Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 7, 2009 12:07:40 GMT -5
How the hell do all you people know so much about this stuff!!?? I dunno, defense policy is interesting and very important, so I read up. I'm assuming that's what everyone else does.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 7, 2009 12:20:48 GMT -5
But again, you're positing a war unlike anything we're currently fighting now or likely to be fighting in the future. What's really telling, I think, is that we're fighting two wars and the F-22 has yet to be used in combat. Furthermore, I worry that constantly harping on a hypothetical war with China or Russia to justify spending billions on fighter planes could quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The F-35 would also be cr*p for the two wars we're fighting now. The best fixed-wing plane for our current wars is the lowly A-10. But air power doesn't mean much in either of these wars. As I said before, my main objection to the F-22 cut is that it puts too much emphasis on the F-35, which I think is highly overrated. It's just not that good of a plane, and it's not good enough to win air superiority against a strong enemy. In principle I agree that spending billions on a new fighter now isn't a good idea. If this were a question of whether to initiate a new fighter program, I'd be onboard with you. But the development costs for the F-22 is money that's already spent. I think the DoD should have at least kept the production line open. As far as Gates getting his orders from above, I'm not so sure. Gates has been one of the biggest advocates of the "smart power" stuff that the Obama folks have been talking about. He's backed the 3D strategy (Defense, Diplomacy, Development), and surprisingly he's pushed hard for more money for the Diplomacy and Development pillars. Patreus has been behind him 100% in those efforts.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 8, 2009 8:26:49 GMT -5
How the hell do all you people know so much about this stuff!!?? It's part of my job. And the Stig is right--the F-35 and F-22 aren't meant for the wars we're currently fighting. That doesn't mean its not short sighted to cut the program, because they are necessary for wars against China (over Taiwan), Russia (not as far fetched as it seems, considering the Georgia conflict last year) Iran/North Korea if they get a hold of the Russian/Chinese anti air missile systems and, even more importantly, to convince China/Russia/Iran/North Korea that they DON'T WANT to fight a war with us / aren't able to win a war against us. The deterrence factor is just as important as the actual capabilities. If China thinks they can control the skies over Taiwan and can win quickly enough to convince the U.S. to cut our losses, they're more likely to start that fight then they are if they think the U.S. will destroy their air force/air defenses.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 8, 2009 8:50:36 GMT -5
How the hell do all you people know so much about this stuff!!?? It's part of my job. And the Stig is right--the F-35 and F-22 aren't meant for the wars we're currently fighting. That doesn't mean its not short sighted to cut the program, because they are necessary for wars against China (over Taiwan), Russia (not as far fetched as it seems, considering the Georgia conflict last year) Iran/North Korea if they get a hold of the Russian/Chinese anti air missile systems and, even more importantly, to convince China/Russia/Iran/North Korea that they DON'T WANT to fight a war with us / aren't able to win a war against us. The deterrence factor is just as important as the actual capabilities. If China thinks they can control the skies over Taiwan and can win quickly enough to convince the U.S. to cut our losses, they're more likely to start that fight then they are if they think the U.S. will destroy their air force/air defenses. What he said.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 8, 2009 9:16:51 GMT -5
How the hell do all you people know so much about this stuff!!?? It's part of my job. And the Stig is right--the F-35 and F-22 aren't meant for the wars we're currently fighting. That doesn't mean its not short sighted to cut the program, because they are necessary for wars against China (over Taiwan), Russia (not as far fetched as it seems, considering the Georgia conflict last year) Iran/North Korea if they get a hold of the Russian/Chinese anti air missile systems and, even more importantly, to convince China/Russia/Iran/North Korea that they DON'T WANT to fight a war with us / aren't able to win a war against us. The deterrence factor is just as important as the actual capabilities. If China thinks they can control the skies over Taiwan and can win quickly enough to convince the U.S. to cut our losses, they're more likely to start that fight then they are if they think the U.S. will destroy their air force/air defenses. We have limited resources, though, and every dollar you spend on hypothetical conflicts takes away from our soldiers in the battlefield today. Or as Gates said: Also, I honestly don't think your North Korea/China/Russia great power scenarios are the likely wars of the future. The wars of our future are likely to be irregular and counterinsurgency/counterterrorism based.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 8, 2009 9:20:57 GMT -5
