F-22 production termination is premature

[MSimon]

Well yes. And F-22s are a deterrent to the other kind of war.

Who are you so eager again to start a war against?
Iran, North Korea, both?
You think you can afford that?
The cold war is luckily over and it almost ruined the US before. The war in Iraq is certainly one reason for the financial crisis.
So far, you have spent almost the same amount than the bailout plan there. I also dont see any chance of you ever getting your money back from that.

If F-22s are a deterrent to war what makes you think I want a war?

Peace through superior fire power.

Yeah. We can afford it. Cold War almost ruined the US? Is that a joke? We emerged richer and the Soviets didn't emerge at all.

You have to consider the alternatives. Invest in a small war now. Avoid a bigger war later. That is what we learned from 1914 to 1945. Can we be absolutely sure that any particular war has achieved that goal? No. At least not for 20 or 50 years.

BTW no matter what the Cinch says - we will probably be keeping a couple of divisions plus support troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Of course a pull out is mandated for next year. We shall see.

[MSimon]

Skipjack,

I was speaking of the Americans leaving after the Soviets left. Big mistake. About to be repeated.

The "more troops" is not going to happen. Withdrawal is the order of the day.

More troops you do as soon as you can in order to prevent the enemy from consolidating any more than he has.

[MSimon]

Well yes. And F-22s are a deterrent to the other kind of war.

Who are you so eager again to start a war against?

Deterrents are an attempt to prevent new wars.

I have to agree with you though, we'd be *much* better off resourcing one *new* quadrillion BTU/year energy source, or two, or three, rather than spending so much ensuring the continuance of established but 100 year old declining energy technologies, which was much of the point of the Iraq war. Oil & gas in the ground should be the cash cow to fund their own replacements, but we can't expect companies like Exxon/Mobile to finance their own demise.

We don't really need them. The money can be raised privately or government funds can be allocated. Given sufficient political arm twisting.

[Helius]

Hi Skipjack;

North Korea needs deterrence. The F22 is much more capable than the F117 in that it could be on station from outside the battlefield (Japan,
Guam) in just a few hours, whereas the F117 would take much of the day getting there, giving the North "their way" with Seoul. Seoul could be pulverized before any response could be mustered. Stealth would be needed, North Korea may not have rural electrification, but they have SAMs.

Iraq was different. If a city as important as Seoul were in artillery range of several hundred Iraqi heavy artillery pieces, then that similarity would exist. The Iraq war was opened at the discretion of the US military, another Korean war may very well be an angry initiative of North Korea. I'm not so much concerned at this point of "winning" a war with North Korea, I'm more concerned with deterring it. Part of that deterrence is casting doubt that North Korea could waste Seoul by Artillery before even launching a ground offensive across the DMZ frontier. Without the F22, there is no doubt that Seoul could be leveled.

[kunkmiester]

In the matter of dollars spent for capability provided though, we'd be better off cancelling the F-35. We're going to be spending billions more on it, while the F-22 is already in production. Each F-22 gives a much better capability, and the price at this point can only go down. Procurement hasn't made much sense since McNamara, but the F-22 and F-35 are particularly egregious examples.

[djolds1]

Well yes. And F-22s are a deterrent to the other kind of war.

Who are you so eager again to start a war against?
Iran, North Korea, both?
You think you can afford that?

"Start a war with" is the wrong mentality. There are different kinds of wars. The current Pirate War (War on Terror) is a nuisance but not an existential threat to the existence of the US. Even if the terrorists get nukes, they will not destroy the US, but an enraged US' reaction will destroy them. We fight using Marquis of Queensberry Rules; imagine if we were to abandon that (i.e. Tacitus, "They made a desert and called it peace."). Even NK and Iran are small wars. We could topple the regimes as easily as Baathist Iraq was felled; the dirty continuity war/insurgency aftermaths would be annoying, but not a threat to the US.

Can we afford it? Yes. The US military c.2000 was half the size of the Reagan military, with a US economy 2x as large. I.e. we could've maintained a force 4x as large as we had 9/11/01 with Cold War era funding levels. There has been economic contraction since 2000 of course, but we can maintain forces a good deal larger then we have now, and do so comfortably.

Besides the pirate wars however, there are the existential contests. The conflicts and wars that determine the rise and fall of Great Powers. That is what the F22 is useful for. The US has faced three existential threats over the course of its existence. Mexico, Great Britain, and Russia. The US smashed Mexico in war. Great Britain slit its own throat over the course of two World Wars; the US merely stood back and let the Empire die. Russia fell hard after the Cold War, but is analogous to Germany after WW1; it is somewhat revanchist and wants its lost stature back. One more good swift kick to the family jewels will be necessary to keep Russia down permanently. And of course China and India are the apparent contenders for the next generation of the great game.

Staying on top is a good thing. But that requires vigilance and preparation to keep the challengers one-down.

