Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why 183 Raptors is NOT enough.
Herald12345    6/28/2009 2:53:01 PM
Study results follows in next post. Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT
mustang22       6/29/2009 6:54:32 PM
The argument is not about having it both ways. Its about purchasing enough of them to fulfill a military requirement. No one knows if the ability to maintain key stealth features can be overcome to increase the current readiness rate, LM says it has a program in the works. Even at 90%, 113 planes is light, exactly the reason for the extra 60. It allows a stressed fleet to work within a more comfortable rotation, sparing the lifecycle of the planes in the end. Recently one Senator actually suggested splitting the difference between the moderate to low risk to purchase 312 planes. I couldn't agree more.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/29/2009 7:01:17 PM

The argument is not about having it both ways. Its about purchasing enough of them to fulfill a military requirement. No one knows if the ability to maintain key stealth features can be overcome to increase the current readiness rate, LM says it has a program in the works. Even at 90%, 113 planes is light, exactly the reason for the extra 60. It allows a stressed fleet to work within a more comfortable rotation, sparing the lifecycle of the planes in the end. Recently one Senator actually suggested splitting the difference between the moderate to low risk to purchase 312 planes. I couldn't agree more.

Well the current OSD and POTUS say these numbers are enough, have the power to see to it that it is, and I agree with them. So again Mustang it seems that we agree to disagree on this issue. If the 126 combat coded planes are used correctly and only when the Raptors capabilities are particularly necessary, we will have more than enough to deal with these scenarios. If we get more, and it doesn't rob from other more needed programs, then great. Otherwise this is a done deal and the USAF needs to think F-35A.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/29/2009 7:05:14 PM


It uses Kadena as the example, but it could just as easily be Andersen, you Ruben!


Except that not even the DF-21 will reach Andersen AFB.  Also, they assumed Kadena could be covered by "SRBMs", presumably DF-15s.   Frankly, that's what they have to assume, since the PRCs don't appear to have enough conventional DF-21s to laydown their proposed scenario of blanketing the Kadena ramps with submunitions even once.  Unfortunately for that theory, I think we'll find most/all sources for DF-15 ranges fall a bit short of reaching Kadena.  However, I for one would not rule them out since there are tradeoffs that can be made to throw less weight further, and the PRCs might be able to find a way to do something like that.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       6/29/2009 7:12:12 PM

Herald,




The premise of your thread has been completely negated. You posted a flawed analysis in support of your case. The POTUS, OSD, USAF CoS, USAF Sec and most other Def Professionals that matter agree that 180 something will do, so go on ahead and get indignant and yet again fill another thread with a flurry of personal nonsense. All it shows is that 




a. you didn't do your homework




b. you are incapable of being objective




c. you are incapable of admitting error




d. you do not have the professionalism, composure or common sense to debate this as may others here do







I'll leave you to stew on that. See ya sucker.







-DA 
I disagree. If someone asked the POTUS how many F-23's he thought we needed, he would probably say I will discuss the matter with my SecDef. The SecDef is the ONLY clown who believes 180 will do. USAF Sec and USAF Cos have stated that 243 is the military requirement but acknowledged due to budget constraints and job preservation that they will not pursue more of them. As far as other top Defense professional, General Corley and Lt General Deptula come to mind as recently opposing  Gates' number.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/29/2009 7:27:32 PM

I disagree. If someone asked the POTUS how many F-23's he thought we needed, he would probably say I will discuss the matter with my SecDef. The SecDef is the ONLY clown who believes 180 will do. USAF Sec and USAF Cos have stated that 243 is the military requirement but acknowledged due to budget constraints and job preservation that they will not pursue more of them. As far as other top Defense professional, General Corley and Lt General Deptula come to mind as recently opposing  Gates' number.

 


The POTUS has made in clear that he'll veto any bill containing funding for additional F-22's.  Again, I said the people who MATTER with regard to making the decision to fund more. It's over for all practical purposes. The F-22 has a very narrow chance of getting a few more, maybe the USAF will squeeze in a few more to replace legacy aircraft lost in OIF/OEF or otherwise before the line closes, but that's probably it. Bottom line though is that this Rand "Study" does not and did not do enough to provide support for more F-22s and the people who incorrectly interpreted it that way were properly rebuked by Rand and others. 

The PRC's are coming argument is flawed. As I explained my opinion to Phaid, F-22 proponents are going to need to do better selling this aircraft. In essence, it will have to boil down to if we do not get x number of F-22's, we will lose wars. And it will have to be something that both sides can reach consensus on. I can tell you from professional experience you don't build consensus on something like this by calling people idiots and liars. Especially when they have the last word on the matter. 

