Comments on: U.S. Air Dominance Eroding

By: Tom Pugh

Tom Pugh — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:24:07 +0000

Well, the old missle gap of the 60’s, all dressed up for the new century.

By: JBennett

JBennett — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:12:15 +0000

“Without functioning ground bases, aircraft cannot operate”

Well, maybe some aircraft. That’s why we have aircraft carriers.

By: steve

steve — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:55:51 +0000

TB,
I think the debate here is convoluted. I’ve completed 3 tours in Iraq, 03–04, 05–06, and most recently 08–09 and I have to be frank; rotary wing aircraft did far more to enable combat forces than the FW aircraft we had stacked up to XX,000 feet. (I also served on the Brigade staff of an Army Combat Aviation Brigade — perhaps I’m slightly biased).
I agree with everyone that we need a strong force of FW aircraft to maintain aerial supremacy and win conventional wars. However, when the USAF is shifting manned assets away from the COIN fights and trying to downsize its manned assets in Iraq, how can everyone be clamming for a so-called COIN aircraft?
The aviation fight in central iraq is at the treetops unfortunately, not in the stratosphere.
The only COIN aircraft I’ve ever known of were the A1 skyraider and perhaps large FW gunships, but the manner in which we’re prosecuting both OIF and OEF, all of that firepower is moot, unnecessary, and dangerous to the long term effort. Helicopters are vital in a COIN fight and much more so than armed FW aircraft. It’s about eating soup with a knife remember???

By: robertro2

robertro2 — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:05:40 +0000

every time there is a change at the top,you upset the bottom....so i guess when A/F-1 needs an A/C escort,we will send up those missles,"GENERAL"....and when there is a world problem,maybe we will send the "GENERALS" first.....it seems all our great "TACTICIANS",are gone and the "GENERAL" left are waiting for there ritirement....

By: Apollo

Apollo — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:34:32 +0000

NAVAIR53 you really need to read your history on the atomic weapons race. Japan was closer to 6 years, not six weeks away from building an atomic weapon. They did not have the giant industrial complex to build the half dozen weapons we did at the conclusion of WWII. The Manhattan Project employed tens of thousands of US workers, laboring in dozens of facilities throughout the United States. Japan had a pilot nuclear program and separated miniscule amounts of weapons grade uranium 238. The massive plutonium plant at Hanford, the uranium enrichment plant at Oak Ridge… The Japanese understood a lot of the physics but had no such facilities or even the raw materials to build them.

Back to the article: I am for a strong military. I believe our warfighters should go into combat with the best tools available. Like it or not many of our technological advances come from defense spending. I am for a military that takes the “man” out of harms way. To those who fear increasing numbers of unpiloted, unmanned vehicles… While much of their flight time is autonomous, a UAV will NEVER engage a target without a human giving the command. You are simply removing the man from the cockpit not the mission. It also makes no sense to fly billion dollar missions (aircraft, pilot, fuel, support crews, huge bases) over vast areas of rubble, scrub and sand when an UAV can loiter for hours at a fraction of the cost and will one day be able to carry the same amount of ordenance and provide close air support for the boots on the ground.

But we need balance and insurance. These systems rely on satellites and they are vulnerable. We need a capable fleet of manned aircraft able to respond to actual threats not perceived ones. Is the F-22 the aircraft to fulfill that mission? I feel we should maintain a sizable fleet of F-22s and an even larger force of F-35s until the day comes when we can remove the #1 detriment to aircraft performance, the human inside who will become icapacitated due to g lock, fatigue or surface threats long before the airframe falls. apart.

By: bill

bill — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:28:07 +0000

umm no problem — we got FUFO triangles, rods, disks, uav LR stealthers, cloakers, airborne laser & e-beam fryers in reserve

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:29:54 +0000

This is all going the way tht it is because it is all expensive and we can’t afford it. Why can’t we afford it? It’s because the income tax, and most specifically the 2nd-highest corporate tax rate on the planet, has chased the sources of our prosperity, the manufacturing sector, overseas. IOW, we don’t have anyone left to tax to the extent necessary to fund a superior military force. All the degredation we see here has this underlying cause.

We must repeal the income tax, and institute a consumption tax as the founding fathers dictated in the original constitution. With that, we can restore prosperity and fund a superior military. If we don’t, we’re going to have all the political and economic influence of Nicaragua or Zimbawe.

By: charlie

charlie — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:13:19 +0000

I wonder what an autonomous fighter would look like… Smaller radar cross section with G moves impossible for a human pilot to withstand. That is our next step… The only drawback would be cyber strikes removing are ablities to control such aircraft or possibly take them over all together. Are top techies and science folk got their work cut out for them.

By: Tom B

Tom B — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:51:08 +0000

Perhaps Lt. Gen. David Deptula needs some education on the US Navy. Why continue to spend untold dollars on a warfighter that has seen zero combat missions since inception, even though we’ve been at war since its first flight? The aircraft carrier is STILL our best front line offensive weapon.

