Akin Pushes Gates on Fighter Gap

Weaponhead February 17th, 2010 at 5:32 pm

Wonder what the latest 1 year slip in F-35 does to the 100/243 aircraft gap?

@E_L_P February 18th, 2010 at 1:52 am

The F-35 is basically obsolete vs. emerging threats in the coming years. And of course has no flight testing of mission systems aircraft to backup any buying decsion. It has not done one trap or cat launch.

Super Hornet is a good idea to a point but against emerging threats, past the 2020s, the carrier air wing will be at risk of getting killed off and with that goes the carrier itself. As it stands now, the USN is on course to have two aircraft in the carrier air wing that will not be able to stand up to SU-3X, S300/S400 and whatever results from PAK/FA. And the PAK/FA doesn’t have to be all that stealthy. Just enough to reduce the PK of the AMRAAM to such a point that WVR is going to happen and while HOBS heaters are deadly, the Ru-tech will go into WVR with more manuver and more missiles.…. and the fact that the F-35B and F-35C may have left the deck that day without their gun pod. Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.

Drake1 February 18th, 2010 at 2:46 am

Everyone’s assuming the country will still have the credit to wage a war by 2015–20 and on.

Byron Skinner February 17th, 2010 at 10:33 pm

Good Evening Folks,

Question does anyone know how much on “campaign” contributions Congressman Akin put in his pocket from lobbyists?

To @ E L P, you make some serious statements especially regarding the S-300 and S-400 series Soviet/Russian Radars especially since the Russian canceled the S-400 program. Could you provide us with some supporting data. The S-300 is a very old system but since Vietnam, I’m not aware of any instances where an S-300 system successfully has engaged an American A/F aircraft.

I know toward the end of the “No Fly” era over Iraq the USAF and USN though so little if Iraqi S-300PM/S-300PM2 systems that they attacked them with inert practice bomb instead of HE.

As for the ability of US aircraft to stand up to Russian air frames I will refer everybody to an article by Ed Darack “Hornet vs, Mig”. It would appear from the article that Marines of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (All Weather) 225 from MCAS San Diego had little problems in a joint training exercise against Migs 29’s which is held annually with the Malaysian AF. The Malaysian pilots are said to be among the best flying Migs in terms of training hours and training with US pilots.

By the time any operational Russian Su-35s hits the skies, let me back up here, I meant Indian Su-35s’s in or about 2020 the technology in the F-35 will be 30 years old. But I don’t see much to be concerned with since the Russians plan on buying 48 aircraft and the Indian AF 160. It has been reported that the Indians who will build the Su-35 need to produce 500 to break even. The other 278 air frames have yet to be sold, I really doubt that India would sell this product to China

The Marines still fly off carriers don’t they?

I’m still waiting from two posts ago on the F-35, can someone tell me why we need the F-35 and back it up with sound evidence and reason?

All I see above is paid posters for lobbyist that can’t make a case. I guess because there isn’t one other then the wingers ideology and the interest of the equity holder of LM and other companies suppling them.

The jobs issue bless you little right wing hearts, is a non issue, this is national defense. The F-35 is simply redundant and not needed.

The F-35 is just throwing anywhere from $300 billion and a $1 trillion dollars down a rat hole.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

James Northern February 18th, 2010 at 4:18 am

I am certainly not an expert, but why doesn’t everyone just “bite the B—–t, and start developing unmanned airframes that can be controlled from the carriers combat center on-board. Or does this tread on too many toes? The F-35 and F-22s were supposed to be the ultimate in fighter development to replace existing platforms and yet you are saying that they are already approaching obsolescense! Thinking must be geared to jumping ahead a generation or two to maintain supremacy, whether the pilots like it or not! Today’s air combat is being waged from air-conditioned facilities outside of Las Vegas by Air Force Mom’s who pick up their kids from childcare on the way home from their combat shifts at the airbase.

