On the other hand, I do agree with one point: at some point in the not too distant future (but not now), the F-22 will be as obsolescent as the P-26 was in 1941. The Pentagon will want to replace it with something. (Not the F-35.
)If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...
I think the F-22s would manage to scramble before the enemy aircraft caught them on the ground. So no, not quite the same situation.
On the other hand, I do agree with one point: at some point in the not too distant future (but not now), the F-22 will be as obsolescent as the P-26 was in 1941. The Pentagon will want to replace it with something. (Not the F-35.)
On the other hand, I do agree with one point: at some point in the not too distant future (but not now), the F-22 will be as obsolescent as the P-26 was in 1941. The Pentagon will want to replace it with something. (Not the F-35.
)Thus, none of these countries has the capability of launching an air attack at the US. Even if they have long range bombers, they wont have capability to escort those bombers with fighters.
The "same situation" is not enough advanced fighters, which are not dispersed sufficiently to avoid unacceptable losses in a surprise attack.I think the F-22s would manage to scramble before the enemy aircraft caught them on the ground. So no, not quite the same situation.
What makes you think a surprise attack would be in the form of an air raid?
There are several options that were not available in 1941:
-- Sneak just one sub close to the base and launch an SLBM on a depressed trajectory, or a hypersonic cruise missile, carrying a nuclear warhead.
-- Sneak a nuke close to the base using a delivery truck, shipping container, railcar, pleasure boat, or ...
-- Propel a nuke from low earth orbit.
-- A "Project Thor" derivative (hypervelocity tungsten rod "shotgun").
-- Etc.
The warning time for these scenarios ranges from zero (ground nuke) to about 5-7 minutes (depressed SLBM/hypersonic cruise).
Good luck scrambling your fighters.
well, in that case, good luck losing all your one thousand F22s in one nuclear attack. There wont be any difference at all, they will all be destroyed. The only difference is that you will have spent the money that could be used in better defensive tactics in an airplane designed for a function where its rarely used today.DeltaV wrote:Thus, none of these countries has the capability of launching an air attack at the US. Even if they have long range bombers, they wont have capability to escort those bombers with fighters.The "same situation" is not enough advanced fighters, which are not dispersed sufficiently to avoid unacceptable losses in a surprise attack.I think the F-22s would manage to scramble before the enemy aircraft caught them on the ground. So no, not quite the same situation.
What makes you think a surprise attack would be in the form of an air raid?
There are several options that were not available in 1941:
-- Sneak just one sub close to the base and launch an SLBM on a depressed trajectory, or a hypersonic cruise missile, carrying a nuclear warhead.
-- Sneak a nuke close to the base using a delivery truck, shipping container, railcar, pleasure boat, or ...
-- Propel a nuke from low earth orbit.
-- A "Project Thor" derivative (hypervelocity tungsten rod "shotgun").
-- Etc.
The warning time for these scenarios ranges from zero (ground nuke) to about 5-7 minutes (depressed SLBM/hypersonic cruise).
Good luck scrambling your fighters.
Who said anything about a full scale nuclear exchange?
Take out Hickam and make it look like a terrorist attack. Keep the remaining F-22s tied-up by moves in North Korea and elsewhere. Then invade Taiwan.
Why would you want to base 1000 F-22s (if there were that many) in the same location anyway?
Total F-22 program cost is less than 2% of the 2009 US federal budget. Cheap insurance.
Take out Hickam and make it look like a terrorist attack. Keep the remaining F-22s tied-up by moves in North Korea and elsewhere. Then invade Taiwan.
Why would you want to base 1000 F-22s (if there were that many) in the same location anyway?
Total F-22 program cost is less than 2% of the 2009 US federal budget. Cheap insurance.
Grabbing Taiwan would not need any effort for Oahu or any other place.
Keeping Taiwan in light of International repercussions is a whole other issue. But, you might compare that to Tiananmen Square, however, my understanding is that they are still sensitive over that, and Taiwan would be a much bigger deal.
Keeping Taiwan in light of International repercussions is a whole other issue. But, you might compare that to Tiananmen Square, however, my understanding is that they are still sensitive over that, and Taiwan would be a much bigger deal.
2% of the federal budget is TOO MUCH. Its like buying a Ferrari (and getting in debt for doing it), although the car you drive everyday continues to be you Ford Focus, just because there is the remote possibility you may one day take your wife to the hospital in a hurry because she is giving birth. Too bad you are not even married yet!DeltaV wrote:Who said anything about a full scale nuclear exchange?
Take out Hickam and make it look like a terrorist attack. Keep the remaining F-22s tied-up by moves in North Korea and elsewhere. Then invade Taiwan.
Why would you want to base 1000 F-22s (if there were that many) in the same location anyway?
