Forum: F-22A Raptor

Further departure from reality. All of our eggs are not in one basket RE: F-35. That's the latest propaganda line right next to F-35 wasn't built for "air superiority" from people who all too often don't even know the definition.

-DA

F-16.net Sponsor

There is no reduced "air superiority" whatsoever. It's like people think 60 extra Raptors will be committed to battle.

-DA

No, that's the thing: Out of the 180 Raptors, only about 120 will be committed to battle, the other ones will be used for training and attrition reserves. If we order 60 more, about 40 of those will be committed to battle. We need more planes simply because the numbers don't add up: how are we going to train pilots if we can't use the airframe because we don't want to burn them out with too many hours in the air? How are we going to replace the aircraft that crash, whether in training or due to enemy action? The B-2 bomber did not have to replace a particular aircraft and bombers generally can be used much longer than fighters because they don't make 9-g turns. Look at the B-52. You cannot compare a fighter a/c meant to replace another fighter a/c in numbers with a bomber. Also, a ground target will not move (if it's on wheels it won't move so much), compare that with a fighter which the F-22 is designed to defend against. An a/c will move in all 3 dimensions and will do so relatively quickly, which means that for an airforce that is outnumbered to succeed it will have to shoot first from long range and hope most of the missiles track. We will not be able to visually I.D. and there will be times that we will HAVE to. If you get into a furball outnumbered 3 to 1, it's going to be an impossible situation. Pilots are very fit, but they don't have three sets of eyes you know...

DarthAmerica wrote:

Beazz,

You are a complete waste of time. You don't even have a surface level understanding of any topic we've discussed and you are without question the most ignorant person in the thread although I can certainly think of a close runner up. When you are actually capable of articulating some sort of argument that isn't a personal attack let me know. Otherwise take your flaming post and screw off.

-DA

LOL>. Funny, that is about my opinion of you DA. Over the last 2 years I have done a lot more reading then commenting and have a very good understanding of you pal. You're simply a 2 bit phony with an ego the size of Hitler and one who has absolutely zero understanding of the world we all live in. The problem is you claim to be in the miliatry which makes you dangerous if you actually are.

I say claims to be because its a bit hard to keep up with you. One day you're out, the next you're back in, the next you're an IT guru, the next you're an engiineer, the next you're on weekend drills. So hard to say what you are from month to month?

So come on DA, tell us all what you are really all about on here and half a dozen sites on the net? How does the USG's smartest man find all the time to spend literally HOURS each and every day teaching the rest of the idots out here all things military, political and now religious as well? We both know you're simply a lonely old loser that has no life but to sit and preach to the masses on the net. No one could do all things governmental you claim to do and still have the many hours each and every day you do to put in on the net. It simply does not add up pal. Something smells fishy here and it's YOU DA!!

BTW, I don't take orders from 2 bit punks like you so take your knowitall bossy attitude and stuff it DA. Ticks ya off when some one has ya pegged huh DA? lol Temper Temper ya little loser.

Beazz

jam, your analogy re: Crusader artillery history was somehow very painful to read -please don't do that again, thanks.

strykerxo, while most could agree additional Increment 3.2 and block 35 would be quite superior in multi-role capabilities and substantially add strategic deterrence value (given the right weapon systems developed to fit the role) I'm not so worried about the singular 'media' impact of say NYT. It's more so the 'action lobby media' such as policy-targeting 'funded media' which work as aggressive 24/7 'messengers' to influence opinion and policy. Groups such as 'Center for American Progress Action Fund' is just one. But let's keep this topic on the F-22 where you made fair points.

Tinito, IMHO it's a relevant issue re: USAF strategic airpower deterrence capability vs emerging and future asymmetrical threats (e.g., TBMs). Interestingly, it was President Medvedev yesterday who actually defined to Obama and the press: the unprecedented present and future threat posed by historic growth and proliferation of Ballistic Missiles (TBM emphasis added). It is indeed just that point which in part justifies a greater strategic counter-weight; e.g. in form of a maximal advanced block MC F-22 fleet, which not only has to fulfill today's and next generation's traditional air-supremacy (and strategic strike) responsibilities... but now deter and counter various asymmetrical threats unlike any time before. Something which most 'anti-60 more Raptor' mindsets seem to further misunderstand.