RSF February 18th, 2010 at 1:33 am

Just a little fact checking is in order for Byron as usual:

1.The S-300/S-400 have absolutely nothing in common with the the SAM systems used in Vietnam. They use a large phased array radar system, combined with a 4 canister mobile launcher, that fires a Mach 6 missile the size of a telephone pole. The Radar transmitters are frequency agile making then very difficult to jam or hunt with HARM missiles. Describing a pause in production to update and improve the design as “no longer making them” is certainly an interesting slant on the truth.
2. No American aircraft have flown against a modern S-300/400 system because we are lucky!
3. The old song and dance about the lack of capability of Russian fighters was answered in 2004 when USAF F-15C fighters being flown by top pilots took a beating at the hands of the Indian Air Force in Cope India flying against MIG 21’s and SU-27/30 Flankers.
4. On the MIG 29, the Polish Air Force flies both the Fulcrum and the F-16. In mock combat among Polish Pilots the MIG is the clear winner most of the time.
5. While the SU-35 is dangerous, the PAK-FA is in a class by itself (and the Raptor). US legacy fighters and the F-35 will be vulnerable to this fighter due to its stealth, and overall airframe performance. Both the Super Hornet and the F-35C are completely out of their league going against the PAK-FA, and this will relegate our carrier fighters having to be protected by Raptors in the future.

Ralph Du Bois February 18th, 2010 at 2:33 am

All of these arguments boil down to leadership. Gates, just like Obama and Mullin are in the wrong jobs. None of them know what the hell they’re doing. Obama and Gates will spend trillions and just dig us deeper into debt without accomplishing anything; and Mullin will just sit by, like the moral coward he shows himself to be, and just watch our SEALS face unwarranted charges in court while he allows our pilots to have second rate material with which to defend our ships, crews, and nation well into the future.

Chantelle February 18th, 2010 at 8:38 am

Dear Byron,

The F-35A JSF is not and will never be a fifth generation fighter. See:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-081109–1.htm…

The JSF Program is just-so-flawed, as demonstrated by standard risk analysis. See:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-191109–1.htm…

The Su-35S is not your Father’s Flanker (nor is it the PAK-FA). To get a more complete understanding of the Flanker family, see:

http://​www​.ausairpower​.net/​f​l​a​n​k​e​r​.​h​tml

As for you comments about Russain S-300/400 SAM systems, you would do well to listen to what RSF is telling you. Also, you might want to study the material provided at:

http://​www​.ausairpower​.net/​s​a​m​s​-​i​a​d​s​.​h​tml

Chuck February 18th, 2010 at 10:06 am

Here we are again debating the merits of the F-22 and the F-35 lets just say now is the time for the DOD to step up and begin looking at the real future of the Fighter force, manner/unmanned. Stealth or super stealth, technolgy lead or status quo. We have all hear it before, the Russians are comming the Chinese are comming are you guys for real. First off neither country really have much to offer the aircraft are getting better but still are year behind in technology and engineering. Second the US will be working on a sixth generation fighter soon. The F-35 program has another year before its cancil and then the merical sixth will begin. Bad programs don’t last in electrion years. Third and final do we need thousand of fighter or thousand of unmanned aircraft to swam air defenses and fighter defense grids thing about it.

@E_L_P February 18th, 2010 at 10:34 am

As is always the case with the F-35 program; anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations.

Jeff February 18th, 2010 at 11:38 am

We can’t really afford the fighter gap and now that its enlarging, some action should be taken to mitigate the short term fighter gap. In the very least they should buy a number of legacy fighters to cover the additional year shortfall.

Rollen February 18th, 2010 at 12:28 pm

I cant ever understand American resolute planings for such aircrafts as F-35 and F-22?
F-22 have never else been saving soldiers wheiter in Iraq or Afghanistan — even today 2010.
The fact F-22 has only been used as identifiers of passenger aircrafts over the American territory and sometimes one or two Russian Bears flying close to the border near Alaska.
The fact one only F-22A cost about $300 ought to be larming incompetent politicians and even Lockheed Martins experts. The same for F-35 as every week is rising in price and for what use?
F-35 cant use in close-air support because the big risk to loose an aircraft.
To build an aircraft only för an initial attack on Russian ground-to-air batteries S-300 and S-400 is a waste without wiseacre. Wake up America and show up You instead to be stealth!
Stealth is only cosmetica!

