Who cares. Accept that you are nothing more than a guy with an opinion. No one here is looking for your approval. When you can support your ego with a real supported opinion actually directed at the topic, I'll care what you have to say.

-DA 

I regard the last post the poster posted  as a continuation of his well established pattern. I note it and point out that it oios o0ff topic as much of his last poists have been. As are most personality driven posts.

 

I have to ask what it has to do with the decision about the F-22, but then he's long since left that boundary condition, being reduced to a conflict of personalities instead of addressing the issue of the competency of evicence and presentation.

 

Shrug.

 

He's not on point and he is no longer relevant to the thesis proof.

 

Anyone else here want to try to defend Gates on the merits or are done with this?

 

Herald

 

I do not agree that I am "speculating" on F-15 problems.  You might look at the threads on this board dated 2/14/08, 3/25/08, 1/11/08, 1/09/08 or the myriad news articles elsewhere.  Furthermore, it's simply a fact that as airframes age new problems are discovered.  If you want to cite a study that shows the remaining F-15Cs can last another 20 years great please do so. 

 

Your reply that F-35s could be used to replace F-15s is rather problematic given the F-35 is not nor is designed to be an air superiority fighter.  Leaving aside all the reasons the F-22 is far superior air to air (supercruise, greater stealth, etc.) the capacity of the F-35 to carry internal air to air missiles is 2.  The launch rail is on the inner door of each bay.  The UK originally wanted 4 air to air missiles carried internally and as reported by Jane's on March 4 2008 it will carry only 2 because there are only 2 launch rails.  If someone wants to speculate that one day an F-35 can carry more than 2 air to air weapons internally great please cite your source for this being worked on.

 

In fact the normal operating condition for the F-35 appears to be carrying external weapons at least according to Jane's and the other dozen public sources I've looked at right now after google of 'F-35 internal bay'.

 

Frankly either the F-35 can perform the role of air superiority fighter or it can not.  If it can then there is some level of insurance against the small buy of F-22s and the shutting down of the production line.  If it can not then there is no such insurance.  Furthermore, your comment that the F-35 will be available would seem to indicate you agree there is some level or risk to manage.

 

 

 

LB,

I agree there are problems with some of the older F-15C's. The Much newer F-15E's and the F-15C's that are in good shape are referred to as Golden Eagles. They are scheduled to last until 2025 in sufficient numbers to maintain a credible force along with the F-22's we do have. Look into GOLDEN EAGLE.

The idea that 60 fewer F-22's produced threatening our capability to maintain air superiority does not stand up to scrutiny. The threat does not justify that number.

-DA 

Also, the F-35 is not designed to fight the F-22. So a comparison of the two is not relevant. It's designed to fight threat aircraft and it is more than a match for any of them. With regard to numbers of air to air weapons. You show why you think it doesn't have enough. Also, read around a bit on your own. There are numerous threads and OSINT with industry officials discussion the F-35 carrying various internal a2a loads. Its not that it can't. It's just that there is no urgency. Notice the Pirates and Taliban do not have an "Air Force" so to speak.

When the old thinking dies off and as people who do understand the threat continue to rise, promote and take over, the nature of these debates and defense reporting will change away from this "Cold War" type of analysis because it is no longer relevant.

-DA 

Follow up. Once again I summarize.

1. Presentation is sloppy.

2. Personality attacks everywhere.

3. Threats and admonishments instead of factual discussion of the issue.

4. Opinion asserted as fact.

5. Assertion backed by a claim of secret knowledge. Well there is an element of secret knowledge that some here can claim., but they don't claim or assert it in open discussion as the basis of proof. And in this specific case the poster's claims to secret knowledge on some of the ridiculous claims he makes, flies in the face of the well known limiters called physics, current technology, and siimple chemistry.  

 

Take the metallurgy manufacture and the design defects that are well known public issues in the US air fleet. This isn't unknown to our enemies, but it seems to be unknown to him, or if he is even aware, he airlly dismisses it.

That is a sure sign of not knowing what you discuss.

Take the airy dismissal of the known political and bureaucratic history and background of Mister Gates. Take the public reports of the coerced non-disclosure agreements that Air Force and Army staff officers were forced to sign concerning this specific topic. Why? Afraid that some officers would resign in protest and speak out?

