I think the DoD should lose money. What's left needs to be re-prioritized. More F-22's aren't a priority from my point of view based on years of study and debate. Thus I agree with SecDef Gates decision on the matter. So cutting at least 9 billion from the F-22 means that DoD funding that would have been used on the F-22 can now be used on something else.

-DA 

It also is posted as a threat to intimidate and stifle debate on the point under discussion. May I ask the poster again to present data on topic and to restrict himself to the discussion at hand and not try to usurp a role that is not his by right or priveledge?

As to technical commentary on point concerning the defense budget and the judgments that went into it, there is none

 

Herald

 

 

Alright Herald, we will try this one more time. First, if you are going to address me, please use my handle and I'll use yours. That will avoid any confusion about who we are talking about, and the nature of any discussion. Second, I started this post so that I can share my opinion about Gates decisions. Simply put, I agree with it. If you disagree, simply state why. If you cannot or will not, then lets not talk at all or reference each others post. This is a genuine attempt to keep things civil and within the scope of the posted rules.

Are you able to do that?

 

-DA 

1).  I don't get it.  Why don't you guys polish DA off by showing him that if the only assets we have are 187 F-22 we couldn't possibly come close to meeting our air superiority needs if we have to simultaneously drive our Army to Moscow and also use the Marines to occupy China?  I mean, c'mon, what are you people waiting for?

 

----

 

2).  Several of you "posters" need to understand the difference between claiming we could produce some level of capability within a certain timeframe if it is made a higher priority and current capabilities under development are rushed into service, from claiming we could produce the best possible capability within a certain timeframe based on extrapolating historical priorities and capability implementation rates.

 

Oh, and if an arquebus is a firearm, a Sopwith Camel is a fighter, an SA-1 is a SAM, etc., etc., then MQ-9s certainly *ARE* UCAVs (as autonomous operation is NOT a necessary condition for being a UCAV) and hanging a couple puny Stingers on one certainly *DOES* give it the capability to conduct air superiority missions.  Of course, it gives it virtually no capability to do so, and such as it is is only for a very small sub-set of all conceivable air superiority mission scenarios, but it does.

 

----

 

3).  Herald, seemingly trying to apply this standard, "What I am proving (and quite successfully) is that you are UNQUALIFIED to have an opinion on this subject," to posting on StrategyPage is bullcrap for most anyone short of some pedant like BW or most recently Arklight, and certainly is for DA--regardless of how ignorant his posts sometimes appear, particularly basically everything he says that's actually personally in favor of The Obamination.

 

 

 

 

Also do not confuse an evidential empirical case with an expressed opinion. It is not an opinion. It is  structured argument built on presented facts and evidence supported by self reinforcing logic chains of proof..

 

Herald

 

Even in this unlikely scenario not all PLAAF birds will be in the air but you can bet that the best will be and not straying too far from the SAM belt. Also PRC has the advantage of all of its assets close by, the U.S. would have to rely on allied bases which are vulnerable to missile attack or carrier reinforcement with subs crawling up their ass. So where do you support the hundreds of aircraft and their crew to offset the lack of F-22's? Guam and Kadena are most logical suitors but still within cruise missile range. It would seem that first day is of major tactical advantage to destroy enemy fighters and eliminate SAM batteries and given the amount of airspace and terrain to cover a fleet of at least 144 F-22's would be necessary to overwhelm the enemy given 70-80 would be in the air at any one time. This would reduce the number of other assets needed in the region and number of casualties taken from less capable platforms. F-15E's and Raptors could then be used in conjuction to hunt the mobile launchers. Sending a UCAV to hunt these launchers would be a waste of money as they are easily targeted and destroyed. I also would have a 36 Raptors sitting at Elmendorf and Langley respectivley so not to leave the CONUS unprotected. This is why I believe the 60 extra Raptors is necessary. Unlikley or not there are many instances that past history will show us that weren't supposed to happen but did.

