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.

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?

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.

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

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”.

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.

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?

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…

When they hit, they will manage to be deceptive and catch us off guard again.

Wait and see.

Cole once again demonstrates a complete lack of sense of reality.

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.

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!