If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

[Skipjack]

The money problem in the US isn't how much is being spent on the military.

So you dont want to fix up roads, or build schools, or build sewers, infrastructure, etc?
If you keep doing that, there wont be much left worth defending soon.

[DeltaV]

China has a dilemma. Their population is rapidly aging. If they don't become the dominant world power by 2030, it won't happen this century, as elder-care will take priority. India has a nearly equal population which will be much younger in comparison. If China is to seize the opportunity it must move quickly. Am I saying blitzkrieg? Not necessarily. But at the very least, throwing their weight around...

China preparing for armed conflict 'in every direction'

[Skipjack]

China has a dilemma. Their population is rapidly aging.

So is the population of most European countries and nobody here is planning a war (we do make some of the worlds best weapons systems in here Europe though, like the Leopard battle tank and the Type 212 attack submarine).

India has a nearly equal population which will be much younger in comparison. If China is to seize the opportunity it must move quickly. Am I saying blitzkrieg? Not necessarily. But at the very least, throwing their weight around...

Chinas interest has traditionaly always been directed inwards. The only country they could be interested in attacking is Taiwan, since they consider it part of their own country. However, this would be idiotic, since Taiwan and China are finally getting closer again politically. If Chinas economy keeps getting stronger, I am predicting Taiwan to remerge with China in a peaceful way, as an autonomous region, just like Hong Kong did earlier.
It is not like China has invaded Hong Kong and are supressing the people there now, are they? All that does not add up to the scenario you are proposing.
I predict that China will, once their economic strenght is great enough and their polpulation is aged enough (the old generation to old to have more children). They will open their borders and let the people travel freely. They will also undo the one child policy, which is already being openly talked about, last time I checked. Within 20 years, they could add a new generation of young workers that way. Also dont forget that the one child policy only was enforcable in the cities. In the rural areas people were resisting and having more than one child all the time. So they do have more young people in the country than their official statistics may say.

Also, please let me quote the article that you posted:

China's annual defence budget is still less than one-sixth of America's $663bn a year, or less than half the US figure when expressed as a percentage of GDP.

So even assuming that things are much cheaper to produce in China, their military power will only grow at half the pace the US military power grows. Also, as the article says: Their weapons technologies are still inferior to those of the US. The stealthy shape of the craft only makes part of the plane. This Chinese "5th generation" fighter might look like an F22, but I doubt that it truly is a 5th generation plane in regards to its engines, avionics, radar and other instrumentation, which are just as much defining a 5th generation plane as the stealthy shape is.

One more thing to think about when facing China: The F22 can not be used on aircraft carriers (the swing wing version was cancelled in 1991). So it can not really be used much in a war against China, only if it can be placed on friendly military bases nearby China in time (and there are not that many). I doub that it would be possible to air fuel even 186 F22s at once...
The JSF makes much more sense for this, since it can be carrier borne.

Finally, I know that some of you reps here are (of course) blaming Obama for the reduction of the order, but the decision to reduce the order was already made by the Pentagon in 2006. The Obama administration is simply carrying out the recommendation of the Pentagon here.
Not that this really matters that much in this discussion, but I wanted to mention it.

[happyjack27]

The money problem in the US isn't how much is being spent on the military.

So you dont want to fix up roads, or build schools, or build sewers, infrastructure, etc?
If you keep doing that, there wont be much left worth defending soon.

haha. it's like a bad husband/wife saying "our money problems have nothing to do with me going out and buying lots of stuff that i don't really need."

i love the logic thou "it may in the forseeable future became possible in some remote sense that some country might decide to engage in a long and expensive (not only economically, but politically and diplomatically!) campaign to drop a few bombs on the us iof they can somehow develop icbms and launch them without us bring able to see with our many satellites sand then w/out being able to intercept them, or in any case something like that, so in conclusion we must be at all times prepared to blow them off the face of the planet 7 times over."

if i had a nickel for everytime i heard that "logic", i'd have a whole lot of nickels. it cracks me up every time.

