The F-22 might be the best fighter flying today but in tomorrows world it might have some serious challenges to face up to.

I suppose I should take that as a compliment. After all Tom Clancy did write about airliners crashing into the Capitol building long before 9/11. Also I cannot recall a specific instance of anyone mentioning F-22's fight alone. Possibly selective reading of my part, but I certainly never suggested that.

With regard to killing key personnel. This is a combat proven technique. EMPHASIS ON, "Key personnel". It's impractical and unnecessary to kill every single pilot. However, there are individuals whose loss would greatly affect the operational effectiveness of the unit. Also as has been demonstrated in similar attacks, there are ways to directly target every member of a squadron simultaneously. With a small force, security procedures and high visibility force protection is an issue and could be exploited.

It sounds like military fiction now, it certainly won't over the next 10-15 years. This is the only effective means to fight back. Or was 9/11 not enough to teach these lessons.

I suppose I should take that as a compliment. After all Tom Clancy did write about airliners crashing into the Capitol building long before 9/11. Also I cannot recall a specific instance of anyone mentioning F-22's fight alone. Possibly selective reading of my part, but I certainly never suggested that.

With regard to killing key personnel. This is a combat proven technique. EMPHASIS ON, "Key personnel". It's impractical and unnecessary to kill every single pilot. However, there are individuals whose loss would greatly affect the operational effectiveness of the unit. Also as has been demonstrated in similar attacks, there are ways to directly target every member of a squadron simultaneously. With a small force, security procedures and high visibility force protection is an issue and could be exploited.

It sounds like military fiction now, it certainly won't over the next 10-15 years. This is the only effective means to fight back. Or was 9/11 not enough to teach these lessons.

-DA

Hmmm.. I am trying to figure out who these "Key" personnel are that you feel would cause a degradation in operational effectiveness? Lets look at an example of the scenario you think about 9/11.... I'm going to go back some 5 years before 9-11 and talk about Khobar Towers... that was where a terrorist took out one of our barracks.. pilots and maintainers were housed in that particular barracks and there was a significant lose of life.. I can remember vividly because I was airborne at the time.. but the mission continued and there was no degradation! During Desert Shield some commanders moved from barracks to tents. And as far as fiction goes.. its already happened! So if you don't think the air force is not serious about force protection well we've experienced some of these. For those of you stationed in Korea theres always some sort of intrusion exercise so your thinking of exploiting weaknesses - the Air Force is always thinking outside the box. An by the way.. all pilots are taught basic navigation and the old fashion ways of flying long before you step into a F-22. So its not like sitting there and watching the Viper V squadrons in Battlestar Galactica go stupid.

Oh and here's another thing some of you might not know... Congress... well you might be surprised that some military pilots have spent some time being congressional military aides. The current Commander at Tyndall AFB at Tyndall - the F-22 school house was a congressional military aide. So if you don't think congress doesnt pay attention to the military you might be surprised about that little tidbit. You might be surprised that some pilots have spent time at the Air Force legislative liason office.

Darth,

I respect you posts and it sounds like you have a lot of insight. I agree with much of what you have said, however I don't think you understand how close the Air Force is to a breaking point right now. I agree that we need more transportation and refueling platforms, but the fighter fleet's back is probably even closer to breaking than those platforms.

The F-15s are falling out of the sky...literally. Sure many of them are flying again, but even at that they are being babied in numerous ways because they have already been pushed well past their shelf life in many cases. Not only that, but the mighty Eagle would certainly have its hands full with any modern adversary and Air Superiority would not be a sure thing. The Vipers aren't faring much better in many cases. They are just as long in the tooth, and the pipeline at Luke is backed up OVER A YEAR due to maintenance problems with the Blk 42s (read future severe under-manning of Viper units in 1-2yrs). Beyond that, Blk 50s are the only ones truly capable of giving Air Superiority a shot, and they're even more outgunned than the Eagles.

I can see the need for more UAVs, tankers, transports, etc., but the fact of the matter is they won't mean a thing if we can't achieve Air Superiority. Any of those aircraft flying in hostile airspace simply make an enemy pilot an ACE in one sortie. The DOD does need to balance its costs among the branches, but any conventional conflict begins with Air Superiority. This is where I completely disagree with your assessment of Gates. I think that he is being dangerously short-sighted. His unwavering emphasis on Special Operators and UAV/Recce is going to cost us immensely in future conflicts. It's what's needed for Irag and Afghanistan, but that's it. They're no good against advanced adversaries until the doors have been knocked down by other means.

Right now, it's not too late. We still have the opportunity to right ourselves and assure Air Superiority in future conflicts, but it's not going to happen with 183 Raptors or 250 for that matter. And on that note, no future conflict (short of drug raids in South America) is going to matter if we can't achieve Air Superiority.

I hope I don't sound too antagonistic.

Regards,
Code3

Key personnel could be leadership, specific pilots, maintainers or others. It is the role of intelligence service to identify key personnel. There are persons like this in every military unit. Yes, the squadron would be able to fight on. But possibly not as effectively and certainly with lower morale. I have witnessed or directly experienced this on at least nine occasions. It matters.