No, we understand full well that you are trying to rationalize reasons for 60 more planes no matter what because you incorrectly understand the roles and threat matrix that define the need. But it's okay, the sun is setting on this issue and considering SecDef Gates and the POTUS are at the beginning of a first term the whole Raptor issue is almost a forgone conclussion.

-DA

geogen wrote:

Tinito, IMHO it's a relevant issue re: USAF strategic airpower deterrence capability vs emerging and future asymmetrical threats (e.g., TBMs). Interestingly, it was President Medvedev yesterday who actually defined to Obama and the press: the unprecedented present and future threat posed by historic growth and proliferation of Ballistic Missiles (TBM emphasis added). It is indeed just that point which in part justifies a greater strategic counter-weight; e.g. in form of a maximal advanced block MC F-22 fleet, which not only has to fulfill today's and next generation's traditional air-supremacy (and strategic strike) responsibilities... but now deter and counter various asymmetrical threats unlike any time before. Something which most 'anti-60 more Raptor' mindsets seem to further misunderstand.

Interesting point about strategic air power, geogen, and one which I was alluding to in my reply to the other thread. With President Obama's recent agreements with the Russians to reduce the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems, arguably the strategic deterrence of the United States of America has been reduced. President Obama also has a stated goal of eliminating all or almost all of our nuclear capability. Like Darth America so aptly stated, he is only in his first term as President. Further reductions in our nuclear arms (and hence strategic deterrence) are likely to occur. Again, like Darth America himself admitted, the F-22 can and does replace the F-117 and assumes it's role in the strategic deterrence platforms which our nation utilizes.

Hence, wouldn't ensuring that we at least have a feasible number of F-22s (243), a number that the Air Force leadership has been screaming for, despite the strenuous objections of Secretary Gates, to the point of writing a letter in reply to Congress, be a prudent thing to do?

Frankly, DarthAmerica, it is less about us justifying the need for 60 more Raptors, and more about you (as well as Secretary Gates) justifying why we should not have them. Contrary to your assertions, the Air Force has repeatedly stated that it has had, and continues to have, a need, not a want, for 243 Raptors. So I put this to you, DA, why do you think that the Air Force, the subject matter experts in this area, are wrong, and SecDef Gates, while admittedly doing a fair job so far, has no experience beyond insurgency warfare, is right?

Don't get me wrong, the F-35 as it matures will as advertised and preform it's mission superbly. I support the F-35, although it concerns me that 2/3 years into flight testing we have so little to show.

I understand the logistics and issues that are involved in a exportable F-22. In my view if other countries are willing to foot the bill let them do it, to our benefit, jobs and keeping the line open. Japans requirement for the F-X have stated a need for speed, altitude, stealth and EW. While the F-35 can fulfil the stealth and EW, only the F-22's added factors of speed and altitude give the Raptor overwhelming situational awareness and survivability.

We have seen in past AC procurment plans the reduction in numbers driving up the costs per plane (i.e. B-2, F-22, Osprey etc.). This situation is likely to befall the F-35, lets face it if what we are looking for is a cheap bomb truck leave it to the UCAV's. During the last 15/20 years we have seen air superiority accomplished and AC assigned kill boxes, why couldn't a UCAV preform these missions?

If this is the case then like I posted earlier the F-22/35 will for a few million more or less the same dollar value. and if you are just talking dollars then I would much rather have a superior AC. I recal reading the F-22 had a 30:1 advantage over it's opponents, while the F-35 enjoyed a 3:1 advantage, ahh-duh, no brainer.

