Thanks for the video, now we can all visually experience how much of a liar Gates really is. Remember the article about the decision to close the F-22 program and the context about the AF Secretary never having a chance to recommend the final number of 243? I believe Gates says in the interview that the AF recommended to him that more than 187 was not necessary. The surprised reporter's questioning says it all. Lets stop pretending that this anything more than a Gates power trip.

No, the USAF CoS and USAF Sec said the same thing. There is no requirement Mustang for more. You want to build more just because? If the F-22 was the only air to air capable fighter we had, yes, we would probably want more. But it's not and it fights along side very capable legacy aircraft and soon the F-35. See the big picture. Lets see.

Last two SecDefs

USAF

LM 

All agree that it's time to move on and our focus should be on F-35. There is an overwhelming mountain of data against you. I'm not denying F-22s are the best. Just that we have a requirement for more in order to win wars.

 

-DA 

1. You don't need 12 F-22s over a single reactor or critical site. You need TWO as a react force so your start assumption is incompetent. 4x14 by your incompetent coverage scheme is 56 and gives you 7/24 cap. Using my coverage we need 16.  

2.  With tanker support you do not have a four hour limit on F-22s. The limoit is more like eight houres and then you cycle through the relief pilot in a turnaround. .

3.  You don't have all F-22s held back for defense, nor would you, so that assumption is just ludricrous.

4.  Still can't read a map or do vector/radian analysis. 

 

-That more or less takes care of your so called analysis.

-A burdened Eagle does not have 240 minutes in the air before it has to refuel. Its more like like 160 minutes or less., 

-We don't have the 300 legacy Eagles. We have 160 so that fiction is invalid.as it is gone..

-Robots cannot fight air to air yet without positive teleoperator control. The cited robot is SUBSONIC and not an A2A platform so that assertion is incompetent.

-Appeals to a known proven prevaricator and political apparatchik, the appeal to authority fallacy again is rejected as invalid and incompetent.

-Summary of analysis, same incompetent arguments this poster previously advanced and I rejected them all for proven cause before. Incompetent recycled prior evidence has no bearing on the case at this point. When even the basic assumptions the poster makes; don't hold up to factual scrutiny, then the poster's latest presentation of previously refuted arguments is not valid and is rejected.. 

 

Herald

 

 

 

3. Again that appeal to authority. Let me state it for the record in no uncertain terms so that it is well understood. Gates is a known political apparatchik and political conniver and betrayer of no merit, out for his own personal interests and not the interests of the nation.

Now, I understand that you do not think highly of SecDef Gates. I know that. But can you articulate why THIS decision is not in our interest. That is the question which you have not been able to answer.

-DA 

 

1. Do you know what a scram-dart is?

2. We intended to splash cruise missiles with the AMRAAM. That is built into that missile so you don't know what you discuss.

3. Gates is considered a liar and even a traitor by many reputable and credible men that I've cited directly as I pulled their testimony as to his character and trustworthyness.That testimony came from  from both sides of the political spectrum by the way; so your argument that I showed bias is without meritmas is so many of your assumptions and declarationbs, poster. Would you take Gates' word for the sky being blue or the sun appearing over the horizon tomorrow ? I wouldn't, based on whjat I uncovered about that manh and I don't.

 

If you don't like it; then explain why he, in the past as his record shows, he constantly lies and that he behaves treacherously, only looking out to advance his personal position at the expense of the national interests? Why was he and why is he consoidered by many former associates to be disloyal to his superiors when he adjudges that they are in trouble?

 

Explain those facts please?

 

Then you might explain why you don't know the first thing  about our overaged fighter fleet (public knowledge) or why you cannot do a proper coverage analysis at all, or why you cannot sort aircraft out proiperly by intended and OBVIOUS function as well as design limitation?