Tony C February 18th, 2010 at 1:50 pm

The US Navy wanted a replacement for the F-14D some years ago in the same performance regime as the F-22A, but was blocked by congress due to the astonomical costs of waht wa sto become the F-22A program. The US Navy was told they would get the Joint Strike Fighter as a fleet defense fighter and in typical trusting fashion of the US Navy experience with joint programs, bought the F-18E/F just in case the F-35C never materialized. They sold the F-18E/F to congress as an upgrade to the F-18C/D, for which it is not an upgrade. Now, it is still possible the F-35C will never materialze and it doesn’t have the air dominance performance required to replace the F-14D in the fleet defense role. The US Navy is tired and will probably bypass the entire manned aircraft systems by perfecting the UCAV to fly from the carrier decks. A carrier equipped with advanced UCAV’s would be a formidable opponent for any nation to confront. Then the quality of the pilots is a mute point and they can manuver in flight regimes a manned system can not.

John King February 18th, 2010 at 11:54 am

Back to basics. All aircraft wear out. The F-15 and F-16 are the hi/lo mix for the Air Force. Regardless of technical capabilties (including stealth), the F-22 just replaces the F-15 hi and the F-35A replaces the F-16 lo. For Navy, the F-14 went away when we changed the engagement rules about over-the-horizon targeting of Bears with Phoenix missiles. The F-18 was meant as the lo end for ship defense. When it wasn’t good at the attack role (because it didn’t have the legs or carrying capacity), the Navy tricked the Congress into believing the E/F was a “simple modification” when in fact it was a new airplane. The F-35C just replaces the F-18, with the F-35B replacing the AV-8B, which was never very good. Simple inventory issues.

As to the discussion about survivability and winners, I’d like to see some discussion about missile technology in the air-to-air roles. I just look at any aircraft as a launch platform. The missiles do the work in air superiority. The plane just has to get close, in which case we just send in a saturation attack with missile-armed UCAVs. Do we really dog fight these days with Sidewinders and cannons from manned aircraft?

Byron Skinner February 18th, 2010 at 2:10 pm

Good Morning RSF,

Not even a good try.

Item 1: I didn’t say the SAM of Vietnam we the S-300 System, I only asked if ant US fighters had been downed since the Vietnam war by Soviet/Russian ADS’s. The downing of the F-117 in Kosovo was not the result of an S-300PM ADS.

Item 2: The US has encountered various forms of the S-300 system during ten years in the no fly zone of Iraq, no hit. In 2007 two F-16 flying in Iraq were fired on by an S-300PM2 battery and as General Norton Schwartz said they missiles and the radar were defeated by a non –kenetic US weapon system.

Item 3: The F-15’s flying against the Indian Migs were operating under a restricted ROE for training that was put in place in the 1980’s over concern over a material/manufacturing flaw in the F-15 that can cause the airframe to break up in flight. Right now in Byron Georgia and F-15C is being disassembles and all F-15C’s are grounded, like the F-15 A & B models the C’s are done as an AF fighter air frame.

I think Duck Perry say it all. I agree with him 100%.

Item 4: The Su-35 that was test flown was at best unimpressive. One respected air craft designer on a sister publication to the buzz rakes as welding an Mig 29 front to a Mig 31 back side and installing an Su-30 engine. In short it was a chop shop job for the foreign media. The PAK-FA is nothing more the Putin propaganda. For more on this in the winger mode, check a recent article in Jamestown.

As usual you completely ignored the question so I will say it again, give me a sound reason backed up by factual evidence of why we need to buy the F-35?

Greg Grant’s recent (today) articles on both DT and the buzz present an even stronger arguments for NOT BUYING THE F-35.

ALLONS,
Byron Skknner

Josh February 18th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Stealth is cosmetic? You’re kidding right? That, if any, is one feature that is function over form.

The F-22 is an AS fighter… we can’t gear all military purcahses towards fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq. We have to maintain a balanced force.