It's part of my job. And the Stig is right--the F-35 and F-22 aren't meant for the wars we're currently fighting. That doesn't mean its not short sighted to cut the program, because they are necessary for wars against China (over Taiwan), Russia (not as far fetched as it seems, considering the Georgia conflict last year) Iran/North Korea if they get a hold of the Russian/Chinese anti air missile systems and, even more importantly, to convince China/Russia/Iran/North Korea that they DON'T WANT to fight a war with us / aren't able to win a war against us. The deterrence factor is just as important as the actual capabilities. If China thinks they can control the skies over Taiwan and can win quickly enough to convince the U.S. to cut our losses, they're more likely to start that fight then they are if they think the U.S. will destroy their air force/air defenses. We have limited resources, though, and every dollar you spend on hypothetical conflicts takes away from our soldiers in the battlefield today. Or as Gates said: I never said we didn't have limited resources. But its not a choice between money going to our troops on the battlefield and money going to the F-22. It's a choice between F-22s and other programs and I think that buying F-22s and the capabilities that provides are important enough to use our resources on at the expense of other programs. And while the U.S. is dominant in the air now, that's not going to be true in ten years if the F-22 buy is capped at 187 and air dominance is one of, if not the most important aspect of our military and one that every single service depends on to carry out our mission.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 8, 2009 9:30:07 GMT -5
We have limited resources, though, and every dollar you spend on hypothetical conflicts takes away from our soldiers in the battlefield today. Or as Gates said: I never said we didn't have limited resources. But its not a choice between money going to our troops on the battlefield and money going to the F-22. It's a choice between F-22s and other programs and I think that buying F-22s and the capabilities that provides are important enough to use our resources on at the expense of other programs. And while the U.S. is dominant in the air now, that's not going to be true in ten years if the F-22 buy is capped at 187 and air dominance is one of, if not the most important aspect of our military and one that every single service depends on to carry out our mission. Nothing I have seen leads me to believe this is true, though. China might get to more total planes, but without the top flight pilot training, command-and-control, and radar jamming/stealth/intelligence capabilities, this is practically useless. There is more to air superiority than having fancy planes, after all. If you have some estimate that realistically establishes another nation having the ability to effectively challenge the USAF, I'd love to see it.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 8, 2009 10:00:01 GMT -5
I never said we didn't have limited resources. But its not a choice between money going to our troops on the battlefield and money going to the F-22. It's a choice between F-22s and other programs and I think that buying F-22s and the capabilities that provides are important enough to use our resources on at the expense of other programs. And while the U.S. is dominant in the air now, that's not going to be true in ten years if the F-22 buy is capped at 187 and air dominance is one of, if not the most important aspect of our military and one that every single service depends on to carry out our mission. Nothing I have seen leads me to believe this is true, though. China might get to more total planes, but without the top flight pilot training, command-and-control, and radar jamming/stealth/intelligence capabilities, this is practically useless. There is more to air superiority than having fancy planes, after all. If you have some estimate that realistically establishes another nation having the ability to effectively challenge the USAF, I'd love to see it. It's not just about the planes. It's also about the surface to air capabilities because the USAF is ALWAYS going to be fighting over enemy soil (or, in the case of Taiwan, close enough to enemy soil there's no real difference). And China and Russia have surface to air missiles that the F-15s and F-16s are worthless against now and they have enough of them that the F-35 can't handle the job of taking them out (and the fighters) due to its small payload when its stealthy (and stealth is the key to taking out SA-20 type launchers). And that's now. What happens in 10 years as these weapon systems proliferate and the Russians/Chinese build better ones? And don't forget that the F-22s are going to age out a lot faster if there are less of them, because each individual air frame will be used more. Also, if you read the article I posted, it mentioned that Russians have already fielded a plane equal to, if not better than the best 4th Generation fighter we have. The Chinese will have something similar soon as well.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 8, 2009 16:14:30 GMT -5
Also remember that we're unlikely to have our entire Air Force available to fight overseas. If we fight against China/NK/Russia we'll be fighting with part of our Air Force against their entire force. So we'll be at a numerical disadvantage, meaning that we'll need a plane that can shoot down a lot of enemies on every mission and return to fight again.
The F-15, F-18, and F-22 can shoot down a lot of planes, but only the F-22 can have a strong chance of making it home against bigger numbers of 4th Generation fighters and a SAM umbrella. The F-35 could also probably survive, but its limited payload means that it won't be able to do much damage.
Also, as TBird said, we'll need every F-35 we can get for SEAD missions (taking out the enemy SAM sites). SEAD missions are probably the only thing that the F-35 is perfect for, and no other US plane can fly those missions effectively against a strong enemy. While feasibly the F-35 would be able to carry AAM's for self-defense on those missions, it would be badly compromised because it would only be able to carry a couple of each missile. So basically it would become a 1 plane, 1 target scenario (because you have to be ready for some of the missiles to miss), which isn't good when you're facing an entire network of SAM sites.