 

It isn't as if the poster hasn't seen the evidence. He calls that OPINION and political hate aimed at him and his point of view.

 

That is simply not factual. What can you do with such a point of view that will not stick to the thesis and to facts presented?

 

You dismiss that point of view and that unsubstantiated opinion as not being relevant on this topic if you are factually based objective.

 

Let me repeat that so there is no misunderstanding. 

 

If the poster cannot use a factual based case to repudiate an actual factual based case that shows Gates is an apparatchik and that Gate's decision on the F-22 and the other key elements of the US military budget was/is political motivated; instead of effectiveness based,.then that poster has actually contributed nothing of merit to consider on this topic and taken 18 pages to show this.

 

Herald

 

Assertion and no proof. The truth reported is that Eagles are being retired at an accelerated rate faster than originally programmed. WHY?

 

Herald

 

 

Shrug. Facts trump assertions.

 

Herald 

From above.

The only person asserting is Herald. If you read carefully what I said, I mentioned something called Golden Eagles. Which include F-15Es. I also mentioned OLDER F-15C's were to be withdrawn gradually as they wear out. Moreover, most of the F-15 defects are repairable. All of this too during a time when the USAF was still stuck in the old mindset of getting more unnecessary hi tech toys to play with, F-22's. The past Administration was smart enough to punt knowing that they were unnecessary. This one seems to agree.

Again, real warfighters, people who are intimately familiar with 21st century warfare, not theorist and people who see their career path's threatened by change, know what the deal is. Thats because we've paid prices in blood, sweat and tears as we have tried to improvise solutions to conflicts we weren't prepared for at the organizational level. None of us are worried in the least about air superiority because we know that its not an area where we have a deficiency. We worry about things like Somalia. 

You know, its interesting, for all the vitriol and speculating about conflict with PRC and space aliens, that I came in here and stated, that's not the nature of the threat anymore. I remember saying, in many threads and this one. Our future wars will be small nasty little wars and battles against failed states like Somalia, Pakistan and Mexico. I remember saying that it's the Russians who we need to most concern ourselves with at the near peer level in terms of conflicts either by proxy, orange revolutions or even directly. And with each passing day, the headlines show that people who think like me are right. If the DoD has a choice right now to magically make appear 60 new F-22's and 10 to 12 LCS, well I think we know the obvious choice.

The F-15 fleet is fine. We over engineer those aircraft and flaws like this are common to any air frame in service this long. Its an issue we have solutions to and our air superiority is not endanger. No doubt I'll get called incompetent and unqualified blah blah blah. But what wont happen is a coherent rational non-personal, non-biased discussion of a real threat we can't handle. That challenge has been open for days now and none one is able to make the case or even just a good counter argument.

I'm don't with this latest post Herald so you can go ahead and reply with your usual insults and strawman arguments. That ignore the fact that the SecDef and USAF CoS ect have told you the scenarios that initially indicated a need for more F-22's has been revised due to a change in the threat matrix. But of course, these professionals are stupid and secret fascist Obama lackeys who want to lower our defenses for a surprise PRC bandit attack. I just though I'd save you a bit of time summarizing the only means by which you can respond.

 

-DA   

The issue is not that the USAF is going to keep 178 F-15Cs around for 20 more years and call them golden but rather the fact that out of all the F-15A/B/C/Ds in inventory today only 178 passed inspection as acceptable to keep flying long term.  That is today's current inspection.  One hopes some new problem does not come along but these things do in fact happen.  The Es are the new airframes and not tasked for air superiority.

 

Today the USAF has about 1,000 F-15s and this is going to drop to 178 Cs and 220 strike Es with 187 F-22s. The last time the USAF was not under orders not to comment on the matter they stated they required more than 187 (see airforce magazine march 2007 where the number was still 381).  The drop to less than 200 is entirely budget not threat driven.  Gates has ordered the AF not to comment.

 

You keep asserting 187 is enough.  Prove it.  Cite something to back up your unsubstantiated claim.  Furthermore were one to stipulate that 187 F-22s and 178 F-15Cs is enough for the United States of America to ensure air superiority for the next 20+ years the fact remains there is no reserve and neither aircraft will have a production line.  This risk is too large not to be addressed either by additional procurement, keeping a production line open, or having some other option available. 