Chantelle February 18th, 2010 at 10:50 pm

pps — the JSF is now totally irrelevant, as the works of Air Power Australia clearly show.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010–01.html

As I said before, may be harsh but true, it is time to cut the chord of this still borne traversty.

Chantelle February 19th, 2010 at 3:31 am

My Dear Byron,

To what personal attacks are you referring???? Methinks your skin is very, very thin.

If you take the time to re-read what was provided in response to your rant, it givesyou some friendly advice as to your reading and comprehension skills, or rather, lack thereof. Your latest, once again, shows you need some quite serious remedial training in this area.

It would seem you are so wrapped up in your own self importance and hubris, you are unable to read let alone comprehend even the plainest of the written version of the English language.

If you bothered to do so, you would see that I and many others who have posted on this forum who you treat with your arrogant disdain (e.g. RSF, ELP, and others) do not support the JSF Program and, in fact, believe it to be the biggest Ponzi scheme that America has ever foist on the world — far bigger than even the GFC.

So, as before, either take the time to inform yourself with the facts, or, if you are unwilling or unable to do so, then cease and desist doing yourself and your country such a huge disservice.

ALLONS to you, too.

Chantelle
High School Teacher

Chantelle February 19th, 2010 at 6:22 am

Hey Everyone,

Byron Skinner has just demonstrated he/she has the ability to move posts around.

Now I am no deception theorist but even I recognise such access when coupled up with the ‘total indifference to reality’ so evident in the rants of BS that this is Deception 101.

BS is likely someone associated with, mayhaps even employed, by DoD Buzz to generate traffic.

If that is the case, then DoD Buzz should apologise to all its readers and remove BS (of both kinds) from its site.

ALLONS to you all,

Trophy February 19th, 2010 at 10:56 am

RSF and Byron, you are both wrong about the Indian AF vs USAF engagement in Cope India 2004. Take it from someone with a first-hand account:

First, Byron, you are wrong about the ROE being due to the structural defects. The structural defects that resulted in an airframe breaking apart in-flight from behind the canopy did not come to light until November of 2007, the infamous Cope India exercise took place three years prior. I know this for a fact because I seriously thought that the jet that broke apart in-flight was my old jet upon the initial breaking of the news. The entire F-15 fleet was grounded worldwide and it wasn’t until February of 2008 that all F-15’s were deemed safe for flight.

Second, RSF, the ROE was an important factor. And it was less the capabilities of the Russian equipment (the IAF flew more of the older MiG’s and Sukkhois, very few of the newer models) and more that the F-15’s and weapons we sent weren’t our best.

For ROE, our E-3 “AWACS” was a neutral entity.… providing C3 capabilities to both the IAF and USAF, and no electronic warfare aid to either. At that time the IAF did not possess any AWACS assets and used ours as valuable training to provide the basis of their forthcoming AWACS capability. Keeping AWACS exclusive to the USAF would’ve taken away the electronic warfare advantage of the IAF.

While at that time the 3rd Wing had F-15C’s with the potent AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA radar, only 18 F-15C’s have the radar and the six F-15C’s that the 3rd Wing sent did not possess the radars. Had the F-15’s with the AESA radars been sent, they would have had an additional edge found in electronic warfare.

They also lacked the off-boresight capability of the AIM-9X and JHMCS combination. This would have more than off-set the superior maneuverability of the IAF’s smaller, more agile fighters (most of which lacked sophisticated avionics).

And worst of all, they were equipped with AIM-7 Sparrow missiles… and not the advanced AIM-120 AMRAAM. The AIM-7 is a medium-ranged semi-active radar guided missile, meaning that the target must constantly be illuminated with the F-15’s radar in order for it to hit. The IAF would use a single aircraft for each F-15 to tie up their radars while the rest of the IAF jets would shoot them down, overwhelming them with greater numbers. The AIM-120 is a medium ranged fully active radar guided missile, meaning you could “fire-and-forget” and engage multiple targets at once. They also possess ECCM and “home-on-jam” capability. Each F-15 can carry up to eight of these missiles, and can fire two missiles every 1.5 seconds (shorter intervals risks engine flameout from missile exhaust gas ingestion). Typical F-15 tactics revolve around a four-ship wall formation with each aircraft armed with 2 AIM-9X’s and 6 AIM-120’s, obliterating multiple targets at once with AIM-120’s and mopping up the rest with AIM-9X’s if they got too close. This tactic and the AIM-120 was designed to overcome the superior numbers of Soviet aircraft the USAF was expecting to face when the Cold War threatened to turn into a shooting war.