[Skipjack]

Yeah. We can afford it. Cold War almost ruined the US? Is that a joke? We emerged richer and the Soviets didn't emerge at all.

Ahem, I meant before the cold war ended. You know that the US economy was doing really badly during the Reagan eara in particular (Reagan was right in the end though, but that is not the matter of discussion right now). After that, well you had an enemy down on his knees for a while. They needed to get everything from the west and you basically had a new market that would buy your stuff and a source of natural resources. That combined equaled an economic upwind.
Of course you can always try to win wars in order to make money, but that is a kind of politics of a bully and not something I would like to be associated with.

One more good swift kick to the family jewels will be necessary to keep Russia down permanently.

Why? I think they are behaving pretty well right now (aside from some smaller issues that are not even newsworthy anymore).
I would be careful with your ideas. The next war with Russia might be hot and we all would be the loosers of that one. Besides, the world economies are tied to closely already. A war between two major entities like the US and Russia would result in a worldwide economic catastrophy (supply lines cut, markets lost, etc). Words like these make me really scared, dude! I am sure glad noone like you is US- president right now.

You have to consider the alternatives. Invest in a small war now. Avoid a bigger war later.

What "small war" do you want to fight? I cant see any immenent agressors at the moment, just small countries that think they can do some sabre rattling with nothing to show for it. Again, North Korea is a bunch of crazy sandal wearers. If you think that you cant deterr them with your nukes, how would you be able to deterr them with your F22s?
Also, dont you have bases in South Korea? And again, the planes allone wont do in a war with North Korea. You need surveillance and intel to know where your F22s should strike. How are you planing to do that?

Big mistake. About to be repeated.

In Iraq, yes. Not in Afghanistan though, about there I have heard the just oposite. I dont know, maybe you know more than CNN does (I also have to admit that I did not watch much news the last two weeks, so maybe there was a recent chance in policies)?
The war in Iraq was a mistake from the start. Now you have a mess there, that will be impossible to fix. When you leave there it will be chaos. Of course, you cant afford staying there either. Not with the economy as it is and the lack of support from allies (it is solely your own homemade mess, clean it up yourself).

Great Britain slit its own throat over the course of two World Wars; the US merely stood back and let the Empire die.

I think the Germans might disagree with that.

Staying on top is a good thing. But that requires vigilance and preparation to keep the challengers one-down.

Again, the question was more, about what war material you need. Do you need UAVs, or do you need F22s?
In the current wars the US is fighting, you need more UAVs than F22s. That is pretty clear to me at least.

[MirariNefas]

So how long until we get stealth supercruise F/A UAV's?

I like what the F-22 can do. We could feasibly use it in a Taiwan straight crisis (though in the current climate we'd probably just let China have Taiwan). If Russia keeps invading little countries, we could leverage it there. Any other plane would fall hard.

But why keep humans in the cockpit? It seems like the next generation of UAV's will have better performance and be cheaper anyway.

Is there some UAV jamming technology that I need to be made aware of?

[Skipjack]

though in the current climate we'd probably just let China have Taiwan

I doubt that they will take Taiwan. I really doubt that they would dare to do that. The US nukes are enough a deterrend to gurantee that. And again the economic consequences for China (most likely severe sanctions from the UN and blockades) would cost China more than they would gain from taking a small island (with a destroyed infra structure after the war).

Also, again, I dont think that a war with Russia a good idea...
Besides, right now at least they are not invading anybody. They have left Georgia already too, didnt they?

[DeltaV]

Besides, right now at least they are not invading anybody. They have left Georgia already too, didnt they?

"Let us face the facts, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are now effectively under Russian control, and will be for a while yet."

http://www.sosgeorgia.org/2008/09/04/ab ... om-russia/

[Skipjack]

both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are now effectively under Russian control, and will be for a while yet.

I meant though that the Russians did leave the "rest" of Georgia, as had been mandated by the UN.
I am not to sure about Abkhasia. This is not so recent. From that article though it does not look like the Abkhasians are too close with the Russians either. In contrary. So I am not to sure why that is such an issue.
Also, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween the two "truths" we get to hear from both sides. The website you quoted does have an agenda after all. So be careful with your sources.

Personally I see this as a delayed post cold war conflict.
The soviets ruthlessly moved people across the country and after the collapse borders were drawn without any sensitivity towards etnic groups.
Just like it happened with Yugoslavia, this was bound to cause conflicts. In Yugoslavia it resulted in a period of multiple civil wars and there is still some potential for conflict in the region.
The same is true for other former Soviet republics.
I for my part am surprised that there was so little conflict.