I hope somebody in Congress is getting the picture. If the issue was just an America only compromise F-22 for F-35 or visa-versa no harm no foul. But, we are proping up the F-35 for the rest of the world, because they don't have another 5th gen AC to pick from.

Active Member Joined: Jun 01, 2004 - 08:55 AM Posts: 134

Quote:

Frankly, DarthAmerica, it is less about us justifying the need for 60 more Raptors, and more about you (as well as Secretary Gates) justifying why we should not have them. Contrary to your assertions, the Air Force has repeatedly stated that it has had, and continues to have, a need, not a want, for 243 Raptors. So I put this to you, DA, why do you think that the Air Force, the subject matter experts in this area, are wrong, and SecDef Gates, while admittedly doing a fair job so far, has no experience beyond insurgency warfare, is right?

i tried to ask DA the same exact question, but with all his supposedly "knowledge, opinion and conclusion" regarding the subject matter, he never dared answer a basically straightforward question. again DA, why, in your "expert" opinion do SecDef Gates, or you yourself if you like, think that Gen. Corley, the ACC commander himself is wrong in saying we need more than 187 raptors?

fretmarks wrote:

Quote:

Frankly, DarthAmerica, it is less about us justifying the need for 60 more Raptors, and more about you (as well as Secretary Gates) justifying why we should not have them. Contrary to your assertions, the Air Force has repeatedly stated that it has had, and continues to have, a need, not a want, for 243 Raptors. So I put this to you, DA, why do you think that the Air Force, the subject matter experts in this area, are wrong, and SecDef Gates, while admittedly doing a fair job so far, has no experience beyond insurgency warfare, is right?

i tried to ask DA the same exact question, but with all his supposedly "knowledge, opinion and conclusion" regarding the subject matter, he never dared answer a basically straightforward question. again DA, why, in your "expert" opinion do SecDef Gates, or you yourself if you like, think that Gen. Corley, the ACC commander himself is wrong in saying we need more than 187 raptors?

INSTITUTIONAL BIAS AND JOB SECURITY. Yes, that exist in the DoD. I've seen it many times over the last 2 decades. I was at the Armor Conference when FCS was just an idea. Imagine how I felt to know that my preferred weapon of war at the time, Abrams, was going to evolve into a family of puny little BMP like scout vehicles with remote control airplanes as eyes and speed for armor? But because I'm not biased, because I'm able to objectively evaluate war and it's requirements, I don't reject change. But then at that time it was still fairly early in my chosen path so it seemed exciting especially to the engineer in me. But if I were a 3 or 4 Star General Officer with AMBITION and nearing the end of my career path, a sudden shift towards multirole strike platforms, cyber warfare and unmanned platforms could be rather frightening. Gen Corley like you needs to OPEN YOUR MIND. And it's not that I don't "dare". I dare anything. But if you are going to come into a discussion ignorant, you could at least humble yourself enough not to be indignant at the same time.

-DA

edwin3060 wrote:

geogen wrote:

Tinito, IMHO it's a relevant issue re: USAF strategic airpower deterrence capability vs emerging and future asymmetrical threats (e.g., TBMs). Interestingly, it was President Medvedev yesterday who actually defined to Obama and the press: the unprecedented present and future threat posed by historic growth and proliferation of Ballistic Missiles (TBM emphasis added). It is indeed just that point which in part justifies a greater strategic counter-weight; e.g. in form of a maximal advanced block MC F-22 fleet, which not only has to fulfill today's and next generation's traditional air-supremacy (and strategic strike) responsibilities... but now deter and counter various asymmetrical threats unlike any time before. Something which most 'anti-60 more Raptor' mindsets seem to further misunderstand.

Interesting point about strategic air power, geogen, and one which I was alluding to in my reply to the other thread. With President Obama's recent agreements with the Russians to reduce the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems, arguably the strategic deterrence of the United States of America has been reduced. President Obama also has a stated goal of eliminating all or almost all of our nuclear capability. Like Darth America so aptly stated, he is only in his first term as President. Further reductions in our nuclear arms (and hence strategic deterrence) are likely to occur. Again, like Darth America himself admitted, the F-22 can and does replace the F-117 and assumes it's role in the strategic deterrence platforms which our nation utilizes.

