I
don't disagree with the roles you see the F-22 serving in. I disagree
that we can't do it with 60 fewer planes and that no alternatives
exist. You cannot show otherwise.

NO, I can't. Not here. Something like that would be well beyond the scope of one person on this forum and impossible without discussing classified data. I don't have access to the proper information to prove that to you right now. Neither does anybody on this website. Anybody claiming otherwise based on some fantasy "Guam Scenario" posting here is grossly unqualified and misinformed. It's telling that some think some fake contrived scenario contradicts what the defense professionals do when they make these decisions. The SecDef most certainly has access and the proper counsel. However, I can make an educated guess based on my military experience and familiarity with air power. I'm sure we can agree right away that a wing of F-22's augmenting legacy fighters and F-35s would be more than sufficient to completely wipe out any threat air force with the exceptions of the major powers. Our F-22's would enjoy quantitative and qualitative advantages. Against nations such as the PRC, or against the PRC rather since that is the only "near-pear" threat outside of the Russians we have to seriously plan for, the F-22's we could bring to bear in a fight number close to or just above 100 if we have 187 aircraft. That doesn't counts several hundred F-15/16 and later F-35s nor does it take into acount F/A-18E's which could be brought in as well. So we are talking about a fighter force somewhere near 500+ including allies on the low end with 20% of them potentially being F-22's. By contrast China would be hard pressed to cram more than 700-1000 far inferior fighters into position to attack Taiwan for instance. F-22's routinely get kill ratio's well over 100 to 1 in simulation. The F-15 has achieved that in actual combat. Both carry weapons and sensors that far outclass anything they will face and have superior support systems and logistics. Additionally, unlike the PRC, the USA has the means to cut the Chinese off from their SLOC and strike within the interior of the PRC itself and destroy critical civil military infrastructure.

In short, the USAF has enough of a quantitative and qualitative edge against it's nearest competitor that the DoD can afford to use that cushion to redirect funding and priority to the wars we are fighting now and also to systems we are much more likely to need in war. This is the calculous of the Pentagon and SecDef and a large percentage of the nations generals. We have initiated a shift away from the 1990's era post Cold War technology heavy warfare that works fine in wars waged within normal internationally accepted rule sets governing state vs state wars, But not so well in wars where manpower and endurance are the keys to victory. We need more things like combat soldiers, SOF and helo pilots. Enough to sustain 5 to 10 year commitments in places like the ME, Africa, Central Asia, Europe and soon Mexico. We need missile defense systems capable of dealing with rogue states. We also need high tech solutions like the F-35 to deal with both asymmetric and near-pear conflicts alike and within the framework of our coalition style warfare. We need increased emphasis on Cyberwar and Unmanned technologies. We also need to get the proper amount and type of airlift the will facilitate the movement of men and materials to conflict zones. And the list goes on. But most importantly, we much achieve this while simultaneously reining in defense spending to account for the reality of our economy. So we can ill afford to invest in areas where no one can hope to match our dominance over the life of the platforms that maintain that condition.

 

This is what an experienced credible military analyst would tell you. Especially one familiar with conditions on the ground in reality and not just in theory. Even in disagreement, a credible analysis isn't going to hinge their argument on the number of F-22's. If Gates is wrong, it is because he would have incorrectly focused resources on the asymmetric threats and failed states rather than on peer level threats. But even if he is wrong. We maintain dominance to such a degree that we can absorb the initial lo

Winning wars is also done through the application of overwhelming force.  Endurance helps when you're fighting long wars.  Long wars cause more casualties, ones that can be avoided with the application of overwhelming force early and quickly.  This is the lesson of history.

 

The question remains unanswered: the F-15 is not getting any younger.  So if we halt F-22 production now, something is going to have to replace the F-15 eventually.  Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but within the decade.  These aircraft simply can't be pushed beyond a certain point before they start falling apart.  So when that happens, what do you do for the replacement? The obvious choice is, of course, the Raptor.  It will cost a lot more money to restart a dead production line than it will to simply buy the F-22 now.  I'd even settle for a low-rate buy, something to keep the production line going until the economy gets better.  Or until the attitude changes in Washington, probably with a new administration, and hopefully not the other reason--war in one of the (hopefully) unlikely scenarios.