 

If an air superiority fighter lasts say 20 years and the USAF needs 600 then you buy 30 every year (500 and 25, etc).  The entire issue is NOT driven by force structure but budget.  Exactly how many F-22s from 187 have to be lost to attrition, weather, accident, sabotage, etc. before you are willing to say there's a problem?  If 100 is enough that's one thing but if we've got problems if the number falls below 160, in your view, then only purchasing 187 and closing the line is beyond foolish. 

 

Finally saying it does not stand up to "scrutiny" is simply your opinion.  You have not cited USAF, OSD, GAO or any official study or analysis to support your supposition.  There will be Congressional hearings on this matter and we will then see what official studies exist to support the Administrations position. 

 

It was one thing to eliminate the USN air superiority fighter and rely on 1,000 F-15s.  It's another thing to drop that to 365 F-22s and upgraded F-15Cs.  That you believe that is enough is clear.  The leadership of the USAF does not agree and has been ordered by OSD not to comment.  If it's enough it's 'just enough' and the fact there is no reserve and no production line to produce proves it is in fact not enough in anything but a magical world of near zero attrition.

 

It's in fact radically dangerous to assume no scenario that adds significant hours to these 365 airframes given that many of our current aircraft are gaining hours much more quickly than expected- including more hours on aircraft used to cover the multiple recent periods when the F-15 fleet has been grounded- as if that will never happen again.

 

 

Nothing to do with the air superiority fleet.

 

The rules say I* have to point out with data that you don't know what you discuss whenj you make a groundless assertion and misinterpret what you read in my data..

 

Consider yourself negated, yet again.. 

 

Herald

* the E series is a strike aircraft with a secondary air to air mission capability. Its not intended for air dominance.; its a bomber and SEAD bird..

 

 

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand your comments.  There are many weapon systems in the US military that are not all that useful or cost effective in a counter insurgency.  The nation can not afford to assume that is all it will face for the next few decades.  Nor can the nation afford for others to perceive it is not ready to deal with the full spectrum of conflict.  There is no core mission more important to the United States than air superiority.

As for the F-35 carrying more than 2 internal air to air weapons it in fact does not.  Just because someone at Lockheed is on the public record saying it could carry more does not mean any money is being spent on a program allowing it to do that.  If there is such a program please cite the information.   Were the F-35 able to internally carry 4 or 6 air to air missiles it would still not make it an air superiority fighter able to do what the F-22 is capable of. 

 

So by all means please compare the cost and capabilities of F-22s now vs a future buy of F-35 able to carry more than 2 air to air missiles internally.  Will the F-35 be half as capable and cost less than half?  

 

Note the Jane's article I cited where the RAF original requirement was for it's F-35s to carry 4 ASRAAMs internally and this was changed to 2 internal and 2 external.  Obviously it's not that straight forward to carry more air to air weapons internally.  Can they really get 6 AMRAAMs inside vs maybe 4 I've no idea and to my knowledge nobody else can tell you with certainty nor to my knowledge has this been funded.  What I do know based on the citation provided is that is was a requirement and the requirement was dropped for 4 internally carried ASRAAMs for the RAF.

 

This is not the Rafale thread.  Right now the F-35 carries 2 internal air to air missiles.  There probably should be a program for it to carry more.  The RAF didn't want to pay for it- who does?  When might this program spring forth?  Exactly how effective is an F-35 air to air vs an F-22?  Does not the higher stealth and sustained speed of the F-22 mean it will eat the F-35 alive in most air to air scenarios?  Is not the F-22 more cost effective in the air superiority role than the F-35?  If so would not purchasing more F-22s be better than some number of F-35s in the future?  If the F-35 is more cost effective than why the F-22 in the first place?

 

I get that you think 365 F-22s and F-15Cs is enough.  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.  I'm simply asking what is the plan if it's not enough and how many below 365, according to you,  consitutes a problem that needs resolution?  Is 150 F-22s and 150 F-15C s enough to provide air dominance for the USA for the next 20 years?  Exactly how many out of 365 can we afford to lose?

