Home » Air » Lawmakers Gather Pro F-22 Ammo

Lawmakers Gather Pro F-22 Ammo

By Greg Grant Friday, May 1st, 2009 12:35 pm
Posted in Air, Policy

A former head of Air Combat Command is aware of “no analysis whatsoever” that could have produced a requirement that the Air Force buy just 187 F-22 air superiority fighters. That’s the number Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Pentagon intended to buy, after which the aircraft’s production line would be shut down.

Retired Air Force Gen. Richard Hawley said the only “detailed analysis” he knows of generated a requirement for 381 F-22s, the number needed to fight two simultaneous wars “against adversaries capable of contesting our control of the air.”

Hawley’s not terribly surprising call for more F-22s was made in front of a largely sympathetic group of senators from the Armed Services Air Land Subcommittee on Thursday, most of whom, including chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ct., appeared to be looking for ammunition to refute Gates’ recommended F-22 buy. Piling on the Gates’ decision at the same hearing was CSBA senior fellow Barry Watts, who said DOD’s 187 F-22 number “was purely budget driven, it had nothing to do with analysis.”

Hawley said a fleet of 187 F-22s might be able to support one major war against an adversary with advanced air defenses, but even that number could be too low. Due to normal attrition, maintenance and the need for training aircraft, the general rule-of-thumb is that it takes 100 aircraft to produce 72 “operational” aircraft. By that formula, a fleet of 187 F-22s would be able to generate at best 100 combat ready aircraft, he said.

Hawley said he participated in the original analysis that produced the “actual requirement” for 381 F-22 number, based on generating ten operational squadrons for the two major war scenario. Moreover, a large F-22 fleet is vital to maintaining our “conventional deterrent posture,” he said. Because the stealthy aircraft is able to penetrate advanced air defenses it threatens a potential enemy’s high value targets, where other aircraft in the U.S. fleet cannot. “The F-22 is an investment in deterrence just like our investment in nuclear weapons during the Cold War.”

If the Obama administration decides fighting two simultaneous wars against advanced adversaries in different parts of the world is no longer the force sizing construct, then shutting down the F-22 production line would be appropriate, Hawley said. The “prudent” move would be to continue F-22 production until at least a year from now when the national security strategy hopefully becomes a bit clearer. While praising the attributes of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, he said it was very much a complimentary aircraft, not a replacement for the F-22.

The future of the Air Force’s Next Generation Bomber was also a hot topic at Thursday’s hearing. Watts said the aging fleet of 20 B-2 stealth bombers would not see us through the next 20 to 30 years, and development must begin immediately on a replacement. Referring to Gates’ decision to hold off on the NGB program until after the QDR strategic review, Watts said “we’ve studied the NGB issue to death, we don’t need more studies.” Hawley raised the ghosts of Vietnam as a warning against short changing pilots with inferior aircraft in the face of a determined enemy, saying the Air Force entered that war ill-trained and ill-prepared and had over 2,000 aircraft shot down, against what he called a “third rate” adversary.

Updated: Hawley’s 100 operational F-22 comment came in response to a question regarding how many aircraft would be operational over the long term after x number of a 187 strong F-22 fleet had been lost through normal attrition. His exact quote: “Given that that’s likely the number, about 100, we must understand that you never are able to deploy all of those airplanes. In my experience you shouldn’t expect to have more than about 75 percent of that force available in surge cases to support a combatant commander who faces a serious threat, so it’s even less than 100.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	John May 1st, 2009 at 1:58 pm “The F-22 is an investment in deterrence just like our investment in nuclear weapons during the Cold War.” Equating of F-22s to nuclear weapons is laughable. I can’t wait till a final decision is made on production, because I’m tired of hearing about this stupid jet.
	Rick May 1st, 2009 at 2:38 pm And let’s not forget: “the aging fleet of 20 B-2 stealth bombers would not see us through the next 20 to 30 years” Tell that to the B-52.
	Bill R May 1st, 2009 at 2:58 pm It’s about time that someone finally stood up to Mr. Gates instead of bending over and grabbing their ankles. Mr. Gates stated last week that the days of running up the score are overthat we did not need weapon systems that put us above the playing field , isn’t that what we strive to do . We don’t want a fair fight , we want stack the odds overwhelming in our favor . ( the equals less Americans in body bags) . With Mr . Gates’s plans the Air Force would be left to fall apart . The F-35 is going to be a good jet but it can’t be the only jet in the Air Forces inventory. We need more raptors, a lot of people are saying the it (F-22) is only good for air to air , but the articles I read from Mr. Gates people in defense of their decesion about delaying the NGB, the Raptor would have to take on electronic warfare duties as well as comand and control , SEAD duties , digital maping of the battle space ‚as well as air to air duties.( which it can do all quite well ) For an aircraft they don’t want they are putting a lot on the Raptor’s plate, so they are going to need more of them.
	Navybrat111 May 1st, 2009 at 3:50 pm hEY, IF 72 is to 100 as x is 187, what is x? My math says 134, not 100. Who writes this tripe anyway?
	Camp May 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm Maybe the AF should skip the B-3, and role out an F/B-22.
	Greg Grant May 1st, 2009 at 7:24 pm That’s Hawley’s math, not mine. We report, you… do the math.
	Mark May 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pm The May Boys first: Equating the F22 with nukes is hyperbole; however, the ability to dominate airspace over the battlefield has a significant deterrent value. What conventional ground and surface maneuver is possible w/o air superiority? The Germans, the North Koreans, the Egyptians, the Iraqi all tried a ground force maneuver scheme without air superiority…how’d that turn out? The B2 fleet is small and when flying long duration sorties, the fleet cannot generate large numbers of sorties;; therefore, reducing the ability to attain/sustain mass. So we will likely need the capability to deal with the “tyranny of distance” with some sort of long range capabilily…UCAV, manned bomber? Navybratt111…the math is driven by the requirement to train pilots and ground crews..past experience has shown that somewhere from 12% to 25% of a fighter fleet must be devoted to RTU/upgrade training. Additional airframes are required to do OT&E, Weapons School, etc. The final numbers are driven by the fact the AF squadrons are larger and have spare aircraft…so, a 72 PAA wing may have 80 airplanes assigned…this is to assure that when the JTF/CC asks for air…he gets what he needs instead of an alibi for mx or supply.
	Peter May 1st, 2009 at 9:01 pm While the need to keep modern aircraft in the inventory is necessary. There really is no need to have more of these aircraft. The Airforce will tell you in every instance when the F-15 has gone up against anything the others could throw up at us it has won. To date we have NEVER lost an air to air engagement to my recollection of F-15 vs whoever. We should improve the wing system that is get getting stress cracks, and modernize its electronics and keep her flying as backup to the already purchased F22’s. Look what happened with the A-10 when everyone said it was old and outdated, it proved everyone wrong and has been an invaluable asset that will be used for years to come all it ever got was a little modernization in electronics, engines and software suite. To date all the powers that be in the world strive to come up to the standards that the F-15 set. Granted, some are close and the Eurofighter is pretty darn agile, but battles are fought mostly at long range not dogfights these days, it is the missile technology that needs constant improvement, the platform that carries it needs a better jamming and attack suite of software. As for close in ground support.. what the Predators and Hawks et all cannot handle, the A-10, MLRS, and cruise missiles have shown to be much more accurate and less costly to lose than a multi million dollar Fighter and pilot.
	John May 1st, 2009 at 9:11 pm Mark posted: “The May Boys first: Equating the F22 with nukes is hyperbole” No crap…that’s the reason it is laughable, but don’t let that stop you from touching on the rest of your talking points.