 

I know the SecDef has access to a lot more info than we do on SP (including Darth), but I have to say that McNamara supposedly did as well, and look where he took us.  Or rather, what cliff he shoved the military off of.  I do think Gates is much smarter than McNamara, but nothing's going to change my mind that I think he's made a big mistake here.  I just hope DA is right, I'm wrong, and we don't pay for it later.

 

All that aside, I'd rather get rid of the F-22 than get rid of missile defense, and apparently Gates wants that gone, too.  That doesn't fill me with confidence in his decision-making with this budget.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w2u-DLrEwjQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w2u-DLrEwjQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Rush Limbaugh on defense spending:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2u-DLrEwjQ

Forgot about this part. Overwhelming force is not necessary. Don't get me wrong, it helps. but it is endurance that prevails. We have learned this lesson many times. If you can ENDURE, you can win. How many times have smaller weaker forces taught this lesson to much larger and advanced forces?

-DA 

Darth... Increased the font again on your PDA to make a posting?  I can understand that - considering one often has to use a magnifier to read mini-font.

 

Still - It seems that Austin Bay also agrees with my assessment that 250 is closer to right number than 187 - that assessment is based on attrition, maintenence, availability, the possible two war scenario and a first level opponent.  I also note that the F-22 is filling roles that were previously assigned to the SR-71 - and can perform such missions with the teeth to back up any challenge.  So IMHO - the addtional F-22s will guarentee no conflict will take place - without them - we may be spread too thin to stop a fight from starting.

 

It is interesting to note that liberals complained that we cannot fight another war while tangled in Iraq but are the first to assert that we don't need the additional assets to fight a two war scenario.  During the Cold War - we used to plan and stock for a two war scenario.  We also based our assessments on capability - not intentions. 

 

Sure we can defeat anyone with what we have NOW but what will the cost be?  Dead pilots and a ground conflict.  If the force available is overwhelming - temptation to challenge is removed - whereas with 30 year old designs - temptation is there to test, challenge and start a fight that can lead to much worse.  That same advanced platform can do the essential IW, EW, and recce functions to provide the needed advance information that can stop a war before it starts.

 

FJV -

You cannot address double digit SAMs with stand off cruise missiles.  The SA-20 outranges most such missiles and it is mobile - in that targeting using stand off weaponry will require exact location.  The SA-20 is not a static target.  It is also designed to attack cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk.  Jamming and EW also are not in the cards - since these are limited against a 300+ mile range system.  The range on the SA-20 is so great that it is classified as a strategic asset - not a local tactical.

 

The only effective response to penetration of advanced IADS is to use stealthy platforms armed with precision weaponry.  The F-22 qualifies and a force of 187 leaves us with no spare capacity.

Ignores the fact that as US unemployment rose, so did the PRC's and Iran's...the global economic down-turn is not some nefarious plot to weaken America.  If it is the fools aren't in Washington, but in Beijing and Teheran....In fact, both Iran and the PRC face significant economic and SOCIO-POLITICALdislocation from the economic downturn and collapse of oil prices.

Examples where your analysis fails, Russia: then and now, North Korea, China, (Nazi) Germany, (Fascist) Italy, Iran, Syria, Palestinian Authority, most African nations, Burma, Pakistan, do I need to name all the eighty or so odd failed or failing states currently practicing command economy or a modified version thereof, including the UNITED STATES under the interregnumist?

 

The money goes where the ruling class decides it will go. There is no problem with this until the people say no more of that crap.

 

The ruling class in most of the named cases, has the guns and the people propagandized in most of those states so they don't have a problem with revolt as you so blithely assume.

 

Your argument is therefore incompetent. China actually continues to EXPAND its military. So there is another fact that destroys your hypothesis. Its simple stuff like this that destroys house of cards logic. Its called NEGATION. 

   

Overwhelming force and strategy had everything to do with Gulf War 1, endurance had nothing to do with it.

Forgot about this part. Overwhelming force is not necessary. Don't get me wrong, it helps. but it is endurance that prevails. We have learned this lesson many times. If you can ENDURE, you can win. How many times have smaller weaker forces taught this lesson to much larger and advanced forces?

-DA 

This is typical of the short sighted myopic view of warfare. Saddam endured for a decade. He correctly wagered that we would not be willing to pursue him to Baghdad and thus he could survive which was his primary objective, regime survival. As a result he tied up a huge percentage of US assets until finally we launched OIF to finish what we started. An operation that still goes on today. Wars don't actually end when CNN stops coverage or the DoD changes the name of the Operation.

-DA