 

 

 

 

Also, the F-35 is not designed to fight the F-22. So a comparison of the two is not relevant. It's designed to fight threat aircraft and it is more than a match for any of them. With regard to numbers of air to air weapons. You show why you think it doesn't have enough. Also, read around a bit on your own. There are numerous threads and OSINT with industry officials discussion the F-35 carrying various internal a2a loads. Its not that it can't. It's just that there is no urgency. Notice the Pirates and Taliban do not have an "Air Force" so to speak.

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand your comments.  There are many weapon systems in the US military that are not all that useful or cost effective in a counter insurgency.  The nation can not afford to assume that is all it will face for the next few decades.  Nor can the nation afford for others to perceive it is not ready to deal with the full spectrum of conflict.  There is no core mission more important to the United States than air superiority.

As for the F-35 carrying more than 2 internal air to air weapons it in fact does not.  Just because someone at Lockheed is on the public record saying it could carry more does not mean any money is being spent on a program allowing it to do that.  If there is such a program please cite the information.   Were the F-35 able to internally carry 4 or 6 air to air missiles it would still not make it an air superiority fighter able to do what the F-22 is capable of. 

 

So by all means please compare the cost and capabilities of F-22s now vs a future buy of F-35 able to carry more than 2 air to air missiles internally.  Will the F-35 be half as capable and cost less than half?  

 

Note the Jane's article I cited where the RAF original requirement was for it's F-35s to carry 4 ASRAAMs internally and this was changed to 2 internal and 2 external.  Obviously it's not that straight forward to carry more air to air weapons internally.  Can they really get 6 AMRAAMs inside vs maybe 4 I've no idea and to my knowledge nobody else can tell you with certainty nor to my knowledge has this been funded.  What I do know based on the citation provided is that is was a requirement and the requirement was dropped for 4 internally carried ASRAAMs for the RAF.

 

This is not the Rafale thread.  Right now the F-35 carries 2 internal air to air missiles.  There probably should be a program for it to carry more.  The RAF didn't want to pay for it- who does?  When might this program spring forth?  Exactly how effective is an F-35 air to air vs an F-22?  Does not the higher stealth and sustained speed of the F-22 mean it will eat the F-35 alive in most air to air scenarios?  Is not the F-22 more cost effective in the air superiority role than the F-35?  If so would not purchasing more F-22s be better than some number of F-35s in the future?  If the F-35 is more cost effective than why the F-22 in the first place?

 

I get that you think 365 F-22s and F-15Cs is enough.  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.  I'm simply asking what is the plan if it's not enough and how many below 365, according to you,  consitutes a problem that needs resolution?  Is 150 F-22s and 150 F-15C s enough to provide air dominance for the USA for the next 20 years?  Exactly how many out of 365 can we afford to lose?

 

 

 

 

Also, the F-35 is not designed to fight the F-22. So a comparison of the two is not relevant. It's designed to fight threat aircraft and it is more than a match for any of them. With regard to numbers of air to air weapons. You show why you think it doesn't have enough. Also, read around a bit on your own. There are numerous threads and OSINT with industry officials discussion the F-35 carrying various internal a2a loads. Its not that it can't. It's just that there is no urgency. Notice the Pirates and Taliban do not have an "Air Force" so to speak.

You aren't qualified to negate anything I say. You don't have the skill sets, the experience or the professionalism to survive any kind of military related debate with me. Don't confuse my lack on interest in your cyber chest beating and ego trippin' for lack of capability. Note that I didn't mention anything about air dominance, a concept you don't even understand obviously. 

When you are up to my standard of debate and level of experience and understanding, we can have much more fruitful discussion and perhaps then you might have something useful to contribute. Until such time you are just blowing more hot air. But I know you need to have the last word on everything so go right ahead. I've got everything for the SecDef, Top USAF brass and even simple cursory analysis of capabilities of threats, real threats and not your contrived fake PRC-Bandit obsession, to back up what I said.

Your views have been shot down by everybody that matters with the exception of your small local fan club on this forum. 

-DA

 

 

I didn't say there was a program. I said if it was necessary, it could be made to do so. And who cares if its not as effective as an F-22. We have F-22's for that!