Total F-22 program cost is less than 2% of the 2009 US federal budget. Cheap insurance.
1000 f22s... 130 f22s... the same thing as far as scrambling goes in the case of an attack. Are you telling me all those 130 fighters are in the same base?
No. F-22s are (will be) normally distributed across four bases. Virginia, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii. Less than 50 per base. Shifts occur in time of need, but only a fraction can be added to the Pacific without leaving the mainland unprotected.
With a total force of 187 (186 now) there just won't be enough F-22s to spare for the war zone to attain air superiority in time while still protecting high value assets outside of the immediate battle.
To gain victory for a situation like China invading Taiwan requires more F-22s, or very unrealistic kill ratios: 2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing
The scenarios become progressively worse if simultaneous conflicts break out in Korea, the Middle East, and/or South Asia along with terrorist strikes, anti-satellite attacks, EMPs, etc.
With a total force of 187 (186 now) there just won't be enough F-22s to spare for the war zone to attain air superiority in time while still protecting high value assets outside of the immediate battle.
To gain victory for a situation like China invading Taiwan requires more F-22s, or very unrealistic kill ratios: 2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing
The scenarios become progressively worse if simultaneous conflicts break out in Korea, the Middle East, and/or South Asia along with terrorist strikes, anti-satellite attacks, EMPs, etc.
-
GW Johnson
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:14 pm
- Location: McGregor, TX USA
- Contact:
History says it's rather stupid to deliberately design an airplane that USN and USAF must use. The requirements are just too darn different.
There are a couple of notable exceptions, the F-4 Phantom being one. The A-4 Skyhawk was another. I can't think of very many others, unless I go back before WW2.
The only reason F-35 is usable by USN at all is VTOL capability. USAF did not need that. The last big program aimed at a common USN/USAF craft was the F-111. USN never accepted F-111b, and for good reason. At over 60,000 lb, it would have penetrated right through into the hangar decks on landing.
At the time of the LM/Boeing downselect, the LM F-35 was more mature. But that's about all you can say for it.
As for a USAF top fighter, I personally think the F-22 is a better airplane than the F-35. But then again, it's more about the man than the machine he flies.
An experienced reserve pilot, in a Korean War-vintage F-86, re-equipped with a radar detector and air-to-air missiles, is every bit a match for the typical service pilot in an F-15, F-16, F-22, or even the new F-35. We already saw this effect about 1980 with re-equipped F-5's vs the then-new F-15, at Nellis, in NV.
BTW, the radar detector can be a Radio Shack "hotrod". That's what they used at Nellis ca. 1980.
There are a couple of notable exceptions, the F-4 Phantom being one. The A-4 Skyhawk was another. I can't think of very many others, unless I go back before WW2.
The only reason F-35 is usable by USN at all is VTOL capability. USAF did not need that. The last big program aimed at a common USN/USAF craft was the F-111. USN never accepted F-111b, and for good reason. At over 60,000 lb, it would have penetrated right through into the hangar decks on landing.
At the time of the LM/Boeing downselect, the LM F-35 was more mature. But that's about all you can say for it.
As for a USAF top fighter, I personally think the F-22 is a better airplane than the F-35. But then again, it's more about the man than the machine he flies.
An experienced reserve pilot, in a Korean War-vintage F-86, re-equipped with a radar detector and air-to-air missiles, is every bit a match for the typical service pilot in an F-15, F-16, F-22, or even the new F-35. We already saw this effect about 1980 with re-equipped F-5's vs the then-new F-15, at Nellis, in NV.
BTW, the radar detector can be a Radio Shack "hotrod". That's what they used at Nellis ca. 1980.
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
McGregor, Texas
And the reason it is rarely used? There is eqpt. to counter it. Like airplanes designed for a function rarely used.The only difference is that you will have spent the money that could be used in better defensive tactics in an airplane designed for a function where its rarely used today.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I totally agree! China and Taiwan recently signed a trade agreement, something deemed impossible even a few years ago. Globalisation of economic interests stabilizes the world. A Chinese president signing off on an attack on the US will probably be assassinated by economic leaders in his own country. I am sure the same would be possible in the US right now if positions were reversed.TallDave wrote:We don't really have any strategic enemies anymore. Who are next-gen air superiority fighters aimed at? China is liberalizing and becoming economically interdependent with us, India is friendly, and there are no other real powers to speak of. Iran? A bad joke. North Korea? Rusting. I bet half their artillery pieces don't even fire.
The enemies the US is currently fighting are insurgents and terrorists as well as small rogue nations. Those are miuch better dealt with through UAVs and surveillance + surgical strikes.
These are things that the F22 is not as well suited for as a UAV.