	JC May 1st, 2009 at 9:55 pm And if Gates set the limit at 381, the Generals would scream for 500. Same old game. The F-35 is two decades newer than the F-22, which doesn’t even have ground attack systems. That’s an expensive unfunded add-on.
	pfcem May 2nd, 2009 at 4:35 am First a correction. No the DOD’s 187 F-22 number is not purely budget driven. Money that SHOULD be spent procuring more F-22s is being spent to procure 150 F-35s earlier (& at GREATER cost) than the existing plan…And Congress has already released fund for advanced procurement of 20 F-22 for 2010 — a CLEAR sign that it is willing to provide the funds for additional F-22s. * Peter, Do you not realize than even TODAY the average F-15C pilot is YOUNGER than the aircraft they they are flying (the YOUNGEST airframe was built in 1986)? Yes the F-15C was the preeminent air-superiority fighter in the 1970’s, 80’s & 90’s but that is no longer the case. Superior fighters HAVE been produced (no I do not mean the F-22) & even more capable fighters are known to be in developement. The current F-15C fleet has ALREADY had flight restrictions placed on it in order to extend its service life BEYOND what it was built to. * JC, The Generals would not scream but make sure everyone knew that 500 is how many it REALLY needs. 381 is the MINIMUM for a “low risk” fleet that requires 186 F-15Cs to by some miracle remain combat worthy beyond 2025. 500 is how many are needed to fill all 1.5 squadrons of all 10 AEFs with F-22s. No the F-35 is not two decades newer than the F-22 & much of the F-35s most advanced technology came from the F-22. The F-22 does have ground attack systems. Typical ground attack loadout is two 1,000 lb JDAM (or eight ‘250 lb’ SDB) + two AMRAAM + two Sidewinder. Of course the only ground attack the F-22 is likely to do very often is DEAD as part of its air-superiority mission…
	Clinton Jensen May 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 am The F-22 is groteskly expensive and check this out. It has a lower thrust to weight ratio, higher wingloading and larger cross section than an f-16. (Remember, the 22’s ‘stelth’ only reduces its’ cross section) and if it is configured properly the f-16 has less drag. All that in an aircraft that costs less than 5% what a F-22 costs. The contractor on the f-22 had dollar sighns in his eyes. Lockheed made it way too expensive, they sold the airforce anything and everything they could for that vehicle. The generals who approved it were just seduced by fantasy of it and thought they could just spend more and more and more on it. But you can’t and eventually lack of finacial discipline will catch up to anyone, regardless of how rich they think they are. Now it has caught up to the F-22 people. If they had respect for the taxpayer in the first place, and desighned a simple and affordable vehicle they wouldn’t be having this problem. Furthermore, if you have to put more and more and more effort into solving a problem, or if you have to put more and more and more money into it, you are not simplifying that problem properly. Which means you don’t understand that problem and therefore it gets harder and harder as you go along. The F-16 and A-10 were cheap and effective fighters because Sprey and Boyd were fantacal about simplifying the problems or air to air and air to ground properly. They built one plan for one and one for the other and didn’t want anything on them that was not related to the mission. If the F-22 program managers would emulate this they wouldn’t have to cry for more money.
	Mark May 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 am John May — Your “comic book” level of knowledge of aerospace military issues does not prepare you to deal with any nuance. Peter May — Pls read pfcem’s remarks…pfcem has a clue..you are tumbleweed. And Peter, on your “close in ground support” writing, where did you get the data for your assertion that cruise missiles are “more accurate and less costly to lose” than a fighter? Keep reading the John’s comic book, your ignorance is amusing.
	Bill May 2nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm Clinton –your facts are all wrong my friend, which I am sure your probably received your information from one of the many articles written by Pierre Sprey. Let me tell you a little something about Mr . Sprey , if it isn’t a F –16 in his words “it’s a turkey” . He is so stuck on F –16 the anything else in his eyes is junk . ( it’s called an agenda) He has published so much crap about the F-22, and now he is talking sh** about the F-35. What Mr . Sprey fails to mention is the the F –16 with out drop tanks has a incredibly small combat range. That the moderen F –16 with AESA radar costs around 50 million and that’s without targeting pods , not to mention the fact that it has to be escorted by fighters and electronic warfare aircraft just to drop the two 1000 pound jdams that it would take one raptor to do. Add up the costs, the Raptor is far less expensive to do a mission( not to mention it’s only one pilot in danger) . We are not in the 80s anymore new jets are expensive. Boeing just introduced the F-15 Se , a stealthier version of the F –15 ( not all aspect stealth) the jet is going to be offered to costomers for 100 million a each. The F-22 can drop Two 1000 pound JADAMs , and after the airspace is cleared it can carry up to 5000 pounds of external stores on four hardpoints, that makes it as good as any current attack platform, plus the racks can be dropped in fight . People say we don’t need the F-22 , listen folks the F-15 a are old and need replaced. What are we going put a bunch of money into fixing them, they will still be 30 year old jets .
	Rick May 2nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm The 100 million for an F-15SE is for customers who do not have any F-15’s. It includes money for training, maintenance and spares. In short, everything to set up your own airforce. I have not yet seen a price for just the airframe without all the add-ons that the USAF already has. Has anyone else here?
	Cole May 2nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm From the article: “Retired Air Force Gen. Richard Hawley said the only “detailed analysis” he knows of generated a requirement for 381 F-22s, the number needed to fight two simultaneous wars “against adversaries capable of contesting our control of the air.”“ ======================================== Guess the General’s comment just about says it all. The requirement to fight two simultaneous wars no longer exists…let alone do two potential foe nations exist able to “contest our control of the air.” With the exception of China and Russia (deterred by nukes), no other potential adversary nation has a defense budget in excess of around $7–8 billion in contrast to our $600+ billion. Please ‘splain to me how one…let alone two adversary nations will hae the money to mount any substantial threat to our air supremacy. Mark, buddy, kind of amazing how all those guys last names are “May.” It’s a “May brother” conspiracy!! That gaff coupled with your stereotypical insistence that we must have the Air Force F-22 to have air supremacy to maneuver or control the seas, cracks me up. Do we not have Patriot and other missiles? Do we not have a Naval and Marine airpower? Do we not have Standard Missiles? Do we not have allies? Will we not have lots and lots of F-35s? Did you not see the news that the latest Russian Su-35 prototype just crashed due to engine problems, and it isn’t even stealthy. That and the low defense budgets of potential foes kind of throws a wet noodle on any substantial future air supremacy threat…let alone the threat that we might face two at once. Take half of 381 for ONE “semi-substantial threat” and you end up around the current 187 F-22s (and a whole lot more F-35s). Ignore the bogus deployment rotation-related requirement of 1 F-22 squadron (let alone 1.5) per each of 10 AEFs and the requirement is even more tenuous and contrived. Of course all those Bear bombers and Piper Cubs threatening our nation must require F-22s, right?
	John May 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm “Mark May 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 am John May — Your “comic book” level of knowledge of aerospace military issues does not prepare you to deal with any nuance. Peter May — Pls read pfcem’s remarks…pfcem has a clue..you are tumbleweed.” It says something about Mark’s maturity level(age?) t hat he has to resort to name calling.