With regard to US Air Force force protection, I'll be necessarily silent on details. However, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. This is not immediately obvious to an untrained eye. However people with skill sets in these areas know what I'm talking about. If you have been stationed at "Mortaritville" before you may have noticed things. Again, I can't go into specifics, but it isn't necessary. History is full of examples of Air Bases or other critical fixed facilities being attacked by commandos successfully. inconveniences suffered during operation Desert Storm and terrorist attack during the no-fly operations pale in comparison to the types of attacks and talking about. I'm talking about completely different level of sophistication and coordination. Just like there are different levels of air threats. For example the old Soviet Air Force compared to the Libyan Air Force is a big difference. There are different levels of unconventional warfare threats. We're getting some direct experience with this right now and we don't always come off looking to good. I'm talking about the varsity.




Excellent comment!

-DA

I think your "key" personnel things is overstated! It doesnt take the loss of a key pilot or a maintainer just to lower morale it can be anyone... BUT then again.. remember in war you lose lives and dont forget the US Air Force is the largest fixed wing Air Force in the world... a "key" F-15E pilot was shotdown during Desert Storm.. the squadron continued and there was NO lose in combat effectiveness. I disagree with your assessment on that because I experienced those situations alot more than nine times and things happen differently each time.

Wheres this Varsity team your talking about? The Soviets going to come back? The only scenario I envision and we train for it ALL the time is a chemical warfare attack... so thats the only scenario I'd give to you. By the way.. I don't think people are asleep at the wheel anymore!

In fact why does that matter? This is an open forum.

Also, the people deciding the F-22's fate aren't even pilots. So why would any persons opinion be irrelevant? This is so typical of certain personalities in the USAF. They tend to think the world revolves around air superiority and air to air combat in the face of obvious facts to the contrary.

I have the benefit of a more broad view and I'm simply looking at the issue from that point of view. To me, every discipline and skill set in the military are nothing more than tools to be applied to specific problems.

Sometimes certain tools are more critical than others depending on the situation. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. Stop looking at it from "the line" and see the big picture.

If you do that and you still think the USAF fighter fleet attrition and wear and tear demand a more aggressive plan to reconstitute the fighter fleet, make a case.

If I'm guilty of debating from an "unexperienced Air Force" point of view. You are guilty of debating this from a "unexperienced Department of Defense" point of view. There, both of our biases are laid out for all to see. Now put up or shut up and explain what and why you have the opinions you do.

My Positions:

I think that right now and at least through 2020~2025, the USAF...

a. Has enough of a lead on likely air to air threats to spend more money and time on other things besides F-22's and can deal with the gradual attrition of the current fighter fleet

b. Has neglected logistics and nuclear weapons and needs to clean up it's act

c. Will get enough F-35A fast enough to deal with any threat through 2025

d. should wait until FY2009-FY2010 before deciding to procure more F-22's

e. Has been set on the right track by SecDef Gates

f. Needs to focus much more on developing UAS/UCAS technologies over F-22's

g. Needs to address the issue of long ranged strike/EW capability even if that means no more F-22's are produced

So there. Share with me your positions so that we can exchange views. Also, explain this to me. People often say that the F-15's and older F-16's are falling apart and the F-22 needs to be produced in greater numbers. However, Lockheed only makes two F-22's a month. That is about 1 squadron annually. How does that compare to the rate in which F-Teens are being retired? Even if production is continued past 2011, by 2016 the F-35 will be coming off of production lines at 230(130 for the DoD) a year IIRC. The USAF will not be getting all of those of course. But in total the DoD should have ~651 F-35's of various types by the end of CY2016. How does 4 more Raptor squadrons significantly change things and how will not having them hurt U.S. national security?

I haven't heard anyone address this issue to my satisfaction with hard data. If you can explain it with numbers, then you really have something for me to consider. I look forward to anybody making this case and especially you! I look forward to your attempt with an open mind.

Military commanders are often confronted with technologically superior opponents. The F-22 is no different as far as challenges go. The least favorable option would be a direct confrontation so expect asymmetric attacks. Direct action by commandos or sabotage for instance. Think of the Israeli raid onto enemy airfield to rescue hostages. Simply changing objective from hostage rescue to direct assault against F-22's Park on the ground. Other variations include GPS guided mortars, anti-material rifles, kamikaze suicide attacks or many other methods.

The raptors can also be targeted by enemy airstrikes, ballistic missiles or cruise missiles while parked on the ground. These are the ubiquitous anti-access threats. There are also issues of basing rights and overflight permission. Through diplomacy, an enemy can still deny access, even if he lacks the military means to do so.

Indirectly an opponent can also target the logistics associated with the aircraft. Think of the Schweinfurt "double strike mission" against the German Air Force by the Allies during World War II. Fuel farms, maintenance/support/production facilities do not shoot back. Nor do tanker aircraft. But their loss could have disproportionate effects on the force.