Again, if this were about starting a new fighter program now, I'd be against it. But the development cost of the F-22 is money that's already spent. At this point, the benefits of buying more outweigh the additional costs.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 8, 2009 17:04:57 GMT -5
Also remember that we're unlikely to have our entire Air Force available to fight overseas. If we fight against China/NK/Russia we'll be fighting with part of our Air Force against their entire force. So we'll be at a numerical disadvantage, meaning that we'll need a plane that can shoot down a lot of enemies on every mission and return to fight again. The F-15, F-18, and F-22 can shoot down a lot of planes, but only the F-22 can have a strong chance of making it home against bigger numbers of 4th Generation fighters and a SAM umbrella. The F-35 could also probably survive, but its limited payload means that it won't be able to do much damage. Also, as TBird said, we'll need every F-35 we can get for SEAD missions (taking out the enemy SAM sites). SEAD missions are probably the only thing that the F-35 is perfect for, and no other US plane can fly those missions effectively against a strong enemy. While feasibly the F-35 would be able to carry AAM's for self-defense on those missions, it would be badly compromised because it would only be able to carry a couple of each missile. So basically it would become a 1 plane, 1 target scenario (because you have to be ready for some of the missiles to miss), which isn't good when you're facing an entire network of SAM sites. Again, if this were about starting a new fighter program now, I'd be against it. But the development cost of the F-22 is money that's already spent. At this point, the benefits of buying more outweigh the additional costs. I really don't understand your reasoning here. You're setting the national security priorities of the US based off something akin to Red Storm Rising. We already have 187 of the F-22, and they are the most expensive plane we've ever produced, providing us with at most a marginal increase in effectiveness over what we already have. No one's talking about never building another fighter plane again. Just not this one, which is fairly strategically unnecessary and complete boondoggle when it comes down to costs and benefits.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 8, 2009 17:29:25 GMT -5
The F-22 isn't a marginal increase in benefits over what we have. It's night and day.
In air to air combat the F-15 and F-16 would be fairly vulnerable to the newest aircraft our potential enemies could have access to. For example, against the Su-35 (already in service in Russia) the F-15 would probably be able to score a kill ratio of better than 1:1, although I wouldn't guarantee it. The F-16 would be more vulnerable. But both would have a reasonable chance of living to fight another day, unless the Russians upgrade their medium range air to air missiles in a big way.
But against a strong, modern SAM network both would be destroyed. Gone. They wouldn't hit their targets, they wouldn't shoot down enemy planes, and they wouldn't come home. Any non-stealthy aircraft won't stand a chance against modern SAM systems. So if we have to face an enemy with a strong SAM network, our F-15's and F-16's would both be about as useful as a Sopwith Camel. In other words, we might as well just leave them at home.
By contrast, the F-22 could operate with near-impunity against any known fighter or SAM threat.
If you just look at the numbers, the F-22 doesn't seem like a big improvement over the F-15. But if you look at what it can actually do, it's night and day, the difference between winning and losing.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 8, 2009 21:52:11 GMT -5
The F-22 isn't a marginal increase in benefits over what we have. It's night and day. In air to air combat the F-15 and F-16 would be fairly vulnerable to the newest aircraft our potential enemies could have access to. For example, against the Su-35 (already in service in Russia) the F-15 would probably be able to score a kill ratio of better than 1:1, although I wouldn't guarantee it. The F-16 would be more vulnerable. But both would have a reasonable chance of living to fight another day, unless the Russians upgrade their medium range air to air missiles in a big way. But against a strong, modern SAM network both would be destroyed. Gone. They wouldn't hit their targets, they wouldn't shoot down enemy planes, and they wouldn't come home. Any non-stealthy aircraft won't stand a chance against modern SAM systems. So if we have to face an enemy with a strong SAM network, our F-15's and F-16's would both be about as useful as a Sopwith Camel. In other words, we might as well just leave them at home. By contrast, the F-22 could operate with near-impunity against any known fighter or SAM threat. If you just look at the numbers, the F-22 doesn't seem like a big improvement over the F-15. But if you look at what it can actually do, it's night and day, the difference between winning and losing. This is all assertion without evidence. The F-22 is monumentally better than the F-15 or the F-35 because, well, because it's better than them. The F-15 can't defeat an imaginary SAM network because it just can't. Why exactly are the numbers lying here? I think your point about the Su-35 is in reference to the Cope India exercises earlier this year (and every year for that matter). And yes, in those exercises our F-15s and F-16s fared poorly against Mig-21 Bisons and Su-30s. But that was an exercise, not an experiment. USAF were purposely outnumbered 2-1 and playing the enemy team, using non-USAF tactics. It's like fighting with one arm tied behind your back. Also, I still think you're downplaying every other aspect of air defense other than fighter jets. And while yes, North Korea could develop multiple carrier battle groups and squadron upon squadron of superior fighters, this isn't a very realistic scenario. Given that we have other, more pressing defense priorities, I think it's irresponsible to act as if the acquisition of one particular plane (which we already have 187 of) is going to doom US national defense.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 8, 2009 22:43:21 GMT -5
Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that North Korea is going to get multiple CVBG's, I'm not saying that Gates' decision is going to doom US national defense or even the USAF. I'm just saying that not buying more F-22's is a mistake, since it's the only plane in our inventory that can do a very vital task (win air superiority over a well-defended enemy's territory).
