F-22 production termination is premature

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:30 am

F-22 is the only US airplane able to fill the air superiority role for the next 30+ years against likely foes. All the other planes mentioned have migrated more and more towards ground attack (the usual evolutionary direction as a fighter ages, with associated weight gains and increased airframe fatigue), except of course the F-117, which is strictly for stealthy ground attack. While F-22 can also do ground attack, its major strength is total air dominance, denying an enemy any and all access to the battlezone airspace. More than 187 are needed to cover future air war scenarios, attrition, basing requirements, etc.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:35 am

Isn't a switch what happens just about every mid-term election?

It's not unusual. Americans are the smartest polity in the world in a lot of ways. We really don't like one-party rule very much, esp. when its heavyhanded. The GOP held on by being fairly centrist (Rove was famous for finding "wedge issues" that had majority support). The Dems are trying to jam through an extremist agenda and it's hurting them badly.

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:36 am

When you build a UAV that can outfight an F-22, I'll support buying them instead. We're working on it, but aren't there yet.

F-16 was designed from the outset to be multi-role, a JOAT to fill in the gaps. The F-15 quickly got a strike role with the E model--which isn't being replaced, the F-22 can't carry some of the weapons it can, it's physically impossible. You can debate the need for some of those weapons, but we're still losing the capability, jsut like with the A-10 and F-35.

Crazy enough, the F-117 was certified for missiles initially, so that it could be called a "fighter" but no one who knows how it flies would ever want to get in a fight with it. I don't think it has any missile capability left at all, but it could carry AGM-65s and AIM-9s. One worry was burning the stealth coating. The Nighthawk is being replaced by the F-22--if I'd stayed at Holloman, I'd probably be loading them right now.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:37 am

Shrug. I remember when we were the laughingstock of the world because of Reagan.
The rest of the world is poorer and less free than us, and what prosperity and freedom it does have it owes largely to us.

Actually Reagan was rather popular here in Germany and Austria (even though he put our president on the watchlist). That way mainly because the "won" the cold war and was ultimately responsible for the fall of the Berlin wall. These things brought him lots of sympathies.
He definitely was waaaay more popular here than both Bushes were, more popular than McCain would have been and waaaaaaaaay mor respected than Sarah Palin was during the elections. Sorry to say that, but she appears pretty stupid. The things she said may appeal to some hicks, but that is it. Her humor is naive and her views are unscientific and silly.

Anyways, I've seen their media. Most of them make MSNBC seem reasonable and centrist.

You may not believe it, but we DO get CNN and FOX News here, due to the miracles of "modern" telecomunications technology, such as satellites (yeah we do have these things now too, you know).
I dislike FOX though due its absolute incompetence in terms of sorting out fact from fiction. Also they sometimes come over as a religious program rather than a news show. CNN, while often biased as well, at least pretends to be unbiased. FOX for the most part is openly biased.
It is true, Austrian, public TV is leftist and incompetent (the private ones are less leftist but more incompetent). That is why I refuse to watch it at all.
There are some German TV stations that are better. I have not watched Sky enough to have an opinion on that one.
Anyway, when it comes to US politics, I rely on the US news channels.

On the planes:
I am somewhat confused. I am mostly aware of the different roles of the older jets, but not so much of the F22. I have gotten several answers now.
Some say that it is supposed to replace the F15, which is mostly a strike weapon. Then some say that it is mean tot be a air superiority fighter, which would make it replace the F18 and maybe the F16 to some extent and that it wont be able to replace the F15 anyway.
So what is it supposed to replace now and what is it supposed to do?
Btw, I am aware of the F117A not being capable as a fighter at all. It does have air to ground capabilities though.
What is wrong with the F18s or F16s air to air capabilities (I know they dont have stealth, but neither do North Koreas planes)?

MirariNefas · Post by **MirariNefas** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:44 pm

Skipjack wrote:What is wrong with the F18s or F16s air to air capabilities (I know they dont have stealth, but neither do North Koreas planes)?

I can't remember if it was the F18 or F16, but I remember news on some wargames a few years back with the most recent MiGs in the Indian arsenal. We got our asses handed to us.

How long can we rely on all our enemies using outdated crap? How long until they start buying the latest stuff from China or Russia?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:29 pm

Sorry to say that, but she appears pretty stupid.

People keep saying that. It does not appear to be true. She is a bigger force in politics now than when she was governor of Alaska.

Here is a short piece that provides evidence contrary to the "stupid" idea by a guy arguing against interest:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... tupid.html

and a bit on her politics in the context of the last election:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... palin.html

I would advise that Euros interested in the future of American politics get a better idea of her politics. At this point I think she has a 20% chance of becoming president in 2012.

I'm reading her book and will be better able to discourse on the subject once I am finished.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:34 pm

Why do I personally like Palin?

I guess I'm a hick at heart.

We have some very smart cultured hicks in America.

BTW "hicks" has been the traditional view of Americans for well over 200 years. You have to ask yourself how a bunch of hicks wound up on top of the world?