	Mark May 3rd, 2009 at 9:28 am Cole, LOL, a clumsy attempt at humor..there are several John/Cole/Peter writing in May that are “birds of a feather“ But let’s take your assertions (in the context of a Taiwan straits conflict) that Patriot SAMs and other unnamed missiles?, Naval&Marine airpower, Standard SAMs, Allies, lots of F35s will enable us to prevail. Patriots — Assume you mean Taiwanese SAMS…very vulnerable to a PLA SEAD capability. Naval and Marine air…from where? Carriers? Got any idea how many carriers equiped with F/A18s or F35s we would needed to prevail over the PLAAF in the Straits? F/A-18s will have trouble with SUU27/SUU30s as would an 8.33 G F35…how about the safety of carrier from attack? The F/A18 has limited range, the carrier(s) must get in close and that would likely make them vulnerable. Marine Air from Iwakuni…do your geography…it’s a long ride from Iwakuni to the Straits. Standard missiles are good…from what platforms? located where? In the Straits? Where the seasonal swells run 12 to 20 feet.…and underneath the “guns” of 2nd Artillery/PLAAF/PLAN and the PLAN’s quiet diesel subs?? Allies? Who? The Taiwans? The Japanese? Go to Global Security and check their OB. Lots of F35s…none built yet but if we had F35s on the ramp…you only have one ramp within 400NMs of The Straits.…Kadena..and never mind the fact that the F35 is not being built as an Air Dominance fighter. Even with the F22, a Straits conflict would be “a close run thing“ As far as a SUU35 crash…big deal. Fighters of all stripes crash all the time..what’s your point? Your 381 F22 numbers?? Think the number that some of us are advocating is roughly 260 Raptors. John, Name calling? Tumbleweed merely means that you have lost or never had SA…how else should I describe shallow, factually erroneous assertions??
	Cole May 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 am Mark, Taiwan is a tough but unlikely nut for both sides, primarily due to economic interdependency (Walmart and bonds) reasons, and also because of logistics problems for both sides. But let’s use this worst case scenario to show that our joint force is still more than up to task. The Germans couldn’t mount, let alone sustain an invasion of Britain across a much smaller body of water. How would the Chinese? The same seasonal swells that you mention would hinder a Chinese surface invasion, as well. Patriots and Standard Missiles would be critical to combat some of the thousand TBMs (a far greater threat than the PLAAF) that would attack Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea to take out or threaten vulernable AIR FORCE air bases. Such attacks would build allies from the get go and Australia would be there you can bet. Marine F-35s with STOVL capability would be less affected using your bases and bomb/fuel supplies. Carriers don’t need to get THAT close with aerial refueling, and again, the Standard Missiles would be key to survivability against future TBMs. At greater distances in open water, the slow Chinese diesel-electric subs would be less effective and more easily detected by P-8s etc. since they would have to come to us instead of just hiding. Their surface boats and slow lift aircraft would be sitting ducks to F-22s/F-35s, low-flying Taiwanese F-16s. Our Navy subs, cruiser, destroyers, and coming littoral combat ships and undersea unmanned vessels would rapidly dominate the scene. Then the Chinese would need to sustain their force by sea and air under constant attack. We would simultaneously blockade the mainland from oil shipments. See the recent Defensetech.org rundown of their naval assets versus ours. Would we suffer naval losses? To be sure, but their lower quality and numbers would suffer far greater losses, very rapidly. Taiwan does not need to be an immediate victory. Our airpower supremacy might take longer with 187 (120 on scene) F-22s, but it would be a matter of additional weeks…not months. No matter how many low quality fighters the Chinese manage to launch, they won’t have anywhere to return to once their airfields are obliterated. Air supremacy does not need to occur exclusively via air-to-air or manned air to ground. Meanwhile if we could get Army airborne, Marine V-22, and Stryker ground forces onto the east side of Taiwan as a “deployment exercise” due to intelligence early warnings and indications, we would be able to establish our own defense and future point of reinforcement. In actual air-to-air, do you have a doubt that 120 F-22s could rapidly eliminate 400 Su-27/Su-30/Su-35 and S-300s with almost no losses? I suspect 120 F-22s would be up to the task of 1000 high quality threat fighters, that might last all of about two weeks. The F-35s would easily handle the older stuff and could launch missiles from standoff in cooperation with F-22s and AWACS feeding them targets. Why would the Russians want to sell the Chinese Su-35s given their propencity to steal and copy Russian designs? Anybody else other than the Chinese will have 10s of modern fighters…not hundreds. Heck, the Russians only have 12 or so Su-35s. And those threat fighters still won’t have our stealth characteristics because no other threat nation has the defense budgets to procure and operate such aircraft…let alone train their pilots to our level. If there is any single warfighting component where the U.S. has such an insurmountable lead that it can afford to take risk…it is in airpower. It is ground forces, not air and sea forces that continue to experience great losses and deployment burdens. Yet which service gets its programs delayed, cut, and eliminated most frequently…the Army.
	Mark May 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm Cole, Good response for a non-professional military guy. OK, down your list: Neither the US or PRC have a desire to fight; but if the Taiwans were to force the independence issue, it could happen…and PACOM takes it very seriously. We must deal in capabilities not 8-Ball forecasts The Germans could not establish air superiority…they lost the Battle of Britain…with air superiority, annexing TW is doable. Our SAMs will not likely not fully protect TW or the few US bases from BMs. Which means that the US is only going to be able to get a small force in play…that’s why we need a DOMINANT fighter as opposed to an older or less capable air-to-air machine. I’m glad you mentioned the Marine version of the F35…the USMC F35 is flying artillery tethered to support Marine infantry…it is not equiped or trained to win the air superiority fight…there is also the question of logistical support to a geographically dispersed air operation…how does that work and how much of a sortie production penalty does this logistically dubious scheme impose?? And where would you locate this dispersed USMC infantry air support?? TW? PI? Quemoy? Matsu? Carriers don’t need to get that close?? with AAR? What’s the range of an F/A18 with a combat load? How much buddy refueling can carrie fighter wing perform? How much firepower can the carrier get “over the AO” whilst protecting the CVBG?? Do those numbers and you will get the picture. I don’t know how many “leakers” we would get with our Standard missiles?? How would reloads work? Those slow but very quiet diesel boats might fool you…like one of them did a while back by showing up in the wake of a CV…underestimation can be deadly We would blockade and win the naval fight against the inferior PLAN…I would hope so..BUT I would point out that given that the USN bearly has 300 hulls, how long do you think it would take to disengage from the Persian Gulf and all the other places our Navy is operating and assemble the force that would defeat the PLAN??? If the PRC waged a successful opening SEAD campaign followed by a A/S campaign, then our shooters and the TW shooters effect on their invasion operation would not produce a decisive effect. “Air to Air does not need to occur exclusively via air to air manned air to ground?? We are going to obliterate their airfields?? Get a grip!! With what?? Nukes?? Oh, this must be where the soft power is played…LOL Deploy the USMC and US Army to TW? How? Are you gonna steam/airlift into a hot port/airfield without air superiority?? Good luck with that. Low quality PRC fighters…Dude, the SU-27/30, J10 etc are capable fourth gen fighters NOT Mig19/21s. Would an F22 defeat them decisively, YES…that’s what the argument has been all about…thx for finally getting it. How long would it take? Depends on a lot of stuff that would be going on. All most of us are saying is that 260 F22s is a safe number Your last comment misses. No lead is insurmountable. We need a capable mix of air/space/maritime/land capability…airmen are amazed at how simple their profession is viewed by non-aviators…the woods is full of experts (98% of which are pretty clueless) on air combat…of course, the AF leadership is always hyperbolic on what it takes to assure air dominance and only interested in inflating their force structure numbers…That notion is wrong and insulting…kind explains a bit of my sarcasm. Over