By: Cole

Cole — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:06:01 +0000

Ronbo said: “We have a bunch of incompetent, short-sighted people who only concentrate on the here and now and don’t plan on possible future threats.“
==================================
Real sons and daughters are getting blown up here and now. Actual Soldiers are enduring their 3rd and 4th year-long tours with more to come under fire. Possible future threats? Guess those exist solely in the air since F-35 survived while most of FCS and ARH did not. But a trillion dollars for F-35 procurement and life cycle costs apparently doesn’t dominate the DoD budget or skies enough for some. It’s apparently unacceptable that some might occasionally have to use their ejection seat.

There are no ejection seats against IEDs and ATGMs. Yet some still question any need for air-to-ground pounds or asymmetric ground force advantages, asking why. Others dream of more land component monies and forces and ask why not. It’s unfortunate that current conflict lethality reality has to interfere with dreams of lottery-winning likelihoods of fighting the Russians and Chinese in the air…the only two forces we would need more than 50 F-22s to defeat.

Pilots haven’t suffered casualties in numbers proportional to ground forces since WWII and have not fought Russian or Chinese pilots for 60 years. Yet despite that historical precedent, some would have you think aerial armageddon against the big boys is right around the corner. How dare we expect airmen to risk casualties over the course of an entire war that are comparable to ground casualties in a tough week.

When the big boys last did fight us in Korea, U.S. pilots managed a 10:1 loss-exchange with both sides in nearly identical aircraft and equally war-seasoned pilots. Today’s Russian/Chinese aircraft aren’t remotely comparable to ours nor are their pilots anywhere near as experienced or well-trained.
===========================================
Ronbo said: “Today we,re fighting a low intensity war with drones but tommorrow we could be thrown into a major conflict with a better armed and prepared enemy or enemies.
===========================================
Yeah, with 1/7th of our annual defense budget and decades-old technology They will miraculously crank out hundreds of stealthy 5th gen fighters when they haven’t produced teens of 4.5 gen anytime recently. Despite nukes and economic interdependence, some white scarf advocates remain convinced that near peers will interrupt the gravy train of free trade to take us on in the air, sea, and land.

Even more comical is any notion that export of teens of Russian jets and SAMs to insignificant enemies is a threat worth ruining our eoonomy over buying excessive airpower.
===========================================
Ronbo continued: “I don’t think a few predator drones are going to be enough,do you?“
==========================================
Guess that’s why the Navy is building UCAV, the USAF will build MQ-X and an unmanned bomber, and the Army will buy MQ-1C, Fire Scout, larger Shadows, and T-Hawk.

By: Cobra Mech

Cobra Mech — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:56:34 +0000

Costs of everything have gone out of control. The thing that a lot of people don’t seem to realize is that someone has to make these things (any advanced weapon system) and they are usually a man or woman with a faimly. The more advanced the weapon system becomes, the more skilled the worker has to be to:
1. make the thing
2. fix the thing.

Remember. No one works for free in the United States.

We do not need to slow the pace of our advancement in military weapons. That is a death sentance to our way of life. it may not be an immediate death sentance but if we stop, others will catch up and surpass us. No American wants our nation to end up as irelevent as France…

Is the F-22 the answer? Probably not. Is the F-35 the answer? Probably not. I’m not a fortune teller — no one can really see the future. The only thing we can do is look at history and try to learn from the mistakes of our predacessors. When you stop advanceing, you are done for.

I hope that no military force in human history ever acheives the capibility to remove the human element from war. If we do that, we are beholden to our machines. In some regards we rely on them far too much these days — people can’t seem to get across town with out a stinking GPS navigation system in their cars these days. Remotely operated military weapons are one of those things that sound nice on paper too. Unfortunately, when you remove the human element of death from war, waging it becomes far too easy.

I do not want to live in a world where war is as common as traffic in a busy city and we don’t really worry about it because we’re only wrecking robots or remotely operated vehicles. The waging of war must remain a human endevor if only to cause policy makers to consider the cost prior to engaging in war.

In the end it comes down to the fact that we must continue to advance. We must continue to upgrade. Nothing we make lasts forever and must eventually be replaced. When weapon systems become outdated or obsolete, there is no reason to keep them around — remove what can be used elsewhere and recycle the rest. How much ‘aircraft grade aluminum’ is sitting at ARMARC in Arizona? I bet you could build a whole lot of new aircraft out of the old ones…

By: TB

TB — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:12:49 +0000

Russian and China aren’t squeamish about cost? They spend a fraction of a fraction of what we do on their militaries. If you read some other comments on this site you’ll see they aren’t exactly building hordes of modern fighters themselves.

By: Ronbo

Ronbo — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:30:47 +0000

Let me get this straight. Half the Defense Dept. including Robert Gates think we should scrap or scale back most of our new systems including the F-22 and F-35 due to cost and the fact that we “don,t need them” since we,re currently busy chasing little guerilla fighters around God forsaken countries like Afghanistan.The other half is now biting their nails because we are losing our technological edge to countries like Russia and China who aren,t squeamish about cost when it comes to building and fielding new fighters which may rival the capabilities of our own. We can keep on flying the older F-15s and F-16s till they finally give out but then what?We have a bunch of incompetent, short sighted people who only concentrate on the here and now and don,t plan on possible future threats. Today we,re fighting a low intensity war with drones but tommorrow we could be thrown into a major conflict with a better armed and prepared enemy or enemies.I don,t think a few predator dronres are going to be enough,do you?