My reference to the Su-35's capabilities wasn't just from one exercise, it's from my general knowledge about its capabilities relative to the planes in our inventory and from multiple analyses of what it can do. It's also simple logic. The F-15 is a 35 year old design. The last of the current air superiority model (F-15C) rolled down the line before I was born. It's hardly state of the art. The Su-35 is a cutting edge airplane. The Russian cutting edge may be behind the American cutting edge, but it's not 25-35 years behind. The Russians are still damn good at building fighters.
The numbers lie because the numbers you see don't matter. Speed, range, altitude, etc. aren't what determine whether you survive in a modern combat environment, it's all about not being seen. So even though the F-15 and F-22 have similar numbers on paper, that doesn't mean that they have similar capabilities.
As for evidence that the F-15 can't beat SAM networks, the first evidence is the many simulations I've seen and run myself. But more importantly there's historical evidence that a modern SAM network can make operating over its territory suicidal.
The best example is the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The Israeli strategy was to crush the Egyptian army by pounding them from the air like they had in 1967. But unlike in 1967, the Egyptians had a mobile SAM umbrella in 1973, and they were very careful to make sure the army never advanced from its cover. The result was shocking for the Israelis. When they brought their planes in to hit the Egyptian army, they got absolutely mauled by the Egyptian SAMs. The Israelis were only able to fly after Sharon's army managed to sneak behind Egyptian lines and destroy the SAM sites on the ground.
Now, SEAD and ECM technology has certainly advanced since 1973, but SAM technology has advanced even faster. I don't see any reason to believe that the F-15 and F-16 wouldn't suffer the same fate as those Israeli planes, which I might add were cutting edge (for then) American planes being flown by some of the best pilots in the world.
To operate against an effective SAM network, you need a plane that the SAM site radars can't see, and a plane that the missiles themselves can't lock onto. The only planes that fit that criteria are the F-22 and the F-35, and I've already said quite a bit about the F-35's drawbacks as an air superiority fighter.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 20, 2009 16:15:33 GMT -5
TBird, Bando, Stig, others. Have you any other links to interesting stories/articles concerning defense policy that those of us with an interest can read? Thanx in advance.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 20, 2009 18:12:53 GMT -5
In general, I find it easier to just follow specific national security reporters and scholars like: Hope that helps.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 13, 2009 21:40:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 15, 2009 12:40:16 GMT -5
Anybody catch Colbert last night? The bit about "the hatchet" trimming the Defense budget from $513Bn to $543Bn (not a typo)? No?
So defense goes up $29Bn. For contrast, Interior's entire budget (to manage land, water, minerals, recreation, parks, Indian trust, Indian education, insular affairs, forests, etc.) is about $12Bn. That's total, not increase. [/thread hijack]
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 18, 2009 3:46:10 GMT -5
I am very very happy that Obama is willing to veto the defense reauthorization bill if it includes the F-22. I am sick and tired of the cowardly and unpatriotic branch of service determining our national force posture. If Obama can't win here, then Eisenhower was right and all is lost.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 18, 2009 9:17:09 GMT -5
I am very very happy that Obama is willing to veto the defense reauthorization bill if it includes the F-22. I am sick and tired of the cowardly and unpatriotic branch of service determining our national force posture. If Obama can't win here, then Eisenhower was right and all is lost. Which cowardly and unpatriotic branch of service are you talking about? The Air Force?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 18, 2009 9:27:33 GMT -5
Anybody catch Colbert last night? The bit about "the hatchet" trimming the Defense budget from $513Bn to $543Bn (not a typo)? No? So defense goes up $29Bn. For contrast, Interior's entire budget (to manage land, water, minerals, recreation, parks, Indian trust, Indian education, insular affairs, forests, etc.) is about $12Bn. That's total, not increase. [/thread hijack] Unless there's a FY10 supplemental, the Defense budget will be cut--the Appropriations bill might be higher, but a $30 billion increase still leaves them with less money than last year by a significant amount (I can't find the figures right now, but it's approaching $50 billion, I think, if not more). And yeah, that's great that Interior only gets $12 billion. Do they really need more than that?
|
|