[ladajo]

China has a dilemma. Their population is rapidly aging.

So is the population of most European countries and nobody here is planning a war (we do make some of the worlds best weapons systems in here Europe though, like the Leopard battle tank and the Type 212 attack submarine).

India has a nearly equal population which will be much younger in comparison. If China is to seize the opportunity it must move quickly. Am I saying blitzkrieg? Not necessarily. But at the very least, throwing their weight around...

Chinas interest has traditionaly always been directed inwards. The only country they could be interested in attacking is Taiwan, since they consider it part of their own country. However, this would be idiotic, since Taiwan and China are finally getting closer again politically. If Chinas economy keeps getting stronger, I am predicting Taiwan to remerge with China in a peaceful way, as an autonomous region, just like Hong Kong did earlier.
It is not like China has invaded Hong Kong and are supressing the people there now, are they? All that does not add up to the scenario you are proposing.
I predict that China will, once their economic strenght is great enough and their polpulation is aged enough (the old generation to old to have more children). They will open their borders and let the people travel freely. They will also undo the one child policy, which is already being openly talked about, last time I checked. Within 20 years, they could add a new generation of young workers that way. Also dont forget that the one child policy only was enforcable in the cities. In the rural areas people were resisting and having more than one child all the time. So they do have more young people in the country than their official statistics may say.

Also, please let me quote the article that you posted:

China's annual defence budget is still less than one-sixth of America's $663bn a year, or less than half the US figure when expressed as a percentage of GDP.

So even assuming that things are much cheaper to produce in China, their military power will only grow at half the pace the US military power grows. Also, as the article says: Their weapons technologies are still inferior to those of the US. The stealthy shape of the craft only makes part of the plane. This Chinese "5th generation" fighter might look like an F22, but I doubt that it truly is a 5th generation plane in regards to its engines, avionics, radar and other instrumentation, which are just as much defining a 5th generation plane as the stealthy shape is.

One more thing to think about when facing China: The F22 can not be used on aircraft carriers (the swing wing version was cancelled in 1991). So it can not really be used much in a war against China, only if it can be placed on friendly military bases nearby China in time (and there are not that many). I doub that it would be possible to air fuel even 186 F22s at once...
The JSF makes much more sense for this, since it can be carrier borne.

Finally, I know that some of you reps here are (of course) blaming Obama for the reduction of the order, but the decision to reduce the order was already made by the Pentagon in 2006. The Obama administration is simply carrying out the recommendation of the Pentagon here.
Not that this really matters that much in this discussion, but I wanted to mention it.

Skip, the whole point of F-22 is supercruise and the combat envelope extensions. Time on station is way better, and you would be suprised at high density tanking cycles and the ability to keep stations covered. basing from land is much easier for F-22 than others. Generally, tanking exceeds pilot endurance, and is planned that way.

Please also do not forget that CVN's are meant to be door openers in the sense of a can opener, and not meant to be extended duration air superiority support platforms. In fact, due to flight deck crew endurance, a CVN has a limit to its high density ops. Paced, they can obviously generate sorties over extended periods, but at a much lower density. That is why historically, if possible, for high density ops, once the door has been kicked, the afloat aircraft will cycle to the beach and do land based ops. They can achieve a higher sortie rate that way (and get Per Diem )

Joint Air Planning is a complex business, and getting out a comprehensive ATO every day in a high combat sortie environment is a business that keeps many folks highly employed around the clock driving the Targeting Cycle. Use Afghanistan for a reference, in 2001 you had multiple carriers (from multiple nations) operating in the Indian Ocean, as well as land based air from in the region, and long haul from outside, all coordinating and tanking and hitting both planned and time sensitive targets constantly. From initial entry ops, to superiority and sustained strikes. The same thing was done in Iraq.