By: Vindicator

Vindicator — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:38:52 +0000

This is what the current administration wants anyway. Our generals work for an Islamic implant noncitizen president who is a communist and DOES NOT have the best interest of the US in his playbook.

By: TB

TB — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:29:39 +0000

Recon,

The Air Force’s need for a specific number of F-22s started out at almost 800 in the early 1990s when I was in high school. Since then through rising costs and force structure changes, that number steadily dropped. At this point, I wonder if 380 F-22s (after 20 years of development) is the number they really think they need or the number they thought they could afford.

By: ReconTeam

ReconTeam — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:29:44 +0000

Why are half the people here so intent on disregarding the words of USAF leaders like Lt. Gen. Deptula here? Men like him have the numbers, and just as devoted to serving there country as Gates.

The bottom line is that F-16s, F-15Es, and A-10s are seeing plenty of use in the war on terror. They are going to wear out faster than they would have otherwise, and the rest of the F-15 fleet is rather dated anyway. Most of these aircraft were intended to start retiring now. Indeed the Air Force needs to have a focus on close air support and needs aircraft like the A-10 to do that. Yet they also need 5th generation fighters to replace current designs. Aircraft designed for the role, should be used to replace aircraft previously performing that role.

This means more F-22s to replace the F-15 fleet and F-35s to replace F-16s. We shouldn’t be having the F-35 doing everything. The USAF determined that the minimum of 385 F-22As was enough to replace most F-15A-D variants, yet not all. Nearly 200 Raptors less than their minimum requirement is not enough, and the F-35 is no substitute.

Gates wants to serve his country no doubt, but being SecDef means being a politician too, and his “one plane for all roles” view is too reminiscent of McNamara.

By: Clyde

Clyde — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:19:05 +0000

Deptula needs to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvddzilNwKc&feature=related

What’s teh AF going to do for our guys, doing this sort of thing?

Helicopters!!!!

By: NAVAIR53

NAVAIR53 — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:08:21 +0000

Stalin loved the B 29 so much; he kept them when they visited his turf. All the Boeing was reverse engineered and the Tupolov long range bomber made the green light. Everything changed and to the credit of Boeing Aircraft Industries; the Russian yoke had the name Boeing on it. Remember FOXBAT with Clint Eastwood? Remember the days when defectors would fly in with their migs? Anything they can make we can make and they can do the same. The world seems to be harvesting technology whenever possible and fetching it back to their homelands or to their corporations. Somewhere some place they is always some goof ball selling out his own country or his own corporation. 5th generation? Copy that. 6th generation? Copy that. American spend so much on R+D billions of $$$$$$$$ and then some spooks lift it and gift it away. We require air superiority right on time and in advance. Other nations require advanced air superiority to. Its kind of like a race; an arms race. Whenever you top your goals another set of goals appear. No matter how dauntless; ya keep goin. Politicians might not understand military technology, the need for it, the tactics, the resources, the forecast strategy in the view of a warrior class. It best to enlighten them. Let them in on the vital importance of high tech warfare in reference to a realistic combat readiness air transport recon and firepower. State of the art technologies have enabled smaller forces to overwhelm subdue and to conquer inferior air power forces. Do recall the 1947 report. 300 jet fighters were being built in untouched hangers in the mountains of Japan. These little fellas without a German jet built their own jet fighter force from blueprints. They cobbled the jet engine the avionics, the fuselage every detail. Japan only required 9 more months to have a jet fighter strike force to challenge the 7th fleet. Like a Divine Wind; they were counting on a miracle. The Imperial Japanese Army were only 6 weeks behind in perfecting the Atomic Bomb. During the surrender; the Japanese had a 3 million man standing army fully equipped and armed for battle. Sharing and reverse engineering can be done. Japan had been secretly building squadrons of German style jet fighters from mere blueprints. To think; they once made toys people used to laugh about until after the end of WWII. As for the dollar going down; it means our foreign debt just became cheaper. Pray for peace in our time and for future generations. The little people do not make the wars. One future date some big shots at gonna get it just like General Curtis Lemay dished it out. The bad people better stop planning for their wars. Life is tough enough and America should be on the ball because Gawd only knows what mercy one could expect at the hands of the enemy.

By: TB

TB — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:54:46 +0000

“to all of you..(and G-Town student)

there is a COIN aircraft….it’s called a helicopter.”

Steve,

Helicopters are nice but they are slow, vulnerable, limited to flying time, and the equipment they can carry. An airplane can carry more gear, weapons, fuel, and armor. A friend of mine once said helicopters are like pinatas: they dangle there, are easy to break, and everyone likes to take a swing at them.

By: Clyde

Clyde — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:16:57 +0000

PS!

QDR-“Qualtiy Deficiency Reports”-are used for assets that do not meet MIL-SPEC.

If the AF wants to call everything they don’t like “QDR”, I think the AF needs to find another government to operate under.

If QDR means someting else, please inform, Mr. Grant.