech is going I'm hoping we can trade in an f-22 for some really awesome hot air ballons loaded with lots of air to air.

 

[Clux4]

Okay I can see this thread is OLD but I just wanted to say one opinion here, because I like this thread a lot; from what I have read, saying the F-22 was designed for a war that no longer exists (i.e. Cold War) I think is kind of foolish, I mean, you never know what could happen in the world in the next 40-50 years. No one does. It should always be of top priority, in my opinion anyhow, to have the top of the line technology military-wise and training. As for the funds of the F-22 program taking away money that could be used for more active army divisions and such, it was the Clinton Administration that slashed the military budget down so far. Had they not done that, it might not be as large a problem.

And I wouldn't think the F-22 is going to be obselete anytime soon either (some people have said this); pilots will be needed for awhile. Things like the unmanned aerial combat aircraft still have lots of variables that a pilot can do, such as controlling them---what happens if the enemy gains control of them off of you, or what happens if you lose control. And other things I am forgetting. Pilots I think will be around for awhile. Air-to-air combat may totally change but pilots will still be around for a long while I would think.

Have you heard or read about the Tomahawk missles lately and their amazing capabilities. If not, try and do so.

 

[Broadsword2004]

Are you replying to what perchul2 said, or do you mean, in other words, "If you read about how capable the new Tomahawk missiles are, you'll realize we do not need the F22...etc..."?

 

[Clux4]

exactly......

 

[Broadsword2004]

So do you mean, in your opinion, the Tomahawks are good enough to prevent us from needing the F-22, or just that they are so good that making a new plane is kind of pointless in that no plane could outrun a Tomahawk anyhow? (I have not read about them yet).

 

[Clux4]

We will still need fast, fighters but this in my opinion does not necessitate the building of an F-22. The face of war is changing and what is it changing to? The use of smaller aircraft for recon. is one of the new faces of war. The Tomahawks will definitely not fill the role of an F-22/fighter plane but their accomplishments in the ongoing war is fantastic.