Well Mustang, the way I see it, a PLAAF that stay's within it's SAM belt, isn't doing much offensive action against the USA or regional allies. That leaves the PRC open to all kinds of things such as actions against their SLOC or not being able to support any offensive against the ROC. The main issue I have with your post is where are you getting the 144 number from?  And why does that have to be all F-22's? Why can't that be 96 F-22's plus 48 F-teens? Also if that was your number, outside of extreme circumstances you would not be likely to have 50% up at any given time from my experience. You set up your routine ops like CAP and Alert flights and the rest are assigned as needed. In order to properly deduce a number, we have to first determine the objective. Without that, even my number, the 187 aircraft total, is simply arbitrary. I don't see the PRC in any real offensive action except maybe to retake the ROC in a stretch. In order to deal with that, I think being able to surge 48-96 F-22 aircraft to Okinawa would allow me to put an overwhelmingly powerful Air Dominance platform close enough to Taiwan to cause unacceptable levels of attrition to PLAAF and PLANAF aircraft in that AO. If I have 187 F-22s to work with, that means at any given time, I can deploy enough Raptors to the AO to achieve my objective and still have enough left for attrition ect. All the while I still have USN, USAF Legacy and Allied Aircraft in the AO too in the hundreds. All of these are 4th Gen, capable of BVR combat and integrated into networks and back by almost inexhaustable logistics support. How effective this is depends more on strategy than on numbers after certain numbers which I contend that we have.

 

 

 

 -DA

Sending a UCAV to hunt these launchers would be a waste of money as they are easily targeted and destroyed. I also would have a 36 Raptors sitting at Elmendorf and Langley respectivley so not to leave the CONUS unprotected. This is why I believe the 60 extra Raptors is necessary. Unlikley or not there are many instances that past history will show us that weren't supposed to happen but did.

Regarding sending in UCAV for hunting launchers. First, I think it would take a lot for the USA to go into PRC proper hunting their mobile launchers. Such an action could easily be misinterpreted as a precursor to nuclear attack and might force the PRC into an irrational decision. However, take a look at the distances involved and area to be covered with regard to the PRC. No manned fighter would be capable of providing coverage for very long do to fuel status. Even if a tanker were right off the cost, it would be a serious challenge. But if the air space is benign enough to put a tanker close enough to support coverage over the PRC, then it's benign enough to operate a HALE. Perhaps even a Stealthy Hunter Killer HALE like Predator C. Because such a UCAV can stay on station for a day at a time, it can actually "look" for TELs. Or be there when the enemy exposes himself. This is a method we used so often to target insurgents who are much harder to identify and can emplace an IED in seconds. TELs are targets of opportunity. But they are also creatures of habit. The areas they drive in, the bridge classification limits, the radius of curve, fuel and maintenance. Not to mention that if they used any kind of comms it could be used to hunt them. A UCAV can actually be there to act on that kind of information. One thing we found out in Iraq was that there isn't a lot of time to apply air power on mobile targets. UCAV or Manned Platform. It had to actually be there most of the time. Otherwise, by the time it gets there, the target is gone. The advantage a UCAV has over a manned platform is it can actually "be there" when needed as opposed to "get there". We rushed solutions like this to the field in OIF. We could do that by 2015 over the PRC if necessary.

 

-DA

I would think batteries of S-300 and 400's would have no problem keeping those PLAAF fighters within range of Taiwan and SLOC. An S-400 has a range of 250 miles and I would expect PRC to have them operational by 2015. I would not want legacy fighters in the area until they have been neutralized due to increased vulnerability. The 144 number is actual combat aircraft in 8 squadrons of 18 to be used on an availability basis due to the massive amount of geography that must be covered. The AO doesn't necessarily mean immediate vicinity of ROC with PRC having having the capability to stretch the field with mobile cruise missile launchers, certaintly not something I want anything but an F-22 hunting down through SAM soup. You also mentioned 187 to work with but this number is basically nothing more than, well it looks good on paper. Your real number to work with is more like 120 and I would feel less than comfortable knowing that WWIII has just started and every available F-22 is busy trying to maintain an operational readiness in the PACRIM. Meanwhile Elmendorf is staring a Flankers, Blackjacks, Backfires and whatever else Russia feels like sending up for a test drive. Highly unlikely yes, impossible...well we also thought an attack on our own