Placing 100 F-22's in theater and spinning them up for land based sorties would not be hard, and would more than likely scare the snot out of the chinese planners. The ability of these aircraft to work with CVN based aviation to can open the chinese coast and depth air defenses is not something to sneeze at. Mix in some long haul B-2's, and air and sea launched cruise missiles, you would be able to pry open a large lane, and keep it open, and this in turn would make it very hard for the chinese to sustain tactical pressure on Taiwan.

[Skipjack]

Yes, I am very well aware of the supercruise thing. But you are obviously not aware of the distance between the US soil and mainland China... It makes the fighter very ineffective.
You might have better results stationing them in Okinawa or some other friendly airbase closer to China. Otherwise, you would have no other choice than to rely on aircraft carriers and those need F35s and not F22s.
Of course a stationary base close to mainland China is also highly exposed and very attackable. I would expect it to be a first target for the Chinese if they were to make an attack. That would take the F22s out of the equation- again, especially since they are (like most american aircraft) rather high maintenance and need clean (non bombed) airfields...

[mdeminico]

The money problem in the US isn't how much is being spent on the military. That is only about 5 to 10 percent of what is taken in by taxes from what I've seen. The budget problems are in how the other 90 - 95% are being used, in my opinion.

the u.s. federal budget is publically available online. i encourage you to take a look at it. let me assure you, the proportion of your federal taxes that go to the military is MUCH closer to 50% than 5%. look it up.

The portion of our taxes that goes to military SHOULD be around 95%, because we should NOT be taking so #%*(ing much money from people to pay for these socialist redistribution schemes we've got. Not to mention the government forays into industries that should be reserved for private industry.

Get rid of those, and they'd cut our tax rates by 75% easily. Only the military would be left, along with some basic stuff to support the bureaucracy, including lawmaking, courthouses, what minimal national parks should exist (Arlington for example), and the very few other things authorized in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.

If all that happened, we'd be spending about 95% or more of our tax dollars on the military, and the only reason it'd be that high is because only 5-10% of our money would go to taxes, versus the 60% that does now at all levels of government.

The money problem in the US isn't how much is being spent on the military.

So you dont want to fix up roads, or build schools, or build sewers, infrastructure, etc?
If you keep doing that, there wont be much left worth defending soon.

It's not the government's job to build schools. Heck, the majority of major roads don't need to be built by the government either. We've got the technology now that all roads could be made to be privately owned toll roads, pay for use. Drive a lot, pay a lot. Drive a little, don't pay much.

[happyjack27]

The money problem in the US isn't how much is being spent on the military.

So you dont want to fix up roads, or build schools, or build sewers, infrastructure, etc?
If you keep doing that, there wont be much left worth defending soon.

It's not the government's job to build schools. Heck, the majority of major roads don't need to be built by the government either. We've got the technology now that all roads could be made to be privately owned toll roads, pay for use. Drive a lot, pay a lot. Drive a little, don't pay much.

actually, yeah it is. and its a darn good idea too, unless you'd rather take us back to the dark ages. but education isn't important, and it doesn't need to be public, right? it should just be a luxury for those who can afford it. besides, science when has education ever done anything important for us?

oh, and transportation, yeah... and sewers and sanitation. etc. those should all be luxuries. we should really just follow the model Iraq did and other such countries are still doing, because you know that seems to be going so well for them.

[happyjack27]

The money problem in the US isn't how much is being spent on the military. That is only about 5 to 10 percent of what is taken in by taxes from what I've seen. The budget problems are in how the other 90 - 95% are being used, in my opinion.

the u.s. federal budget is publically available online. i encourage you to take a look at it. let me assure you, the proportion of your federal taxes that go to the military is MUCH closer to 50% than 5%. look it up.

The portion of our taxes that goes to military SHOULD be around 95%, because we should NOT be taking so #%*(ing much money from people to pay for these socialist redistribution schemes we've got. Not to mention the government forays into industries that should be reserved for private industry.