 

Herald

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 And on top of all that, DA (which was well-written indeed), I'd say that trying to keep 24/7 CAPs over specific targets, and potentially over dozens (maybe hundreds depending on what infrastructure is labeled as a potential target) is just absurdly unrealistic and a waste of resources.  What is the threat, to include who, what, where, and how?  Cruise missiles?!?  What missile, by whom, from where, how will they get there?  Once that is defined, then an appropriate level of defense can be mounted--and I'd bet it sure wouldn't need to include flying freaking 24/7 CAPs over dozens of facilities across the country!  That's a couple million gallons of gas, 10,000s of hours of airframe life, and a bunch of valuable personnel's careers wasted every year.  It shouldn't take any "extra" aircraft at all, and I don't think it does now.  Just assign every fighter squadron (or at least enough to provide sufficient coverage) a secondary air defense mission and have two jets on strip alert.  I'm pretty sure that's not really any different than what we've been doing since we opened Selfridge Field in Michigan and put the 94th FS on the job (if I've remembered my heritage coirrectly).  I seem to recall that was a primary mission for many Air Guard squadrons not long ago.  We started backing off from that requirement in the 1990s, and for good reason:  the requirement/threat changed, and we didn't need as many fighters on alert duty for continental air defense from bombers that weren't flying anymore.  Okay, we backed down a little too far, but I think mostly what went wrong is we no longer exercised the system enough and didn't keep good enough C4ISR co-ordination in play.  I'm confident that has been remidied to a great extent.  Any additional remaining need should be able to be filled by more of the same.  Continental air defense is/should not be a requirement for more F-22s, as opposed to anything else instead.

Thanks Warpig. I did a bit of estimation based on Noble Eagle through 2004 and that comsumes the equivalent of 8.5 Raptors in flight hours assuming that's all they did. My math, (34000 sorties * 2 hour average flight time)/8000. On top of burning up service life, even with ALL the Raptors dedicated to this you don't get complete coverage enough to the point where a competent opponent can't exploit gaps in coverage. That Brahmos has a 300 second flight time. AQ demonstrated that non state actors can exploit holes. Using the F-22 in 9/11 analogies is bad because AQ didn't have to plan for that. They surely would now judging by what we have seen from their capability. Basically you can't just slap a technology bandaid on this. It requires a completely different method designed for 21st century threats. The more I look into this the more the F-22 seems so 1990's. Not saying I don't think it's a fabulous plane, I do. But even with it's capability, unless it's fighting against a Soviet Style Doctrine under European sized geography, its got some obvious short comings with regard to 21st century threats. Since a lot of nations still use legacy doctrine, the F-22 has some use. But it's becoming more clear what the SecDef and USAF CoS see as threats and why they are willing to accept such a small number all things considered.

 

Incompetent and inaccurate..

 

More unnecessary unfounded vitriol.































































 

You have go to already be there...

link width="425" height="344">  

...All it takes is just one to make it. 2 Raptors and AMRAAMS will not work against something like this in reality without prior intel in which case there are better options.

-DA 

Please stop the nonsensical and ludicrous assertion that all of a sudden everyone agrees that 187 is the right number. Do you realize how much of a yes man you sound like?

 

 

Last 2 Sec Def ...Rumsfeld...enough said, Gates...liar

 

 

USAF...laughable, they have been lobbying for more since 2005. Their position didn't change over night and they agreed only because they will run out of Generals if Gates keeps firing them.

 

LM...even more laughable, unless Congress works a miracle they know its over. That's like Ford saying we don't want to build any more cars. LOL

 

Did you say overwhelming mountain of evidence against me? Some very knowledgeable posters on this site have proven over and over that scenarios(unlikely or not that is your opinion) may arise where more Raptors would be necessary so not to stretch the existing force stucture too thin. Try completing your job with 25% less assets and tell us how you make out. The only point you keep reminding us about  how 187 planes is enough is because Gates said so.

Brahmos has a range limit of 550 kilometers. What is the launch platform? A sub. Version does not exist.  A freighter/

This is a Brahmos:

Note the size? (Scale is truck)

 

There is no aircraft not Russian that can carry it close enough (Blackjack or Bear) or ship that can reach the US sea frontier that would not be detected. A TEL can launcher big  enough to be packed aboard a freighter is going to be a sore thumb noticed by somebody. You can't bury inside a cargo hold to launch without a prominent flame diverter. 