Also consider that the F-22 force is a small one. I'm not just talking about aircraft, I'm referring to key personnel. The loss of these personnel can seriously degrade the effectiveness of the F-22. Security clearance restrictions and training requirements would make the replacement of key personnel a very challenging issue. These personnel could be assassinated in their homes or killed while deployed. What if an F-22 squadron and family members all received "antrax" letters. Even if they weren't real, the delays could be significant in the opening days of a campaign. Japanese Fleet Admiral Yamamoto suffered the fate of being directly targeted.

And then there is everybody's favorite issue of only 187 aircraft. While it is probably enough, it's certainly not enough to squander them away recklessly. Each and every loss would be very significant considering that only two thirds are combat coded. The F-22's are a high demand low availability asset. So anything that reduces their operational tempo or actually destroys an aircraft is a very significant event.

A competent opponent will use various combinations of all these methods. Remember, in Operation Desert Storm, a large number of Iraqi fighter aircraft actually survived the conflict in fact. It is not necessary in war to directly target enemy fighter aircraft to render them ineffective.

I think you've read too many post-9/11 conspiracy theories. Most of the ideas are barely concievable, but anthrax letters? Come on. Thats taking it a little far.

First, they would have to find every F-22 pilot, find all of their personal info, and then send it securely w/o compromise to the pilot, and then the pilot has to unwillingly open a letter that is weighted down by some dust in inside which clearly doesnt belong. That situation would mean everyone in all of those systems werent doing their,for all of those checks, which is a 1 in a million possibility.

No it is not. Far more difficult attacks are carried out everyday. This is why we are so vulnerable to these methods. Because we don't even imagine them being possible. Some people are smart enough and little bit more resourceful than to strap on a Mig-21 and hope to get a lucky shot.

It is funny that you mention 9/11. Most people would have considered the simultaneous hijacking and intentional crashing of several air liners into the political, financial and military headquarters of the United States laughable prior to it actually happening. Not some seven years later we are locked in combat with the perpetrators.

Most people would have told you that an irregular force bleeding the U.S. Military almost to the point of exhaustion and tying up of the strategic reserve of the United States in Mesopotamia unlikely yet here we are.

I suspect in December of 1941 there would have been people who said that a Japanese sneak attack on Pearl and other places in the pacific would be unlikely as well. History proved otherwise.

The point is that the enemy is not always going to play into your strengths. You have to think like these people to beat these people. To them, all the F-22 represents is a target. They aren't and never were planning on "dogfights" when they started this conflict. Yet they were just as aware as you and I of it's development. They watched the IOC press releases. They read of it's capabilities in our press releases from exercises it participates in.

Are we so arrogant to assume that they don't have intelligent people figuring out ways to counter it asymmetrically for lack of other means? Countering it also means not fighting the types of battles where an F-22 could be useful. I've never seen a Taliban Su-30 for instance. F-22's do a whole lot of good vs Cleric Al-Sadr. Do you see where I'm going with this? High tech or low tech and enemy confronted with a superior weapon system MUST find asymmetric means to counter it.

If you think antrax letters is the stuff of fiction novels then I must say that I haven't even scratched the surface of what is possible in regard to asymmetric methods.



Find every pilot? That is a trivial task. You could pay a PI to do that. Imagine a state intelligence service. In fact they maintain active records of these personnel. If not the entire squadron, the key leaders definitely. We do that. We have used that information in combat to gain advantages too. And against many more numerous and well protected individuals in much more restrictive closed societies. Do you think it is simply coincidence that enemy armies crumble before our tanks putting up little effective coordinated resistance? Or that entire squadrons of enemy air force fighters simply don't bother to scramble their aircraft in the midst of an armed invasion of their homeland?

I supposed you are right and this is very much a conspiracy! Again, people tend to focus so much on the obvious like F-22's, spectacular battles, news footage of tracer fire in the night ect. That's is usually just the mopping up of whats left of an enemy after victory has already been guaranteed through other means. It is not just the inferior force, WE DO THESE THINGS TOO.

Sun Tzu says the following...

"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist
only seeks battle after the victory has been won, "

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

"Whether the object be to crush an army, to storm
a city, or to assassinate an individual, it is always
necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants,
the aides-de-camp, and door-keepers and sentries of the general
in command. Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these"

...all of that written long ago. Nothing I have written is fiction or unreasonable. I also don't mean to suggest that the U.S. Military does not take extensive measures to defend against these things. Only that for lack of a better means an opponent will seek out ways to counter threats no matter what side he is on or his level of technological sophistication. We have been surprised before. That is why is is called the "Art of War" and not "Science of War". In the U.S. Military we try too much to reduce it down to science when in fact war is full of the tangible and intangible. The intangible is equally powerful when it's power is summoned by a skilled leader.

People asked how to kill F-22's. This is how they will try.

-DA

I never said any of it wasnt possible, but I'm just saying there are way to many things that could compromise those plans, and the fact that we obviously would be more suspicious of that type of asymetrical warfare especially after the post 9/11 scare w/ the anthrax letters. Just saying, not every member of the military is stupid.