Get rid of those, and they'd cut our tax rates by 75% easily. Only the military would be left, along with some basic stuff to support the bureaucracy, including lawmaking, courthouses, what minimal national parks should exist (Arlington for example), and the very few other things authorized in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.

If all that happened, we'd be spending about 95% or more of our tax dollars on the military, and the only reason it'd be that high is because only 5-10% of our money would go to taxes, versus the 60% that does now at all levels of government.

wow. you are clearly a political radical. and very much so. way too many very radical (and other words that are not so pleasant) things to respond to and i can only imagine that it'll just get worse from there. frankly i lack the patience and i don't think it will do any good besides. that's the nicest way i can think to put it. besides that i think you could benefit greatly from taking some polisci courses. (or just picking up an elementary textbook, for that matter.) i lack the patience.

[mdeminico]

Yes, I am very well aware of the supercruise thing. But you are obviously not aware of the distance between the US soil and mainland China... It makes the fighter very ineffective.
You might have better results stationing them in Okinawa or some other friendly airbase closer to China. Otherwise, you would have no other choice than to rely on aircraft carriers and those need F35s and not F22s.
Of course a stationary base close to mainland China is also highly exposed and very attackable. I would expect it to be a first target for the Chinese if they were to make an attack. That would take the F22s out of the equation- again, especially since they are (like most american aircraft) rather high maintenance and need clean (non bombed) airfields...

China has a LOT of nations around it that are friendly to us. I don't think we'd need to worry about finding a place to stage air ops, unless they were willing to utterly destroy every *single* airfield (a formidable task in one nation, but in this many nations...) in India, Thailand, the Phillippines, Australia, Japan, South Korea, not to mention Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc, all of which are within a "relatively close enough" range of some region of China. Plus all the small Pacific islands.

The US, they'd have to convince Canada or Mexico, which isn't likely. They may get the support of Cuba, but blowing to hell every airstrip in Cuba isn't exactly a daunting task. After we whacked around Grenada in the 80's, not too many random tinpot dictatorships in the Caribbean are likely to thumb their nose at us. Other than that it leaves South America, which is hit or miss.

[Skipjack]

the Phillippines, Australia, Japan, South Korea, not to mention Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc, all of which are within a "relatively close enough" range of some region of China. Plus all the small Pacific islands.

You seem to drastically underestimate the distances involved here, very drastically! Hey Australia is only 6000 miles away from China. Walk in the park!
Even the Philipines are 700 miles away from China. Coast to coast that is, not from an airfield on the Philipines to important Chinese military installations...
The F22 has a range of 1800 miles with two external fuel tanks (that severely reduce its stealth capabilities and its armament.
So at a range of 1400 miles, you can barely get there, fly a few maneuvers and then get back. Not much headroom left there.
Of course you can expand the range with tanker planes, but that means all sorts of other problems (tankers are not stealth craft, you can only tank two F22s at once with one tanker so you need many tankers for many F22s, etc, etc).
Oh, I forgot to mention that the 1800 miles of range are only when using the fuel most efficiently. Combat range is only 400 miles. Just saying...

[Skipjack]

The portion of our taxes that goes to military SHOULD be around 95%, because we should NOT be taking so #%*(ing much money from people to pay for these socialist redistribution schemes we've got. Not to mention the government forays into industries that should be reserved for private industry.