And note: Reagan was a hick. Grew up in Dixon Illinois about 50 miles from where I live.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:41 pm

MirariNefas wrote:I can't remember if it was the F18 or F16, but I remember news on some wargames a few years back with the most recent MiGs in the Indian arsenal. We got our asses handed to us.

2004. Indian MiG-21s and Su-30s bested USAF F-15s in "the majority of their engagements."

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archi ... -1817.html
http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/000976.html

MirariNefas wrote:How long can we rely on all our enemies using outdated crap? How long until they start buying the latest stuff from China or Russia?

The Russians & Indians have 2 5th gen fighter designs in the works, PAK-FA and HAL FGFA. Good odds they winnow that down to one. The Chinese are working on the J-XX 5th gen, but would be well advised to drop it and move straight to Autonomous Kill Vehicles. The American advantage for air dominance since WW2 has been not so much hardware as pilot training. Both advantages will rapidly degrade as AKVs come in.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:02 pm

She is a bigger force in politics now than when she was governor of Alaska.

Well I watched her speeches on TV, during the presidential campaign.
Not once (!) did I hear her say a smart thing. In contrary, she always came over as rather stupid. Even conservative people here, also conservative women think of her as stupid. Maybe she is not, but if she is smart, then she is doing a really good job at hiding it.

We have some very smart cultured hicks in America.

Yeah, there are some. No question about it. Sarah Palin does not belong to that group though. Anyone who seriously doubts evolution (with the current state of knowledge) should be banned from running for president.
Just my personal opinion.

BTW "hicks" has been the traditional view of Americans for well over 200 years.

Not where I live. For the past 30 years, "the Americans" here had been associated with Wall Street and Silicon Valley...until Bush came into office.
From that point on "the Americans" was ore associated with people that look like monkeys and are slightly speech impaired.

Reagan was a hick. Grew up in Dixon Illinois about 50 miles from where I live.

Well, he might have grown up there, but did not spend the rest of his life in hick- town. He also was what I would call "street smart". He might not have been the most brilliant president in US history, but he did a good job. Much, much better than both Bushes and also than Clinton (if that makes you feel better).
That does not automatically mean that being a hick is a desireable trait.

2004. Indian MiG-21s and Su-30s bested USAF F-15s in "the majority of their engagements."

You should read the entire article that you were quoting:

USAF pilots were flying "Red Air" -- meaning they were simulating the (presumably worse) tactics and (presumably lower) capabilities of enemy flyers.
That means they walked into the fight with their arms tied behind their backs. It makes for a good media coup in India... But in a full-up fight, I'd put ALL my money on the Alaska F-15C's over the Indian Air Force...

Also, I am not surprised by the Su 30s besting the F15s. Different planes for different purposes.
As someone in that article suggested, maybe more flying time would be beneficial for your pilots.

Anyway, you currently have 700 F15s. Those were supposedly enough for facing cold war Russia. If I was willing to compromise, I would say that half that should be enough to face any enemy other than Russia (though they are not that great anymore either).
It is also a matter of mass versus class. How many of these jets does India have? And again, the F22s are not capable of fully replacing the F15s anyway.

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:47 pm

I am somewhat confused. I am mostly aware of the different roles of the older jets, but not so much of the F22. I have gotten several answers now.
Some say that it is supposed to replace the F15, which is mostly a strike weapon. Then some say that it is mean tot be a air superiority fighter, which would make it replace the F18 and maybe the F16 to some extent and that it wont be able to replace the F15 anyway.
So what is it supposed to replace now and what is it supposed to do?

The F-15E is the strike version. The C and D models are the air superiority versions. The F-22 can't replace the F-15E because it's too low--The larger guided weapons won't fit in the bay, and the wings are too low to carry them there.

The -22 was mainly intended to replace the -15, the F-35 was intended to replace the F-18 and the F-16. Despite the stealth and stuff, this here is a significant loss of ability. Both planes can carry more ordnance than the JSF, and the ultra low observability is not necessarily needed for thier intended role--the F-22s would be hitting air defenses long before they'd be doing anything. The Navy really should be funding a naval "F-22" replace the F-14, and leave the Super Hornets on the low end.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:48 pm

Anyone who seriously doubts evolution (with the current state of knowledge) should be banned from running for president.

"But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt."

That's pretty mainstream.

A lot of people want to think Palin is dumb, and a lot of people in the press work very hard to prove it.

...until Bush came into office.
From that point on "the Americans" was ore associated with people that look like monkeys and are slightly speech impaired.

Because Bush rubbed Old Europe's faces in their own feckless irrelevance.

He also was what I would call "street smart". He might not have been the most brilliant president in US history, but he did a good job.

They weren't saying that in the 1980s. Back then he was a crazy moron who was going to get us all killed with his stupid idea that the Soviet Union was something that should be opposed.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:15 pm

"But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt."

I suppose that this was meant to be a quote by Sarah Palin.
This is not what I remember. I remember more something along the "young earth creationism" opinions.
Now it has been many months and I cant remember anymore exactly where this quote was from, nor where to find it again. All I remember is that she said something along those lines.
That was not the only thing she said though.