So simply put short, the USAF fought with both hands tied behind their backs. The IAF didn’t win, the USAF simply lost before the fight began.

Tenn Slim February 19th, 2010 at 9:08 am

Opine
bt
LM in the EMD phases of F22 pushed hard for mulit year contracts, no deals were made. Aerospace Corps simply need CERTAINTY in there budget process. Multi Year contracts, garantee that Admins like the current one, will not toss over the production lines, eliminate R and D Engineers, production workers,and even the Janitorial staff.
bt
One may not like to admit it, but any SBO or Corporation NEEDS certainty in there process. A reasonable garanteed contract ensures productivity, technical progress, and future contracts, regardless of the product. DOD products take a HUGE amount of time to develop, produce, test and make operational. Multi Year Contracts, at a minimum, make this possible.
bt
Short sighted politicians, biased and agenda driven Aide De Camps subvert the process.
end
Semper Fi
We Will Prevail.

Byron Skinner February 19th, 2010 at 2:51 pm

Good Morning Folks,

I can see that there is no forthcoming answer to my question and my personal E-Mail for reads indicates they are fed up with the battering of paid posters who have no views or opinions, just feeble attempts at bulling and I agree other then badgering the opinions of others they have nothing. Since I’m under an agreement with the editors not to respond in kind, I don’t have their options.

For those really interested see Greg’s article over on DT and the triggering of Nunn-Mc Curdy. From my private posting no member of Congress wants this but as general Norton Schwartz say’s it’s going to happen. This is a fickled Congress that is facing a huge budget deficits and elections in Nov. and to most Americans F-22 and F-3.5 are camera settings.

I would say the turning point that broke the programs back is the appointment of a marine general who as the editors here say sufficient celebrity to criticize, but if you are interested article by Colin from the Paris Air Show last June and this Fall over his position on the second engine for the F-35 says all that need to be said.

The problem as indicated by the Program Manager fiasco is that the Dod, Air Force and Navy has lost control of the F-35 procurement and acquisition process and have been reduced to being check writers to LM and the winger tanks who have infiltrated our defense department under two inept Sec. of Defense. William Cohen who for the last nine years has operated his own lobbying winger tank “The Cohen Group” and the Bush Sec. of Def. Rumsfeld who set new low standards for the managing of the Defense Department.

By reading Colin’s articles it clearly shows that the Marine General appointed to be Project Manager of the F-35 had strong personal conflicts of interest. A 20/20 look at his appointment can only be done through the two extremes, either he was put in by the thanks whop wanted there “guy” on the other side of table and to have that $600 million bonus approved or it was those in the DoD who want to crash the F-35 program and there would be not better vehicle for doing this the appointing this general and triggering Nunn-Mc Crudy.

The project manager affair did more to kill the F-35 then any logic or reason could do.

So have a ball winger. Today is payday cash you checks and have a couple of PBR’s. I’m out of here.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

William C. February 21st, 2010 at 7:47 am

Byron again and again myself and others have stated the reasons why the F-22 and F-35 are needed yet you are intent on ignoring such postings while spewing your venomous drivel. Your posts usually consist of unsubstantiated “facts” and claims opposing the procurement of any new equipment, followed by some poorly worded and confused rant about “wingers” (a term that makes no sense) and “that particular institution of winger tanks.” While the specifics aren’t clear, it is obvious your going on about some vast right-wing conspiracy that exists only in your head.

Judging from your constant ranting about conservative “wingers”, “winger” think-tanks, and claims that we don’t need any equipment, I am a bit concerned at the direction you want to see our country tank.