To me it looked like Georgia was treating some Russians badly (probably not quite as badly as Russia claimed though) because the Georgians thought that they could do whatever they want. They thought that Russia was still post cold war weak and the US would support Georgia no matter what. Russia was overreacting and tried to teach them a lesson. Guess that worked better for Russia than for Georgia.
Now that everyone knows their place, things will normalize again pretty soon. In 10 years everyone will want to be in bed with each other again anyway and in 20 years they will all join the European Union, or so.
Just like somehow all the members of the EU managed to forget their national conflicts join the big brotherhood, LOL.
I can totally see Russia joining the EU in 10 years from now. They have lots of resources that we want, after all.
The rest of the countries there will come about the same time, because somehow they wont mind being in bed with Russia, if they are in bed with everybody else also.

Now if Russia were to invade the Ukraine, then I do see more of a reason for concern. I dont see that happening though.

This is great thing about globalization of markets and international commerce: Wars become less likely because they would hurt the economy. Wars are now fought better via economical sanctions, if you ask me.
Chevies are now produced in China. If the US went to war with China that would be catastrophic for Chevrolet. Many US citizens would loose their jobs and they would sure vote for the guy that was against the war in the next election. The other way round, China does not have any interest in war against the US. After all they need to sell their Chevies to the US citizens (and quite frankly, noone else wants that crap ).
Chevrolet is just one example. You can also take Levi's just to name another example.
That is how the world works now. It is kinda strange that "the devil money" will be what brings world peace.
I like it

[MSimon]

You know that the US economy was doing really badly during the Reagan eara in particular

Carter. Reagan had to fix Carter and Ford, and Nixon. And he did it in about two years.

Carter had already started the military build up. The repaired economy allowed Reagan to pour on the coals.

One other thing happened in 1982 to give us a big boost. Personal computers became professional computers.

[MSimon]

They thought that Russia was still post cold war weak and the US would support Georgia no matter what. Russia was overreacting and tried to teach them a lesson. Guess that worked better for Russia than for Georgia.

Except for exposing Russian weakness. If Georgia had been an American project we would have had the whole thing in a day. From half way around the world. They couldn't pull it off in their own back yard.

In another 8 to 10 years the Russian blue water fleet will be kaput due to neglect.

Russia will be a continental power only. And with a population declining at the rate of 1 million a year one wonders how long they can even maintain that.

[D Tibbets]

Why stop the F22 production? Asside from political, cost concerns, I wonder how much the march of technology has contributed. The F22 has three advantages- radar stealth, IR stealth (at least from certain angles) and dogfighting manuvering. Add to this the networking capabilities, but these are not directly related to the airframe.
The improving radar technology and anticipation of sophisticated radar networking by first tier opponets will dillute the effectiveness of radar stealth. The dogfighting will always be important, but the progressive improvement in AA missle manuverability, and off boresight capilities will always outmanuver planes.
I wonder how much of a game changer the visual 100 percent coverage of visible (and perhaps IR?) sensers like those being introduced in the F35 will have. At least the claim is that this, combined with 360 degree missles, makes dogfighting or surprise attacks from the 6 oclock position obsolete. This leaves the initial closing advantage that the F22 has. It can kill you before you ever detect them on your radar. The sensers on the F35 will be able to detect a plane well beyond human visual range (weather permitting) so the range advantage may be mitigated to a degree. Another plane with good frontal radar stealth (F35) and similar evolved radar capability could do the same thing - presumably at lower cost, greater mission adaptability, etc.
In otherwords, the F35 (probably with secret US tweaks) might match or exceed the F22 capabilities in all the important catagories, and do so at cheeper initial and operational costs. Of course this assumes the planners assumptions are right. Something that actual combat has ofter proven foolish.
Some of the ideas about visual stealth may become as important as radar stealth. It consists of small size, camafloge paint, LEDs that provide luminance brightness to match the background luminance. Possible color backgroud matching with color LEDs or luminous coatings. Then add the negatively refractive technology that may one day provide effective cloaks against radar, IR, and visual wavelengths.
The sophistigated sensers, cloaking technology, countermeasures, etc may finally (ater decads of prediction) be reaching the stage where the aircraft only needs to be a truck capable of carrying all the weight.

Dan Tibbets

[Helius]

Again, North Korea is a bunch of crazy sandal wearers. If you think that you cant deterr them with your nukes, how would you be able to deterr them with your F22s?
Also, dont you have bases in South Korea? And again, the planes allone wont do in a war with North Korea. You need surveillance and intel to know where your F22s should strike. How are you planing to do that?

F22s with respect to N. Korea are about preventing extortion. Everywhere on the Korean Peninsula is within NK strike range during the opening salvos of a new Korean war. If they're angry enough, they'll strike Seoul with artillery, simultaneously striking S. Korean bases with SCUD quality missiles, all the while suing for peace. If there isn't the capability to take out artillery a few hours away, then they have enhanced extortion leverage against S. Korea and world civilization.
The F22 is an extremely capable weapons system with respect to North Korea's extortion nature, and enhances options in the event deterrence doesn't work. Relying on a nuclear response to deter N. Korea gives them too much leeway in putting the squeeze on S. Korea.