Personally I am convinced that the future is in UAVs for everything. UAVs can remain airborne longer, they are cheaper to produce (once you start mass production). You loose one F22, you will probably loose the pilot, you loose a UAV and the pilot will be savely home for dinner with his wife the same evening.
The US has lost the Vietnam war at home and that even for the Iraq war people are asking for a widthdrawal due to the losses of human life on their own side (though already very small compared to previous wars). Seeing this, makes me believe that UAVs are the answer.
Sure, you may argue that UAVs will not be as efficient in dogfights. I fully agree with you. But, UAVs will be much cheaper, you can keep them airborne for a longer time (even if their planes could, F22 pilots cant keep flying forever, they will get tired, thirsty, hungry). You can replace a UAV pilot midflight with a well rested pilot who has eaten, had his morning coffee and has just been to the potty.
You can in theory replace one F22 with a bunch of UAVs (once cost of mass production comes down) and simply overrun the enemy with numbers instead of quality. Sure Chinas/Russias/Indias new superfighter might be able to take down two or three UAVs, but then there could be 5 more to finish him off.
If you want to see a mass versus class lesson, then look at WW2. The Germans had excellent war mashines, but produced in low numbers. What can a hand full of fighter jets do against hundreds of bombers? They cant be everywhere at the same time either. It was totally pointless.
Finally, UAVs are smaller, they are lighter, they dont have a glass cockpit with many sharp corners that increase the radar signature. In todays wars, it is about who sees the enemy first. If the UAVs spots Chinas new superfighter long before it is spotted, it will launch the missiles first and most likely take down the enemy plane. Also, you it can inform other friendly units in the area (read: Net Centric Warfare) and cause a whole barrage of attacks on the enemy.
F22s are yesterdays tech. UAVs are the future.
Btw, in case you have missed it: China seems to think the same. They showed a whole bunch of advanced UAVs at a recent exhibit.
The most important point point for UCAV is as you said, no pilot in the vehicle, but the real advantage of this you did not mention, which is that the limit in modern combat aircraft is not the machine, it is the man. The machine can do way more aerobatically without the man.
In a UCAV vs Manned Aircraft dogfight, I would put my money on the UCAV. It would literally drive circles inside the manned aircraft. In a standoff fight, having a pilot in the aircraft or not doesn't really matter until the evade phase, and again, the manned one is at a distinct disadvantage for defensive G's vice an unmanned.
In a UCAV vs Manned Aircraft dogfight, I would put my money on the UCAV. It would literally drive circles inside the manned aircraft. In a standoff fight, having a pilot in the aircraft or not doesn't really matter until the evade phase, and again, the manned one is at a distinct disadvantage for defensive G's vice an unmanned.
Until compact, solid-state DEWs become standard armament. UCAVs will never outfly automated speed-of-light weapons. The unavoidable remote control loop time lag means that non-autonomous UCAVs won't have a chance against DEWs. Bigger vehicles allow more DEW power and better, longer range sensors. If Mach Effect or something similar works out, "inertial dampeners" (sci-fi term) for manned vehicles may also be a possibility, which would nullify the UCAV g advantage. I'm guessing that compact DEWs will be fielded long before any inertial toys, however, as they are making great progress. Much more progress than the AI needed for an autonomous UCAV.ladajo wrote:The most important point point for UCAV is as you said, no pilot in the vehicle, but the real advantage of this you did not mention, which is that the limit in modern combat aircraft is not the machine, it is the man. The machine can do way more aerobatically without the man.
In a UCAV vs Manned Aircraft dogfight, I would put my money on the UCAV. It would literally drive circles inside the manned aircraft. In a standoff fight, having a pilot in the aircraft or not doesn't really matter until the evade phase, and again, the manned one is at a distinct disadvantage for defensive G's vice an unmanned.
viewtopic.php?t=1643&start=0
Democracy in China and Russia, a done deal, yes? Let's disarm ourselves then, and save lots of money.Skipjack wrote:I totally agree! China and Taiwan recently signed a trade agreement, something deemed impossible even a few years ago. Globalisation of economic interests stabilizes the world. A Chinese president signing off on an attack on the US will probably be assassinated by economic leaders in his own country. I am sure the same would be possible in the US right now if positions were reversed.TallDave wrote:We don't really have any strategic enemies anymore. Who are next-gen air superiority fighters aimed at? China is liberalizing and becoming economically interdependent with us, India is friendly, and there are no other real powers to speak of. Iran? A bad joke. North Korea? Rusting. I bet half their artillery pieces don't even fire.
Chinese woman jailed over Twitter post
52 Journalists Killed in Russia since 1992/Motive Confirmed
Russia joins China in boycott of Nobel Peace Prize as organisers threaten to withhold award
Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined by China