 

This is what I mean by incompetent presentation. You need to really think these things through poster.

Herald

 

A missile like Brahmos would cut that 12.9 minutes down to ~3-4 minutes. Even the F-22 can't react that fast. You've already got to be in position with fire control quality data to stop it. Since 50 Raptors can't be in more than 50 places at the same time in intervals that would essentially allow for an airborne parameter. It's futile to use them the way that has been suggested when potential threat TTPs has already made obsolete the tactics. --ME

I said, "Missile Like". My argument isn't platform specific. You misunderstood. It really doesn't matter though. Hezbollah and Iraq already showed that primitive silkworms are more than enough to penetrate our current air defense CONOP and F-22's would not make a darn bit of difference. Again, before using INCOMPETENT in reference to other peoples post, please ask for a clarification to encourage debate and to avoid confrontation. This personal thing you are holding onto is getting really old and its not necessary. I'm every bit as competent as you to have this discussion. Thanks.

-DA 

link width="425" height="344">

Sun Tzu said: Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and marching them great distances entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources of the State. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abroad, and men will drop down exhausted on the highways. As many as seven hundred thousand families will be impeded in their labor.

Impractical to police this with manned fighters. BMs, CMs and Hijacked air liners are asymmetric threats to CONUS. Those "50" Raptors= A host of 100,000 men mentioned above in the text.

 

-DA 

 

 

We have discussed this in depth already and the replies are:

1. The scenario is highly unlikely(opinion) unlikely maybe , impossible no, we could only hope it will never happen.

2. Gates says we have enough(goes against every independent analysis to date including the AF.

2. JSF will be available in sufficient numbers as well as legacy fighter support.

 

The problems I have with this are many. PRC is too big of an area. I don't believe the AO would be confined to the Strait. Assuming a MC rate of 80% maybe 70 Raptors deploy to the area. A surge for 2 days gets you maybe 400-450 sorties provided they all come home. Sounds like a stretch to deal with 1000 or so SU-30/J11/J10/JF-17, SAM sites, CM's and AA batteries. Will they be supported by other options, most assuredly but 140 Raptors doubles your sortie rate immediatley and the end result is less dead pilots in less capable aircraft. I would spend the 13 billion on the insurance policy because losing more aircraft and pilots will cost more in the end, however unlikely the beginning really is.

 

Average age of the F-15 Golden Eagles is 24. 60 more Raptors provides another insurance policy should something happen between now and 2025 that is detrimental to the fleet. It would severly impede the AF's ability to perform its mission on a routine basis let alone in combat and you can't say we have the F-35 because it still leaves you 178 planes short no matter how many JSF's are in service.

 

Now addessing the JSF. I understand its purpose and hypothetical capabilities.  It is years away from IOC and grossly more expensive then everyone was lead to believe. It is also severley limited in a clean VLO configuration and that is a fact that cannot be argued. Maintenance and MC rate are also unknown at this time. I won't argue the need for it because it seems to be a very sore subject with you but I fail to see the need to replace so called far less capable platforms on a 1:1 basis, the only possible explanation being that the more aircraft purchased the lower the flyaway cost. Keep in mind at the current rate this aircraft will still come in well over 100 million per plane. If some buyers become frustrated with delays and cost overruns be prepared for a very expensive multirole fighter.

Homeland Defense.

If a conflict with PRC did become reality, CM threat to CONUS is a very real possibility. I want the fastest most capable answer to that short of  MEADS. By far the F-22 is the most capable due to its supercruise, radar and thrust vectoring.

link

Sorry link did not work.

 

website is link

Something happen? Such as? Anything like F-22's being grounded for corrosion problems? If this strictly an Eagle problem or does this happen to all jets?

 

Well I already showed you F-22's don't work for this purpose. Too many gaps to cover. Too many variables. Too few airplanes.