Combat Air Forces in Crisis

[-Cp]

Fighter and attack aircraft are aging faster than they can be replaced. The way out of this crisis has been blocked by the cut in F-22 Raptor production and budget-driven delays in production of the F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). As a result, the service is trying to figure out how to do what it has never done: accept into its aircraft mix a large number of less-capable legacy forces.

http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/CAF_0309.pdf

[DannyR]

While I think our military budgets can be slashed significantly (do we really need to outspend the rest of the world 20 times over?), I strongly support keeping our air power at peak potential.

Air superiority is a key component to our military and is one portion of the budget that shouldn't be cut.

[DannyR]

Gates proposes phasing out the F-22 within 2 years.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/gates.budget.cuts/index.html

[glockmail]

I think we need to keep pushing the envelope with aircraft designs like we've been doing, but when these puppies cost billions each it would be wise to develop a fleet of older tech equipment to handle most of the day to day operations. Why not build some brand new B52s and F15s to handle these obvious needs? With newer engines and electronics of course.

[Jagger]

I think we need to keep pushing the envelope with aircraft designs like we've been doing, but when these puppies cost billions each it would be wise to develop a fleet of older tech equipment to handle most of the day to day operations. Why not build some brand new B52s and F15s to handle these obvious needs? With newer engines and electronics of course.

You're obviously a liberal who subscribes to a loose interpretation of the Constitution.

[glockmail]

Obviously.

[DannyR]

I think we need to keep pushing the envelope with aircraft designs like we've been doing, but when these puppies cost billions each it would be wise to develop a fleet of older tech equipment to handle most of the day to day operations. Why not build some brand new B52s and F15s to handle these obvious needs? With newer engines and electronics of course.Very true. obviously the current fleet is still doing the job. Age is the only real problem. I believe during the entire Iraq war thus far only 3 fixed wing planes have been shot down by enemy fire. Not a bad record out of thousands of sorties.

But planes like the F-22 are certainly needed if we ever need to fly over a nation with tech equal to Chinese or Soviet levels, not just old 1970's gear.

[PostmodernProphet]

but hasn't the Pentagon said it doesn't want any more F22 fighters?.....

the budget doubles the money for F35s instead of buying F22s.......

[Mr. P]

It can be done cheaper...anyone remember the $6000.00 toilet seat?

It's waste, deep pockets and red tape, not the technology.

[DannyR]

but hasn't the Pentagon said it doesn't want any more F22 fighters?It depends on what you define as the "Pentagon" and who you are asking.

Gates is technically the "Pentagon" and requested they end the program. Thats not to say the individual services want to end it.

But I've never seen anybody ever say the F-22 wasn't something they would love to have. The problem is always money. If you have to chose what to buy, the F-22 is the luxury item that usually gets cut.

The Air Force wants a lot more than the current budget:

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/0209/021709cdpm1.htm

F-22 is an air superiority fighter. JSF is used much more as a bomber. In today's latest missions the bomber role is much more prevalent. However that mission is only possible if we own the skies. In any war where we need to fight for control of the air, I'd rather have some F-22's in the skies.

I believe the Eurofighter and Russian SU-37 are equal to the F-16's the F-22 is designed to replace. Do we really want to keep putting out planes the equal to those we may face, or put out planes that trump those we may face?

[PostmodernProphet]

But I've never seen anybody ever say the F-22 wasn't something they would love to have.

not true......the F22 is designed for air to air combat....it is expensive to build, expensive to operate, expensive to maintain......think of it as a Ferrari.....

the F35 is designed for air to ground combat, cheaper, lower maintenance and operation costs....think of it as a Jeep.....

the Air Force has asked for more Ferraris....but both the Navy and Army have asked for more Jeeps.....

as the argument goes, since all the wars we have fought in the last twenty years have been against people on Vespas, we don't need more Ferraris, we can easily beat them with Jeeps.....

and, unless someone out there starts building their own Ferraris, we already have enough in the garage to maintain air superiority anywhere in the world.....

[glockmail]

Very true. obviously the current fleet is still doing the job. Age is the only real problem. I believe during the entire Iraq war thus far only 3 fixed wing planes have been shot down by enemy fire. Not a bad record out of thousands of sorties.

But planes like the F-22 are certainly needed if we ever need to fly over a nation with tech equal to Chinese or Soviet levels, not just old 1970's gear.
I don't remember hearing about any of our stuff getting shot down. Keep the F-22 in production at one/ year and we can ramp up if the need arises.

[-Cp]

and, unless someone out there starts building their own Ferraris, we already have enough in the garage to maintain air superiority anywhere in the world.....

Haven't you seen that latest Eurofighter jet in action? It's VERY F-22ish in some of its manueverability I think:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/08qQOkXE0ZE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/08qQOkXE0ZE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[PostmodernProphet]

Haven't you seen that latest Eurofighter jet in action? It's VERY F-22ish in some of its manueverability I think:


??...are you suggesting that the EU is a potential enemy?......

[-Cp]

??...are you suggesting that the EU is a potential enemy?......

Everyone is a potential enemy...

[PostmodernProphet]

especially Massachussets.......

[Little-Acorn]

Fighter and attack aircraft are aging faster than they can be replaced. The way out of this crisis has been blocked by the cut in F-22 Raptor production and budget-driven delays in production of the F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). As a result, the service is trying to figure out how to do what it has never done: accept into its aircraft mix a large number of less-capable legacy forces.

http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/CAF_0309.pdf

They can always dig those P-38s out of the ice up in Greenland.

There, problem solved.

(Too bad the B-29 is gone.)