Look, I am all for private industry where it makes sense. Certain things dont make sense though. Education should be there for everyone, not just for the privileged. Infrastructural measures should also be done by the government. Private companies will have problems with e.g. securing the rights to build roads through communities. And then, you wont have much competition there. If you let the private companies build the roads on their own dime, they will want to charge the ones using them. So you have a road tax imposed on you by private company. Since you can only build so many highways in one place, this road will be without competition from anyone else. So this company will effectively have the monopoly to charge as much as they want. Seems like the perfect business to me. It is the return of the robber baron. I dont know about you, but I dont see this reducing any costs for the private citizen.
Same thing about sewers. If they are owned by private companies, they can charge as much for the sewers as they want. You cant have more than one sewer channel in the same spot, so you are stuck with the sewage company there. Since the free market is defined by competition and there is effectively no competition, you will get insane prices. Of course people can just return to dumping their shit into the streets. Say "hi" to the return of all the nice illnesses that come from that to me please! Oh and the stench!
A wonderful future you have invisioned there!

Police and justice system also have to be government held. Otherwise you will end up with private militias fighting over territories... We have had that problem in the 1920ies when the militias of the socialists and the christian socialists were fighting over control of the country. This eventually led to the establishment of the Christian Social Austro Fascists.

There are other things. Basic science research is rarely done by private companies since it often does not have any direct application (that usually comes much later when someone uses the results to make some invention). This basic research like the LHC, or Fermi, or some paleontological dig that gives us a better understanding of the world, is often costy and requires well trained people. Private companies dont like this sort of stuff. So again, this is the kind of stuff governments have to do.

[ladajo]

the Phillippines, Australia, Japan, South Korea, not to mention Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc, all of which are within a "relatively close enough" range of some region of China. Plus all the small Pacific islands.

You seem to drastically underestimate the distances involved here, very drastically! Hey Australia is only 6000 miles away from China. Walk in the park!
Even the Philipines are 700 miles away from China. Coast to coast that is, not from an airfield on the Philipines to important Chinese military installations...
The F22 has a range of 1800 miles with two external fuel tanks (that severely reduce its stealth capabilities and its armament.
So at a range of 1400 miles, you can barely get there, fly a few maneuvers and then get back. Not much headroom left there.
Of course you can expand the range with tanker planes, but that means all sorts of other problems (tankers are not stealth craft, you can only tank two F22s at once with one tanker so you need many tankers for many F22s, etc, etc).
Oh, I forgot to mention that the 1800 miles of range are only when using the fuel most efficiently. Combat range is only 400 miles. Just saying...

Dude,
You really do not understand theater air planning. You are taking limited data snippets and applying them as total reality. There is a lot more to this than you know in regards to capabilities and methods. If we followed your logic, then air campaign planning and execution would never have gone beyond the WWII level. For example, do you need an airfield? The US can MAKE a military grade airfield where it wants one in days. And this capability was USED in WWII for bombers, fighters, and transport. Imagine how much better the methods and tech used have improved for this one simple thing in the last 60 years. Also as another readily visible point to consider in the planning and execution, how far can the US reach out to execute missions, verses the Chinese? The US reach is longer, and just like in boxing, you keep your vitals out of range, while keeping your striking arm in range, and as a humanitarian and moral gesture you include divert location contingencies so your pilots have somewhere to go other than home if they can't make it. For example, in WWII this included the planned use of submarines to recover pilots that went down. Imagine what additional ideas and methods we have 60 years later?
There is way more to this than you have knowledge of, both technical capabilities, as well as planning integration to apply them.

[Skipjack]

There is way more to this than you have knowledge of, both technical capabilities, as well as planning integration to apply them.

I do know these capabilities, but you are just as ignorant to the complexity involved with doing these things than you are to geography.

[ladajo]

There is way more to this than you have knowledge of, both technical capabilities, as well as planning integration to apply them.

I do know these capabilities, but you are just as ignorant to the complexity involved with doing these things than you are to geography.

You have demonstrated your lack of knowledge in the choice and use of stat snippets you use to argue.
Maybe I will meet you sometime during a theater planning conference or exercise sometime. Then you can establish your actual capabilities in these matters in person. I believe there is a major one coming up here in the next month or so. It will be a Joint-Combined event, so you can display your full range of expertise. If you want I can throw your hat in as a candidate as JFACC ATO Coordinator.