	Cole May 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 pm Mark said:“Good response for a non-professional military guy. OK, down your list:“ ===================================== Well, guess being a former enlisted combat engineer, West Point graduate, Infantry/Aviation officer, who continues to work in the defense industry qualifies me as semi-professional.;) I would wager I know more about the other services than you as a presumed retired fighter jock, know about the Army…which is the whole problem. You boys live in a white-scarf vacuum part of the time, and spend the rest thinking you can win wars by yourselves…leaving lots of destroyed infrastructure the poor Army must then secure as its rebuilt. ===================================== Mark said:“Neither the US or PRC have a desire to fight; but if the Taiwans were to force the independence issue, it could happen…and PACOM takes it very seriously. We must deal in capabilities not 8-Ball forecasts“ ===================================== I’m speculating that a Taiwan declaration of independence would be a pretty good indicator/warning of impending trouble…giving us time to react…the same time the Chinese would require to mass a large armada preparing to be sunk. ===================================== Mark said:“The Germans could not establish air superiority…they lost the Battle of Britain…with air superiority, annexing TW is doable.“ ===================================== And the Brits were highly outnumbered with only comparable quality aircraft yet still managed to win. We similarly managed to win outnumbered in the Korean skies. In contrast, today the U.S. and its allies would NOT be outnumbered in total aircraft and our quality/stealth would be far superior. Ground and sea air defenses are also far more capable now. ===================================== Mark said: “Our SAMs will not likely not fully protect TW or the few US bases from BMs. Which means that the US is only going to be able to get a small force in play…that’s why we need a DOMINANT fighter as opposed to an older or less capable air-to-air machine.“ ===================================== Because you operate from fixed bases and require long runways, you automatically make all nearby military airbases TBM targets. After airfields are targeted, you end up having to fly from Guam, Alaska, Hawaii, and/or northern Australia with aerial refueling. That is an argument for lots of well-protected carrier battle groups…not lots of F-22s. ===================================== Mark said:“I’m glad you mentioned the Marine version of the F35…the USMC F35 is flying artillery tethered to support Marine infantry…it is not equiped or trained to win the air superiority fight…there is also the question of logistical support to a geographically dispersed air operation…how does that work and how much of a sortie production penalty does this logistically dubious scheme impose?? And where would you locate this dispersed USMC infantry air support?? TW? PI? Quemoy? Matsu?“ ======================================== That “flying artillery” or “bomb truck” status that you appear to detest (not a pound for air-to-ground right?) provides the flexibility needed to fight the “long war” in addition to the early 1%. STOVL on shore can be supplied by KC-130 or even GPS paradrop and commercial/military ground carriers. The Navy and Marines have carrier-based logistics down to a T. The Chinese can’t target every potential location from which you might operate. They can’t target B-2s flying from stateside, Alaska, Hawaii, and Diego Garcia. They CAN target nearby airfields that F-22s would operate from. And of course we can target their airfields near the coast because they won’t have our numbers of aerial refueling assets. ======================================== Mark said:“Carriers don’t need to get that close?? with air-to-air refueling? What’s the range of an F/A18 with a combat load? How much buddy refueling can carrier fighter wing perform? How much firepower can the carrier get “over the AO” whilst protecting the CVBG?? Do those numbers and you will get the picture.“ ======================================= Whoa, are you saying the USAF won’t support the Navy and Marines with aerial refueling? What universe is that? Buddy refueling and OMEGA contractor refueling are peacetime workarounds because the USAF won’t always provide the joint support they should. Methinks the Navy believes they could be pretty effective with EW jammming, AESA radars, AMRAAM, limited frontal stealth, towed decoys, and air-launched decoys…didn’t the Navy do rather well in Vietnam and in other conflicts?;) ======================================= Mark:“I don’t know how many “leakers” we would get with our Standard missiles?? How would reloads work?“ ======================================= I have no idea how they reload. But they have lots of vertical launch standard missiles ready to fire on lots of different surface platforms. They can take out both TBM and aircraft…unlike you boys. ======================================= Mark said:“Those slow but very quiet diesel boats might fool you…like one of them did a while back by showing up in the wake of a CV…underestimation can be deadly“ ======================================= Which is why counter-submarine warfare never rests. The moment they launch a torpedo, they won’t be invisible, and suspect we have all kinds of toys to jam their torpedoes and kill the sub afterwards. If they take out a carrier and 6,000 Sailors, the size of the conflict just quadrupled in intensity and any question of letting the Chinese have their way in Taiwan just disappeared. ======================================= Mark said:“We would blockade and win the naval fight against the inferior PLAN…I would hope so..BUT I would point out that given that the USN bearly has 300 hulls, how long do you think it would take to disengage from the Persian Gulf and all the other places our Navy is operating and assemble the force that would defeat the PLAN???“ ======================================= Funny thing is the route from the Middle East to China is the same one the tankers being intercepted would be taking. I seem to recall a few years back that we startled the Chinese by deploying 7 Carrier groups to the Pacific. With the absence of a Russian sea threat, there is no longer a need to divide our attention to the same degree as during the Cold War. ======================================= Mark said:“If the PRC waged a successful opening SEAD campaign followed by a A/S campaign, then our shooters and the TW shooters effect on their invasion operation would not produce a decisive effect.“ ========================================= You are ignoring the hardened Taiwan defenses, underground hangars and C2 complexes, and ground forces not easily suppressed and prepared to fight the PLA coming ashore…after their 90 mile trip across rough waters leaving their troops in wonderful shape…or swimming. ========================================= Mark said: ““Air to Air does not need to occur exclusively via air to air manned air to ground?? We are going to obliterate their airfields?? Get a grip!! With what?? Nukes?? Oh, this must be where the soft power is played…LOL“ ========================================== Tomahawks launched by subs/surface ships and standoff B-52s. ATACMS launched from South Korea or Japan. Future UCAV. Future jet-powered Predator C and current Reapers. Yes, they would be supplanted by B-2s and 120 F-22s and many of the thousands of F-35s flying at night against enemy airfields when the air-to-air threat is reduced. Lots of holes in runways and bomblets everywhere tend to “ground” adversary fighters and hinder runway repair efforts…not to mention destroying aircraft that never fly air-to-air. ========================================== Mark said:“Deploy the USMC and US Army to TW? How? Are you gonna steam/airlift into a hot port/airfield without air superiority?? Good luck with that.“ ======================================== Do you think the Chinese could mask an invasion effort of hundreds of thousands of Soldiers? Let’s hope our intelligence is sufficiently adequate to get some ground forces on the ground before hostilities commenced. That big old mountain range running down the middle of Taiwan would make it tough to engage our transport aircraft flying low on the east side of the island. ======================================== Mark:“Low quality PRC fighters…Dude, the SU-27/30, J10 etc are capable fourth gen fighters NOT Mig19/21s. Would an F22 defeat them decisively, YES…that’s what the argument has been all about…thx for finally getting it. How long would it take? Depends on a lot of stuff that would be going on. All most of us are saying is that 260 F22s is a safe number“ ========================================== And they may have a couple of hundred of the good stuff (their gen 4 while we have gen 5)with thousands of other old junk getting older and more obsolete each year? With AWACS, we will see most of their aircraft the moment they take-off making BVR shots less risky, and confirming airfield locations. ========================================== Mark:“Your last comment misses. No lead is insurmountable. We need a capable mix of air/space/maritime/land capability…airmen are amazed at how simple their profession is viewed by non-aviators…the woods is full of experts (98% of which are pretty clueless) on air combat…of course, the AF leadership is always hyperbolic on what it takes to assure air dominance and only interested in inflating their force structure numbers…That notion is wrong and insulting…kind explains a bit of my sarcasm. ======================================== All I know is your force structure numbers allow the USAF to serve 4–6 month tours while Soldiers are serving 12–15 month tours…every other year. Near as I can tell, no F-22 driver has served day 1 in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else where they couldn’t hit the O’Club every night to brag about their exploits. How many U.S. and Israeli F-15s were shot down by opponents flying Russian/Soviet aircraft. Didn’t think so. And you believe that stealthy and far superior F-22 and comparable F-35 would be at risk against 3rd world threats with a few good fighters…most of which the F-15/F-16 could defeat? You’re right that we need a capable mix of ground/air/sea forces. But when you white scarf guys insist on spending all the money on too many aircraft to fight SEVERAL WEEKS worth of conflict against weak or largely temporary, highly-unique threats…it doesn’t leave a lot of money leftover for ground forces experiencing the REAL threats/casualties over MANY YEARS of conflict while you guys finish the war chasing Bear bombers.