Because Bush rubbed Old Europe's faces in their own feckless irrelevance.

No, he pissed people off, by starting a war, ignoring the will of the UN.
That war only benefited two countries so far. Strangely enough none of them is the US...
I leave it up to you to figure out who. One of them was at least unintentional, I guess. Good job!

Back then he was a crazy moron who was going to get us all killed with his stupid idea that the Soviet Union was something that should be opposed.

I can not remember that notion. I remember his speech in Berlin e.g. That is something he is remembered for here. I also remember his nuclear disarmament talks. I remember his totally awesome SDI- bluff.
These are the things people here think of when they think of Reagan.
All I know is that many of the people that were completely pro US when Reagan was president, have turned anti US since Bush came into office.
I notice these things, because I have not turned anti US as I can distinguish between dislike for a president and dislike for a people. I did have a much harder time defending the US though in recent years.
Obamas election did help the situation a little bit. At least it showed that the US has finally matured beyond KKK times.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:24 pm

djolds1 wrote:The Chinese are working on the J-XX 5th gen, but would be well advised to drop it and move straight to Autonomous Kill Vehicles. The American advantage for air dominance since WW2 has been not so much hardware as pilot training. Both advantages will rapidly degrade as AKVs come in.

Unmanned fighters would have a definite advantage with respect to maneuverability (no more 10 G human limit to deal with), but the real issues are the comm link time lags and jamming vulnerability, for the remotely piloted versions, and the available onboard intelligence for the autonomous versions. The actual combat "smarts" required for an AKV, say, one close in size to a manned fighter for reasons of range, endurance and weapons payload, is not all that different from what's already found in existing long range, air-to-air, fire-and-forget missiles, and such an AKV would still be a lot less maneuverable than a missile. Watch some of the Falklands War video of Argentinian A-4s getting chased and killed by 60 G missiles at low altitude.

There are several known ways to defeat missiles (one being stealthiness, as with F-22). AKVs won't be practical until either (a) the onboard computing power edges much closer to that of a human brain, something the AI community has said is "just around the corner" for the last 60 years, or (b) a powerful, speed-of-light, directed energy weapon is carried, which can fire as many times as needed to kill a human opponent. I consider this a more likely development path.

A high-G AKV that's not all that smart, but is carrying a DEW, which keeps on coming until it succeeds, is scarier to me than a "genius" AKV that's trying to outfly me and shoot me down with missiles. Complicating the picture is the likelihood that DEWs (solid-state lasers, neutral particle beams, EMP) will get small enough to also be installed in a manned fighter. The F-35 is designed to allow the possibility of a power take-off for driving such weapons. If both the manned and unmanned fighters have DEWs with gimballed apertures (like ABL), then it comes down to who has the better sensors and which fire control loop is faster (like a western fast-draw).

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:35 pm

I can not remember that notion

.

I can. Remember all the peace marches? The anti-Pershing demos?

I do.

And BTW the USA has been desegregated for 20 or 30 years. As good as it ought to be? Not yet. But much, much, much, better than Jews had it in Europe in 1700.

We haven been a racist country any worse than France for quite some time.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:19 pm

DeltaV wrote:but the real issues are the comm link time lags and jamming vulnerability, for the remotely piloted versions, and the available onboard intelligence for the autonomous versions.

True. Per Jeff Hawkins' take I think that the barriers to AI are overstated, but that the potential capabilities of AI are also overstated. If he is correct, certainly the existential threat of a "Skynet" scenario is easy to deal with - simply don't copy the limbic brain; no emotive circuits, no willpower or desire. Such an intelligence would be like an autistic idiot savant; very, very good at its area of focus, but no other interest in the real world.

DeltaV wrote:The actual combat "smarts" required for an AKV, say, one close in size to a manned fighter for reasons of range, endurance and weapons payload, is not all that different from what's already found in existing long range, air-to-air, fire-and-forget missiles, and such an AKV would still be a lot less maneuverable than a missile.

Cut out the need for a human pilot and we should have the capacity for some interesting experiments in AKV geometry. Discs, spheres, etc. And possibly well smaller then human-adapted fighters; perhaps as small as the '70s HiMAT.

DeltaV wrote:AKVs won't be practical until ... (b) a powerful, speed-of-light, directed energy weapon is carried, which can fire as many times as needed to kill a human opponent. I consider this a more likely development path.

Practical DEW may make the concepts of air superiority and air dominance null and void, with only ground-hugging vehicles that are rapidly able to shift vector being usable.

DeltaV wrote:A high-G AKV that's not all that smart, but is carrying a DEW, which keeps on coming until it succeeds, is scarier to me than a "genius" AKV that's trying to outfly me and shoot me down with missiles.

Such a beast would lose versus an armored ground station, every time.

DeltaV wrote:If both the manned and unmanned fighters have DEWs with gimballed apertures (like ABL), then it comes down to who has the better sensors and which fire control loop is faster (like a western fast-draw).

Likely that the AKVs/UCAVs serve as the forward line, with manned craft beyond engagement range for C4I.