Hence, wouldn't ensuring that we at least have a feasible number of F-22s (243), a number that the Air Force leadership has been screaming for, despite the strenuous objections of Secretary Gates, to the point of writing a letter in reply to Congress, be a prudent thing to do?

Frankly, DarthAmerica, it is less about us justifying the need for 60 more Raptors, and more about you (as well as Secretary Gates) justifying why we should not have them. Contrary to your assertions, the Air Force has repeatedly stated that it has had, and continues to have, a need, not a want, for 243 Raptors. So I put this to you, DA, why do you think that the Air Force, the subject matter experts in this area, are wrong, and SecDef Gates, while admittedly doing a fair job so far, has no experience beyond insurgency warfare, is right?

No, it's on the USAF to justify the need for more. When you have your hand out, YOU MUST COMPEL the person with what you want to give. Not the other way around. And in case you haven't noticed the USAF CoS has stated PUBLICLY that he concurs with the SecDef. That is not contrary to my assertions. You, and some others, simply do not for whatever reason understand the context behind the 243 number. You aren't able to discern the nature of the message through the politics of generalship. 243 represents a number under old assumptions which are no longer valid. 243 represents a number IF you are planning for a two war scenario vs simultaneous near peer competitors THAT DO NOT EXIST such that at any given time the 2 alert AEF have Raptor squadrons deployable. Since things have changed, this 243 number is INVALID with the current situation. The NET effect on the USAF is that it has to adjust it's Raptor deployment, training program, CONOPS and force structure to fit platform availability. THATS IT. It is not putting us in a perilous situation.

-DA

Active Member Joined: Jun 01, 2004 - 08:55 AM Posts: 134

Quote:

INSTITUTIONAL BIAS AND JOB SECURITY. Yes, that exist in the DoD. I've seen it many times over the last 2 decades. I was at the Armor Conference when FCS was just an idea. Imagine how I felt to know that my preferred weapon of war at the time, Abrams, was going to evolve into a family of puny little BMP like scout vehicles with remote control airplanes as eyes and speed for armor? But because I'm not biased, because I'm able to objectively evaluate war and it's requirements, I don't reject change. But then at that time it was still fairly early in my chosen path so it seemed exciting especially to the engineer in me. But if I were a 3 or 4 Star General Officer with AMBITION and nearing the end of my career path, a sudden shift towards multirole strike platforms, cyber warfare and unmanned platforms could be rather frightening. Gen Corley like you needs to OPEN YOUR MIND. And it's not that I don't "dare". I dare anything. But if you are going to come into a discussion ignorant, you could at least humble yourself enough not to be indignant at the same time.

institutional bias is and will always be present in any bureaucracy. but the last time i checked, USAF is also getting the f-35's. institutional bias is not a factor here. and job security? come on man. gen. corley is already on his way out. he already announced since May that he will retire this fall. what more job security can he get out of this? his take on additional raptors is his call and he has the right to do so. it's not really good having retired and all, then suddenly gets blamed when the time comes that Gates et al are proven wrong about the raptor just because he agreed to them.

calling somebody ignorant and then telling him to humble himself and not to be indignant don't belong in one sentence, DA. people having different opinion than yours are not ignorant, you narcissistic freak of nature. perhaps it's you who should OPEN YOUR MIND.

wow this thread is looking familiar...

fretmarks wrote:

Quote:

INSTITUTIONAL BIAS AND JOB SECURITY. Yes, that exist in the DoD. I've seen it many times over the last 2 decades. I was at the Armor Conference when FCS was just an idea. Imagine how I felt to know that my preferred weapon of war at the time, Abrams, was going to evolve into a family of puny little BMP like scout vehicles with remote control airplanes as eyes and speed for armor? But because I'm not biased, because I'm able to objectively evaluate war and it's requirements, I don't reject change. But then at that time it was still fairly early in my chosen path so it seemed exciting especially to the engineer in me. But if I were a 3 or 4 Star General Officer with AMBITION and nearing the end of my career path, a sudden shift towards multirole strike platforms, cyber warfare and unmanned platforms could be rather frightening. Gen Corley like you needs to OPEN YOUR MIND. And it's not that I don't "dare". I dare anything. But if you are going to come into a discussion ignorant, you could at least humble yourself enough not to be indignant at the same time.

institutional bias is and will always be present in any bureaucracy. but the last time i checked, USAF is also getting the f-35's. institutional bias is not a factor here. and job security? come on man. gen. corley is already on his way out. he already announced since May that he will retire this fall. what more job security can he get out of this? his take on additional raptors is his call and he has the right to do so. it's not really good having retired and all, then suddenly gets blamed when the time comes that Gates et al are proven wrong about the raptor just because he agreed to them.

calling somebody ignorant and then telling him to humble himself and not to be indignant don't belong in one sentence, DA. people having different opinion than yours are not ignorant, you narcissistic freak of nature. perhaps it's you who should OPEN YOUR MIND.

Again, you don't understand. Not the motivation of the Generals. Not that F-22 build issues. Not the threat situation. And yes, I can have the opinion that you are ignorant on this topic. Feel free to disagree though as that is your right. Just don't be surprised as events continue to play out more closely along what I'm saying vs all the emotional fanboy crowd who are waiting with baited breath to have this great air to air threat suddenly appear out of no where without respect to the actual global threat environment. We are in a brief 2 to 5 year risk that there may be a fighter shortfall prior to the F-35 entering full production. By shortfall I mean the DoD not having what it considers to be enough warplanes to adequately support current commitments. This would require some readjustment and reorganization to deal with and could wear some airframes our faster than planned for. But there is a way to deal with that because by then the F-35 will be in production and could be ordered in more numbers to cover the gaps.

Here is a challenge to you. Since you disagree with Gates so strongly,

a. show why he is wrong

or if you can't

b. just say you are trusting the judgement of the Generals who disagree

-DA

Quote:

243 represents a number under old assumptions which are no longer valid. 243 represents a number IF you are planning for a two war scenario vs simultaneous near peer competitors THAT DO NOT EXIST such that at any given time the 2 alert AEF have Raptor squadrons deployable. Since things have changed, this 243 number is INVALID with the current situation.

No, 243 represents a recently estimated compromise figure on a whole, based on a number needing to replace the F-117 and F-15C (and arguably F-16CJ) deterrence value in a continuing uncertain transitional, post-cold-war period.

The threat matrices and uncertainties as to strategic challenges equated over the next 5-10 yrs e.g.., are equal or higher than they were back in say 1997 or 2000-2003 when notable previous F-22 requirement estimates were calculated. That timeframe will present the exact weakest point in US's airpower deterrence under the going plan, according to GAO.

Most of us I'm sure would be for a new strategic super-power truce and multi-lateral conventional arms/proliferation controls/demilitarization (yes, even including the F-35 as negotiating currency). But until such a progressive, modern 21st century era 'Yalta II' agreement is reached, it would be justified for Congress to urgently realize:

A) US defense budgets will likely be reduced (possibly significantly) over consecutive years starting in FY11 B) There will not be the FRP F-35 runs as still estimated due to financial reasons causing certain Program consequences and changes C) Aggressively accelerated LRIP runs will not be afforded resulting in changes to Program status D) Such raised cost realities and early-force reductions of F-35A should demand immediate Congressional strategic rethink as to a responsible/honest FY10/FY11 (and onward) strategic airpower recapitalization plan.

Absolutely, this debate is NOT simply about 60+ more F-22s. It goes much much deeper than that, beyond the conventional reasoning at present, even by very intelligent people.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 vs. Congress