	Mark May 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 pm Cole, OK…you have military qualifications…but none germain to the subject at hand. Sorry, I don’t have any expertise as a combat engineer…which might explain why I don’t lecture the Army on combat engineering rqmts?? “White scarfed vacuum? How would you know? You speculated on I&W for PRC activity…and that’s just what it is: uninformed, rank speculation. The Brits were really lucky that the Germans failed to complete the air superiority campaign, we were lucky in Korea to have a large numbers of WWII veteran fighter pilots, So, your strategy is to “trust to luck” In a TW fight, the US would be outnumbered at the point of attack.…AGAIN, the tyranny of distance…the closest airbase is 400nm away…so, if the entire Aussie/JDF/RAF/IAF were to play…they cannot get to the fight! So, you’re asking the USAF to trust to luck that the PRC will be incompetent and foolish. Don’t think the AF guys will buy that. As to the USN and the USAF in VietNam…both fought hard and bravely.…but not as effectively as they could have…mostly because they were overruled by folks that didn’t understand war much less aerial combat…rather like today. You seem to finally get the PACOM distance problem…the thing you don’t get is: how many tankers do you think the US has? Got any idea of the condition of the tanker fleet? Now, here is where you can say that the AF dorked up the tanker mission…and I would not argue. Now you argue for aircraft carriers.…are you certain that the carriers would not be vulnerable? Never said anything about “not a pound for air to ground” (that died years ago when the AF did the math on the DOD budget..the F22 is optimized for a/a with an a/g capability…the F35 is optimized for a/g with some a/a capability) Never said USMC F35 was not required or a good deal for the USMC…what I said was: they ain’t gonna win the air superiority fight! How many 4 hour length combat sorties do you think a Nimitz class carrier can generate a day? For how many days? How many sorties can be generated from the dispersed F35 dets?? AF AAR support for the USN/USMC. Never said a word about this…the COCOM and JTF/CC thro his JFACC would most likey work with TRANSCOM to allocate the AAR assets apportioned to that COCOM…would you rather fight SU30s with Raptors or F/A18s?…again, even with AAR, what if the carrier was vulnerable??? Most folks don’t know how many things that AF tankers support…trying running the airlift for a TPFDD with limited tankers…As I alluded to earlier…the Tanker fleet is in bad need of new a/c. TW hardened defenses…LOL..no comment Your attempt at operational level targeting..Before you can start tgting stuff (assuming the ROE let’s you) you must win at least part of the SEAD/Air Superiority fight…Raptor comes in awful handy for both. Got any targeting experience…your example airfields…how many 1000lb class TLAM warheads does it take to shut down an airfield? You are out of your league..let it be. Do you know how many B2s there are in the inventory?? Thousands of F35s (how many do you think we are buying?)flying without the support of the F22…so, we are back to trusting to luck again. I hope our intell would spot a big PRC move, like the way they spotted the Egyptian move in 1973 and oh, in 1950 about 250k Chinese surprised MacArthur… I’m pulling for our intell guys but I would NOT bet the farm on unambiguous warning. And you Army guys want to be on the east side of TW?? Ah? Doing what exactly? Again, w/o air superiority, how do you get there in any numbers or gear?? I don’t talk OB specifics..ref: Global Security or Janes. Got any idea how close we would have to put our initial AWACS orbits with how much HVAA CAP supported by?? right, Raptors.…Dude, China is a big place So under some DOD fairness doctrine you are advocating that F22 drivers serve as truck drivers for the Army? LOL ..I don’t know how many airmen are serving in Iraq…I would be surprised if the are AF officers especially rated officers driving trucks for the Army. So, according to Cole, the AF should take Raptor pilots who have been trained at the top of their profession, weeded out from all the folks that cannot think and work at 9gs & closing on a fight at 20 miles a minute and trained to fight in the one of the most technologically demanding and deadly environments in the world and use them for Army truck drivers??? That sounds pretty dumb to me and I would be suprised if the AF leadership would buy that use of AF assets. US and Israel successes have been impressive. I suspect that, in addition to hard training, the reason that we have been so dominant is our insistence on maintaining technical dominance in sufficient numbers. Which is what the F22 argument is about. So, you finally get it. As to your parting cheap shot…REAL threats/casualties.. This final comment was not only sophmoric and off subject but really “classy”. OUT
	Cole May 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 pm Mark, You continue to miss the point that a Taiwan scenario is: - highly unlikely, worst case, and not advantageous to China from a common sense world economic repercussion standpoint – would NOT need to be won overnight by either U.S. air or seapower…and an extra 60 F-22s wouldn’t win it overnight anyway, nor would we have a place to park them close to the fight – would be a classic case of “being careful what you wish for” because the Chinese could not begin to sustain their cccupation forces even when/if they took Taiwan. Remember that old saying about studying logistics rather than tactics? Billions of people and the Chinese economy would revert to the stone age once we blockaded their oil supplies and exports. Add the targeting of their Taiwan resupply efforts and pinpoint bombing their ground forces there, and they would face long-term disaster. The tyranny of distance? Even if you eliminate the KC-135E, the U.S. still has 400+ aerial refuelers (not counting KC-130s) which exceeds the rest of the world combined. Even in OIF and OEF we did not begin to use all our aerial refueling capability (300 or so). Even old KC-135Rs have half their projected airframe life remaining…just as the B-52 keeps on ticking, taking few lickings since Vietnam. So which is it? We need more than the current number of aerial refuelers (whose high numbers were Cold War bomber driven) AND more F-22s to fly long distances from Guam? What happens when China starts targeting Guam with TBMs and sub cruise missiles and all the parked aircraft there? Do we now aerial refuel these vast quantities of F-22s from Hawaii which could be targeted as well? Patience is a virtue. We practiced it in tiny Serbia over 78 days with far fewer F-117s. We practiced it in both Iraq bombing campaigns. Substitute 120 F-22s (many more with far more payload and better stealth than F-117s) and our 20 B-2s (each carrying 80 small diameter bombs also not available during the Serb or Iraqi campaigns) and 78–100 days worth of attacks on China would be devastating when coupled with naval air attacks. More area to attack also means more area they cannot begin to defend adequately. Do I understand targeting. Not the way the Air Force practices it. In a 72-hour ATO cycle, I don’t begin to see relevance of planning targets that far out with no awareness of the future operational and tactical situation several days downrange. CAS stacks and time-sensitive targeting make more sense rather than attack of stationary nodes…and lots of enemy decoys. How does that F-22 laser designator and targeting pod work against moving targets? Oh wait.;) Heck, even the Israelis figured out this time around in Gaza that combined arms airpower works better than EBO that led to so many ground casualties in Lebanon 2006. You want to compare the ISR and indications/warnings of Korea and the Yom Kippur War to today? Heck, just compare the lack of UAS capability between 2003 and today to see a dramatic change…let alone over 36–60 years and with the advent of any/better satellites. Air Force officer truck drivers? Bomb trucks not ground trucks, as you well know. Every additional F-22 pilot could just as easily be an F-35 pilot dual-trained for air-to-air and air-to-ground with optimized optics, more modern processing, and the better situational awareness sensors of the F-35. I find it amusing though that while you would never consider freeing highly-trained F-22s pilots for other duties, it apparently is OK to divert highly-trained officer pilots to Predator/Reaper duties at Creech instead of using full-time enlisted pilots. You don’t need to talk order of battle specifics. Open source info on the PLAAF, Russian air force, and respective defense budgets there and in the rest of the world makes it clear that every adversary will be perpetually playing catch up…never getting there, and actually getting worse each year as we field more and more F-35s. U.S. and Israeli successes in the air? All that technical air domination in excessive numbers has cost the U.S. (and Israel) funds to protect and project ground forces in equally dominating and survivable form. Characterizing the real threats as being on the ground is not hyperbole. It is reality that since WWII, only the U.S. ground component now suffers disproportional casualties caused in part by disproportionate lack of their share of the defense budget.