[DannyR]

??...are you suggesting that the EU is a potential enemy?......Are you forgetting history? Where did Iran's potential nuclear capabilities come from? They bought much of it from the French. No telling who they may sell the jet to in the future. And in this world, the enemy of our enemy is often a beneficiary of advanced military technology.

Eurofighter is being sold to Saudi Arabia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4550670.stm Can you guarantee a stable pro-western government will remain in that country?

China is getting the Russian SU-37 http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/23592-china-get-su-37-jets.html and http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15276
The United States is currently developing a similar aircraft, using a modified F-15 platform, but, like the Russian plane, it is still undergoing flight tests.

However, the Russian fighter began flying in 1996, and it is believed to be more advanced than the U.S. jet


I don't remember hearing about any of our stuff getting shot down.Nothing recently, and the very small number attests to how much we dominate the skies there:

January 30, 2005 - A British C-130K Hercules C.1P XV179 is shot down north of Baghdad, killing 9 Royal Air Force crew and one British soldier.

April 8, 2003 - A-10A 78-0691 of 124th Wing/190th FS shot down by Roland SAM; pilot survived.[140]

April 7, 2003 - F-15E 88-1694/SJ of 4th FW/333rd FS shot down, both the pilot and Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) were killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_Iraq_War#cite_ note-139



Keep the F-22 in production at one/ year and we can ramp up if the need arises.got no problem with that. Keep the production capability open is all I ask.

[DannyR]

the Air Force has asked for more Ferraris....but both the Navy and Army have asked for more Jeeps.F-22 isn't a carrier based fighter. Its not intended for Naval use. Likewise the Army's job isn't supposed to be air superiority either. So I'll stand by the jist of my statement. The service the F-22 was built for wants more. Its the Obama administration, not the service, who are saying cut off the supply.


and, unless someone out there starts building their own Ferraris, we already have enough in the garage to maintain air superiority anywhere in the world.....Point isn't about keeping them in the garage, but maintaining the ability to build them in the future.

[PostmodernProphet]

Its the Obama administration, not the service, who are saying cut off the supply.

that ignores the fact that the military has been arguing about the F22 or F35 pretty much since Clinton was president.....

[DannyR]

that ignores the fact that the military has been arguing about the F22 or F35 pretty much since Clinton was president.....So? Limited resources means they argue about who gets what first. The argument has never been that the aircraft aren't desired. Only where each should be prioritized.

[PostmodernProphet]

So? Limited resources means they argue about who gets what first. The argument has never been that the aircraft aren't desired. Only where each should be prioritized.

come on, admit it......here's a link showing the debate was going on in 2007......

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Thompson_Files_Experts_are_right_on_F-22_999.html

and more...

http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/062007114595.htm

and this goes back to 2000

http://books.google.com/books?id=KDDe6Jm9ERQC&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=military+doesn%27t+want+f22&source=bl&ots=H_j1CsFI0u&sig=-d67pEuSlrj-rC0JpvN3FczPVpE&hl=en&ei=t3DdSaekGKakNdOLodQN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

[DannyR]

Every one of those articles show the Air Force wanting more F-22's, and the primary factor being cost in preventing them from getting them, usually brought up by those who want to spend money elsewhere. Nowhere did I see anybody saying the F-22 wasn't a superior technology. Thank you for proving my point. As I said, the argument has never been that the F-22 wasn't desired, only if it was worth the cost.

Article 1:
Unless each air wing has such a squadron, the Air Force says, it will not be able to sustain rotations in future wars just as the Army today is having trouble sustaining rotations in Iraq. Substituting less capable fighters would make it much harder, maybe impossible, to preserve the air dominance crucial to every other facet of U.S. military success. Article 2
But Air Force officials say cost notwithstanding, the Raptor is long overdue because the commonly used F-15 -- first flown in 1972, the year Don McLean's 'American Pie' was released -- is an aging relic.

Lt. Col. Mike Shower, squadron commander for the first Elmendorf Raptors, said no enemy aircraft even comes close to the F-16. But that doesn't mean the Air Force should maintain the status quo, he said.

'Our old stuff is essentially on par,' said Shower, who has piloted both the Raptor and the F-15. 'There is a significant amount of threat out there, but the F-22 absolutely dominates when we fly.'

[Psychoblues]

So many billions of bucks, so few minds and profiteers,,,,,,,,,scary,,,,,,,,,,ain't it?!?!?!!??!?!?!!?!??!

The GOP,,,the party of fear and loathing,,,sad,,,,

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

Every one of those articles show the Air Force wanting more F-22's, and the primary factor being cost in preventing them from getting them, usually brought up by those who want to spend money elsewhere. Nowhere did I see anybody saying the F-22 wasn't a superior technology. Thank you for proving my point. As I said, the argument has never been that the F-22 wasn't desired, only if it was worth the cost.

Article 1:Article 2

I didn't prove your point, I proved mine.....the Air Force does not equal 100% of the military, and the military has been fighting over whether we should build more F22s or more F35s for ten years.....my point, proven, sealed......

[DannyR]

I didn't prove your point, I proved mine.....the Air Force does not equal 100% of the military, and the military has been fighting over whether we should build more F22s or more F35s for ten years.....my point, proven, sealed......Then you proved both our points, obviously not understanding mine. The F-22 is an Air Force jet, so of course the military as a whole, if given x bucks, is making choices between it and other systems so that all services are supported. That was never my argument. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that money was always the factor.

You seemed to be saying the Air Force didn't want it despite my statements saying they did. So you agree then that the air force does in fact want the jet?