	Mark May 4th, 2009 at 1:01 am Cole, You have become tiresome and embarrassingly clueless. You are under informed and almost certainly underestimate the Chinese. You casually talk about the US imposing a blockade and bombing their ground forces…like a general war? You do remember that the PRC is a member of the nuclear club?? “Eliminate the KC135 and the US still has 400+ tankes”…the US has roughly 552 KC135s and 59 KC10s..the remainder of the capability is probe&drogue.…that’s it and you really are poorly informed when it comes to Air The “Patience is a virtue made no sense?? Comparing a fight with Serbia or Iraq with a fight against China in a force structure requirements discussion is asinine. I used the Yom Kippur & Korean War as examples of Intel missing unambiguous I&W…and your point was?? Do you believe we would have unambiguous warning today? And the basis for that belief would be??? Why would the AF spend the huge amounts of $$ it takes to train an B1/F15/B2/F16/F22/F35/AC130 etc aviators then assign them to non-related duties with the Army or anywhere else? Your rated management concept sounds like waste/fraud/abuse of resources I don’t think the AF has any enlisted pilots? Management of UAV pilots…I’ll leave that one to you. Targeting…Your comments show an 0–3 level understanding of targeting at the operational level of war. It’s gratifying to know that all the info required on foreign military spending, R&D, weapons development is available in open sources…wonder what all those Intel Community folks do all day when they could just subscribe to Janes or read Aviation Week & Space Tech…LOL “Only the US gound component suffers diproportional casualties” caused by the Navy and Air Force taking the Army share of the budget. Dude, you’re sad, very sad. Cole, you have wandered off point to some tiresome, whacked out Service paranoia drivel. OUT
	John May 4th, 2009 at 7:03 am The Chinese don’t need to invade Taiwan to eventually take it.
	Cole May 4th, 2009 at 8:42 am Mark, your arrogance and insults of others is what caused me to post from the get go. You apparently do not comprehend the perception that SOME in the USAF don’t appear to feel any responsibility to share the risks and deployment burdens that other services bear. If you have sufficient force structure to “endure” 4–6 month deployments with 10 AEFs, then it cuts into the numbers of ground BCTs who end up suffering 12 months tours in greater danger and just as frequently. We see enlisted JTACs humping alongside ground brethren. We see A-10 pilots flying low to support CAS. We see USAF special ops pilots doing their thing. We know that ground maintainers are working tirelessly to keep aircraft in the air. But then we see pilots flying UAS out of Creech AFB in a misguided belief that they can have the same situational awareness as they would being in theater operating out of or near a ground CP like their Army counterparts. It kind of gets into that ISR shortcomings arena that I perceive we share. We see C-17 and C-130 pilots and crews flying endless sorties into and out of threatened airbases subject to mortar and rocket attack, and possible shoulder-fired missile threats. Then we see other pilots with ejection seats complaining that they don’t want to face a fair fight in air combat from either a numbers or capabilities standpoint…despite the fact that since WWII, many brave USAF pilots have had near parity or fewer numbers than their counterparts…and yet prevailed. The perception and reality is that the white scarf USAF community has a sense of entitlement to nothing but the latest/greatest…no matter the cost. It cannot “risk” the lower capabilities of the F-35 in air-to-air…despite the reduced air-to-air threat. Yet thousands of ground casualties show that Soldiers, Marines, SEALS, and Air Force JTACs put it all on the line everyday, and yet can’t get DoD to approve Army programs. Army aviators suffer far more casualties than their USAF brethren flying low in support of the ground fight. Yet which service is looking for a dedicated CSAR capability, and which is actually having aircraft go down and can’t get a newer cheap attack reconnaissance helicopter funded? I mean you no disrespect other than that you so freely offer others not worthy of fighter jock status who disagree with your points. Hope you see my point… Off to work.
	Mark May 4th, 2009 at 9:26 am Cole, You have a problem with AF UAS pilots working out of Creech?? Or is this about the Army wanting to control all US ISR assets? Not my ox to gore. You seem to be under some weird impression that the AF works for the Army? So, everything the AF does should be focused to support the Army? LOL! That argument was settled in 1947, get over it. You seem to have a real problem the fighter community..although, you have no direct, first hand knowledge except you saw the TOP GUN movie (hint, they were Navy guys)..you accuse the AF fighter guys of being cowards because the AF wants to procure superior aircraft instead of having a “fair fight”!? LOL, you ever been in a fight boy? In aerial combat, there is no such thing as a fair fight…P51s were superior to FW190s, Hellcats were superior to Zeros, Eagles are superior to Mig21s…because we learned our lesson in Viet Nam and procured a dominant fighter but now the AF should listen to guys like you and buy a lesser a/c or the right a/c in too small numbers. It seems to not register with you that the AF folks that are making recommendations on the F22 buy and the F22/F35 mix are experts in aerial combat…unlike you. If we were buying tanks…whose advice should the Army take? An armor officer or a F15 pilot? Then, in your twisted view of the world, the AF fighter community (for just performing their Title X job to train and equip a dominant air force) is responsible for ground component casualties, Army procurement failures, Army aviators suffering far more casualties than the AF (as though life would be better if AF guys were getting hurt equal numbers), and failure of the Army to get a new helo? Did it occur to you to look inside your own wire? Cole, you have found your “white whale”…the AF fighter community. Knock yourself out Ahab. OUT
	Tenn Slim May 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am ALL I refer you to CNS arcticle about reducing the nuclear weapon warhead quantity. Adding to that article, whereby we are down to some 1500 TOTAL warheads, and this article whereby we are down to a MAX of 187 F22s, and the beat goes on.… Folks, time to wake up and smell the rot. We are downgrading DOD, fast and furious. Prediction: FY 2011 will see these cuts and more. Iran, etal, will be and is being, encouraged to add not subtract to thier DOD. It is indeed a marvelous mistake we made in November end
	DensityDuck May 4th, 2009 at 11:35 am Flying a “Multirole” aircraft just means that no matter what you’re doing, there’s someone else out there who can do it better.
	John May 4th, 2009 at 2:22 pm Ok, you all make some great points. Here is my take. You always plan your defense for what you think you will face in the future, not the present. Is the new russian fighter out there now? No. Will it be in the future? Most certainly. When that happens we need airframes that will take care of it, like the raptor. It takes 15 to 20 years to design, test and procure a new fighter plane. So we cannot simply wait till the new threat appears. We need more f22s now. Is it expensive? Yes. The way to build planes of any kind is to do it by volume and to do it fast. This is supposed to be what they will do with the f35. One thing that bothers me is that the f35 has no thrust vectoring. I know that it relies on stealth, however, when confronted with a stealthy adversary, the fight will at knife range. This makes manouver even more important. At this close range, the f35 will have a hard time.
	Mark May 4th, 2009 at 7:31 pm Tenn Slim…SHACK DDuck.…SHACK…in my younger years there was a song…F4 fighter/bomber…but mostly bomber John, the Russkies are working a 5th Gen. The F35 is multirole optimized for a/g…the F35 is a 8.33 G a/c…the Viper (F16) is a 9G a/c. That said…the F35 does have some serious “bells and whistles”.… BUT…I’m proud of you John…Your getting there!
	Cole May 4th, 2009 at 10:07 pm In WWI, Eddie Rickenbacker had 26 kills. In WWII, Richard Bong had 40 air-to-air kills. In WWII and Korea, Francis Gabreski had 34 kills. In Vietnam, there was a single USAF ace with 5 kills. The Atlantic published an article in March in part about COL Cesar Rodriguez who retired a few years ago with the most USAF aerial kills in modern history…just 3 in his F-15. As much as horse cavalryman had extraordinary skills…a time came when they became less critical numberwise and even obsolete. As talented as many archers were, the advent of gunpowder and guns/bullets rendered them irrelevant. As much as the machine gun and trench warfare dominated WWI, the tank and mechanized capabilities coupled with airpower changed warfare forever. The trend is clear. With so few aces in modern times and a 107-to-zero F-15 record, few adversaries are stupid enough to contest the U.S. or Israel in the air. That and the high cost of fighters vs. small defense budgets, coupled with stealth they cannot duplicate is why adversaries turn to Tactical Ballistic Missiles as an alternative. So as much as I trust F-22 jocks to be good at what they do, it is their extraordinary exercise loss-exchange ratios that illustrate we can safely take risks by not matching anywhere near F-15 numbers of yeateryear against the Soviets. Then there is the matter of F/A-18 jocks who as far as I know have never clamored for an aircraft carrier F-22-like capbility. Those Top Gun aces seem perfectly confident that they are up to task with what they have. The answer probably lies somewhere in between in the F-35. Because Mark admits that “not-a-pound for air-to-ground” is no longer in vogue, what is wrong with the F-35? It and the 120 F-22s, more F/A-18s and our allies will be more than up to that early two weeks of establishing air supremacy. But that two weeks of air combat, before you know it, evolves into 2 years of conventional conflict. So the question then becomes should you concentrate most of your air efforts and monies on aircraft tailored to the first two weeks? Or are the subsequent two years more critical since that is when most ground and overall casualties will occur. If you had a $360 billion of your own money on the line and lives of family members depending on it, would you choose to spend 1/4th of your money on the the first two weeks of war protection and 3/4th of funds on the next two years? Methinks you would choose more like 1/10th for protection in the first two weeks, and 9/10s on the next 2 years of protection. That is why the current F-22 quantities and a larger F-35 buys make more sense. Beyond that if you read the Atlantic article, COL Rodriguez mentions that the capability to multi-task and withstand g-forces without getting sick are discrminators that make he and others succeed. Yet computers are perfectly capable of multi-tasking, can be equipped with eyes in the back of their head, do not need to use the bathroom every few hours, never get airsick, and can pull 20gs. So although we have not yet reached the point where UAS will replace the F-22 in air combat and SEAD/DEAD bombing, that era is not that far off, and greater counter-TBM and counter-stealth UAS capabilities will be required…just as the horse cavalryman had his day and then had to move on. John, in under a decade, while we are building 80+ F-35s a year and far more capable SAMs, the Russians and Chinese will still be trying to field small numbers of Su-35s and S-400s that still cannot detect the F-22 or front of the F-35, and their old fighters will be getting more and more obsolete.
	pfcem May 5th, 2009 at 12:06 am LOL Cole once again demonstrates a complete lack of sense of reality.
	spacehauk May 5th, 2009 at 7:03 am I regularly traveled to prc for plant inspections the last few years for american companies doing contract mfg…I have seen some elements of what they are building and believe me folks, they bhave only one target in their crosshairs and that is the US navy and Taiwan. When they hit, they will manage to be deceptive and catch us off guard again. Wait and see.
	Cole May 5th, 2009 at 8:42 am Heck of a rebuttal there pfcem…as usual. Reality is that F-22 radar acquisition-only, GPS munition attack does not provide adequate positive identification to target in a congested nation with a billion+ noncombatants. Don’t think we will have too many JTACs on the ground in mainland China.;) We already spent $65 billion on 187 F-22s that John Young says would need another $8 billion in upgrades, not to mention costly maintenance in theater. Purchase of another 60–200 F-22s would just cost more and detract from F-35 purchases that DO have excellent EO/IR optics, laser-designation capability and better 360 degree sensors…while retaining kick-A SEAD and counter-air capability. Remember that we never lost an F-16 in aerial combat either. The F-22 is ill-suited to the “long war” that would follow spacehauk’s unlikely but possible sneak attack. The Navy would need lots of F-35s and F/A-18s (and standard missiles) to fend off the threat to surface vessels and carriers. We had early radar warning of Pearl Harbor and did not act on it. Nevertheless, we all know how the war ended…
	Mark May 5th, 2009 at 11:22 am Cole, LOL…you are consistent. Got a guess on the CEP of a GBU31? As we have pointed out…the US has done well in aerial combat because we listened to people skilled and experienced in air combat..DUH As with all your fallacious examples from VietNam etc…You continue to advocate ignoring the experts…the people whose advice has produced our dominant success…you rant and rave that we should use the exact opposite formula?? We should not go with proven success, we should listen to guys with not one hour of experience? If you needed surgery, would you hire a plumber because his quote was lower?? LOL F22 ill suited to the Long War.…Does the current POTUS track with the Long War?.…Are there any other possible conflicts in the future aside from the Long War? Does success in WWII assure success in the future?
	Andre May 5th, 2009 at 5:55 pm My $.02. When it comes to our nation’s defense, it shouldn’t be an either or proposition. Giving ALL branches of our armed forces EVERYTHING they need in both manpower and material is the right answer (all of the above). This is the primary duty and responsibility of the federal government, NOT social spending. The raptor is a MAJOR strategic weapon and deterrent. To manufacture only 187 of them is stupid and dangerous. Virtually none of the empty headed media mention that the F-35 was designed to operate under the protection of the Raptor. Also, it seems very risky to this layman to stop production of the raptor when the F-35 is still in LRIP and likely to encounter further production problems. JMHO
	Recon-Team May 5th, 2009 at 10:11 pm The Air Force should get 1300+ F-35As, and 500+ F-22As. I think 1800+ of both aircraft would do the job. Including 200 or so upgraded F-15Es, we would have some 2000+ multi-role fighters. Besides for this the USAF should upgrade and keep as many A-10Cs operational as they can. As far as a bomber goes I agree we need some sort of program to eventually replace the B-52 and supplement our B-1Bs and handful of B-2As. I don’t know what the specifications of this aircraft should be however. A smaller fighter-bomber like the proposed FB-22 would also be a useful system.
	JCitizen May 7th, 2009 at 3:11 am I know I’m probably going to get flamed for this but, with the UAV capability we see on the news every day. Why do we want more manned aircraft? The NAVY designs I’ve seen coming out should easily trump a manned aircraft. No manned aircraft can manuever as well as a UAV. The pilot would be literally ripped apart! I personnally don’t believe Gates is an idiot, I think he is prepared to spend wisely, not less. I must admit though, with the advent of totally stealth sterling engine powered diesel subs coming out, I fear for our carriers. For that reason alone, I think we should have more capability, like the F-35 can deliver as a jump jet that doesn’t need to necessarily land exclusively on a carrier. The Gotland class Swedish stirling diesel sub can operate 14 days totally independent under water. It has anti-sonar capability, and is subsequently stealthy, besides the fact that the exhaust makes no bubbles and is dissolved in sea water. I appreciate the highly knowledgable discussion here, but people like me in the public are not stupid either, they want the best bang for the buck, and I suspect they believe in Gates. You need to convince us, despite our ignorance, not the bloggers here at the “Buzz”.
	charles May 7th, 2009 at 10:09 am the F-35 can function in the same air defense role as the F-22 so i dont see the big deal in replacing most of the F-22 with F-35. The time of the air superiority mission as the sole reason for a platform is economically unfeasable in the current state of bugetary shortfalls.
	WP May 7th, 2009 at 10:10 pm flame me comic-book-newbie, not fluent in milspeak, but the paradigm probably shifted to UAV (Unameit) (PPSTU) — Top Guns are sensing SATs and prc isn’t wassaneuer agreement savvy.
	p.w.prawl May 8th, 2009 at 9:03 pm As a Navy enlisted (aviation) bombardier/navigator Vigilante (mach 2.2) and later supply corps aviation (1954–1985) and co of an air cargo terminal (74–77) I had to be acquainted with all cargo/refueling aircraft. Without entering ALL the arguments, here is one. The F4B PHANTOM II CAME ON LINE with the fleet in 1962 as a long-range air superiority fighter which could escort the Vigilante close to Russia from the Med, nwPacific, etc. and a high altitude CAP OVER carrier air groups.It became an attact aircraft in vietnam when we ren out of a4d and AD (prop) ground support aircraft. It was NEVER designed AND POORLY SERVED as a ground support aircraft; too big & too fast. It was used for that because congress & the presidents involved wouldn’t fund proper replacement aircraft. The exact same thing happened to the Navy in Korea, we couldn’t provide air cover for AD SKYRAIDERS because of the mismatch in range & speed of the useless Navy jets we had, and it was too far for air farce coverage from Japan. Go see the “bridges of Toko Ri” (about Korea). the AIRFARCE bought the Phantom off the Navy contract (tailhook & all) because it was FAST. I’M not going to pretend I know all about the airfarce or the army, but the above are merely illustrations of when the O-5,s and the Defense industry make policy, towing congress along behind! NOW, would anyone like to talk about a GOOD ground support aircraft with a 3–4 hour loiter time, 30mm guns, and CHEAP TO BUILD & MAINTAIN? and we should give it to the army & marine corps. cdr usn retired
	Joe Klemmer May 9th, 2009 at 2:36 pm First off, I’m nobody. I’ve never been in any branch of the Armed Forces as active, reserve, or otherwise. However, I was born in Bremerhaven Germany one month after The Cuban Missile Crisis and spent the first half of my life living as a civilian dependent followed by being a civilian employee. My life has been intertwined with the Air Force and Army from birth through 2004. That being said, Cdr. Prawl hit it right on the head. How many times have the “experts” claimed that dog fighting was over? The F4’s at the beginning of Vietnam didn’t have any guns at all and they had, what, a 1–1 kill ratio? We didn’t get a true 4th gen fighter until the F-15. Yes, policy and budgeting are important things to consider. But if we don’t put a LOT of weight on what the guys in the seats say, we’re going to end up getting our @$$ kicked just like the beginning of every war the country has been in since air power first happened in WWI.
	Mark May 9th, 2009 at 5:13 pm Joe Klemmer…well said. This country could use a few more common sense guys like you
	DensityDuck May 9th, 2009 at 6:44 pm Joe: The last time we did exactly what the guys in the seats wanted, we ended up with the F-104.
	Cole May 9th, 2009 at 8:02 pm Joe, Open sources currently list the PLAAF as having: 130.….….J-10 multi-role fighters 120–140.….J-11 multi-role fighters 100.….… Su-30MKK fighters 76.….…. Su-27 multi-role fighters few aerial tankers, AWACS, or aerial EW aircraft few transport aircraft Note that most of their aircraft are multi-role, like the F-35. None are 5th generation like the F-22 and F-35. The Taiwan Air Force has 144 F-116s, 56 Mirage 2000–5, and 127 AIDC F-CK-1. The Japanese self-defense force has 160 F-15J, 94 F-2s. In other words the Taiwan and Japan air forces are nearly a match for the Chinese…before you add the Patriots of both nations or their Aegis systems. Japan has a $49 billion defense budget (in contrast to PRC $70B) that no doubt would rapidly grow if China suddenly presented a greater threat. Now compare that to our 186 F-22s that their jets cannot even see, Golden F-15s upgraded with AESA radars, F-18s upgraded with AESA radars, F-16s, and 80+ F-35s that will be built EACH YEAR very soon, and additional numbers of F-35s going to our allies such as Australia. Now consider that no USAF or Israeli F-15 or F-16 pilot was ever been shot down in air combat versus Russian fighters. Consider that Russian fighters have quality control and non-mission capable (broke) problems. Consider that China has a tendency to steal Russian designs which would tend to make Russia reluctant to sell them the Su-35…which still is not up to task versus the F-22 or F-35, and the Russians have only 12. Consider that Chinese pilots get far fewer training hours and lack our simulation capabilities. Consider that China has few aerial tankers so would need to use airfields closer to Taiwan where we could see them lifting off with our AWACS which they also have few of. Now consider our respective Navys and aircraft carrier capabilities. Ours powerful…theirs in infancy and subject to immediate loss by Virginia class and Seawolf subs let alone bombers/fighters. Consider our Marine aerial capabilities current and future. Consider our B-2 stealth bomber capabilities (80 small diameter bombs each), B-52 cruise missiles, and coming stealth and current Reaper UAS and future UCAV capabilities. ================================== Paints a pretty clear picture of domination doesn’t it. Now contrast the loss of very few USAF pilots since the end of the Viet Nam war, and the virtually nonexistant air combat threat since the end of the Cold War (exemplified by the lack of USAF and Navy aces) to the countless thousands of ground Soldiers/Marines who have died and 10 times as many who have been seriously injured. Finally John and Commander Prawl, please don’t make the mistake of comparing the F-4 and Sparrow missile of 45 years ago to the frontal stealth, DAS-equipped, AAMRAM-equipped F-35. There is no comparison. Do you use lessons of huge multi-room mainframe computers of 45 years ago to pass judgment on the personal computer of today with superior computing power?
	Rick May 10th, 2009 at 12:00 am Cole, I maybe mistaken, but I do not believe that Prawl is saying there is anything wrong with the F-35. He is pointing out that the aircraft the brass have insisted they ‘need’ (as they currently insist they need more F-22’s) were not actually suited to the war that they ended up fighting. What they actually needed were more of the older/cheaper/slower aircraft they scorned. Duck, The designers of the A-10 actually had study groups asking the pilots what they wanted in a ground attack plane. With all due respect, I think that probably qualifies as the last time anyone asked the guys in the seats what they wanted.