-DA 



 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/29/2009 9:08:39 PM
White House threatens veto over F-22 jet fighters
By RICHARD LARDNER
Associated Press 
2009-06-25 06:18 AM
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    LB reply   6/29/2009 9:26:12 PM


Finally the mistake you seem to make is to discount the fact that air superiority is the pre requisite that allows the rest of the US military to function.  Air superiority is not a mission like any other but the premiere mission of most importance to the USA (you want to argue it's nuclear strike or deterrence fine then limit this to conventional warfighting).  If there was one area you want a robust, redundant, and world class force it's your air superiority fighter force.



 You are making one of the most fundamental mistakes with regard to warfare. It's a painful lesson the USA has been learning over and over in every conflict for the last 50 years. Air Power is not the most important mission. The is something that belongs exclusively to Infantry. After all the bombs fall atomic or otherwise, MEN with guns have to go in there and drag the enemy out of their holes whether they be enemy infantry, citizens or leadership....

 

 ...F-22's mission results can be substituted. These guys CANNOT BE REPLACED OR SUBSTITUTED BY ANYTHING. Their numbers can be reduced by making them more efficient, but ultimately this is what you need to have left over. EVERYTHING depends on if you have enough of this to give...

 


-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       6/29/2009 9:40:10 PM
Gates Has a Big Problem: Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he has "a big problem" with the House Armed Services Committee addition of 12 F-22 Raptors to the 2010 defense budget. He told reporters at the Pentagon June 18 that the reason is "because it continues the F-22 program, which is contrary to the recommendations I made to the President." However, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), who as chairman of the committee's air and land forces panel put forth the additional Raptors, says we need them to provide "breathing room"... to keep F-22 production going while debate continues on national strategy as the Pentagon works through the Quadrennial Defense Review. For Gates that debate is obviously over. In a direct slap at the professional opinion expressed... by Air Combat Command boss Gen. John Corley that the current national military strategy requires more than 187 F-22 fighters, Gates told the reporters: "Frankly, to be blunt about it, the notion that not buying 60 more F-22s imperils the national security of the United States I find completely nonsense." With that statement, Gates not only derides Corley's judgment but also that of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, who has acknowledged the fiscal constr... that make a smaller F-22 force necessary, but who has stated publicly that the current military requirement is for 24.... Asked when he would recommend a presidential veto, Gates said, ?I?m not going to go that far at this point.? Abercrombie, however, meeting with reporters, openly ridiculed the notion of a veto, claiming that President Obama would be uncharacteristically foolhardy to veto a defense bill over the issue of a few airplanes. Abercrombie added that, in any event, a veto would be met in a flash with an override by huge supermajorities in each chamber. (Gates press briefing transcript...)
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       6/29/2009 9:52:26 PM






Finally the mistake you seem to make is to discount the fact that air superiority is the pre requisite that allows the rest of the US military to function.  Air superiority is not a mission like any other but the premiere mission of most importance to the USA (you want to argue it's nuclear strike or deterrence fine then limit this to conventional warfighting).  If there was one area you want a robust, redundant, and world class force it's your air superiority fighter force.










 You are making one of the most fundamental mistakes with regard to warfare. It's a painful lesson the USA has been learning over and over in every conflict for the last 50 years. Air Power is not the most important mission. The is something that belongs exclusively to Infantry. After all the bombs fall atomic or otherwise, MEN with guns have to go in there and drag the enemy out of their holes whether they be enemy infantry, citizens or leadership....




 






 ...F-22's mission results can be substituted. These guys CANNOT BE REPLACED OR SUBSTITUTED BY ANYTHING. Their numbers can be reduced by making them more efficient, but ultimately this is what you need to have left over. EVERYTHING depends on if you have enough of this to give...




 







-DA 



 

They wouldn't have even been in that position if enemy fighters were pounding the snot out of them Darth. We all know how important the boots on the ground are but there is something to be said about no American soldier being killed by an enemy aircraft since 1953. We would like to keep it that way.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/29/2009 10:31:04 PM


They wouldn't have even been in that position if enemy fighters were pounding the snot out of them Darth. We all know how important the boots on the ground are but there is something to be said about no American soldier being killed by an enemy aircraft since 1953. We would like to keep it that way.

That's bullcrap. How many opponents have survived our bombs Mustang? Al Sadr has ZERO operational fighter aircraft. There are ways to wage war without fighters or even aircraft. There aren't ways to do it without men unless the aim is less than to control territory. I don't discount the benefit of a decent air force. It makes a huge difference and lowers the price in blood. But the suggestion that air superiority is the primary tool of war and most important is ignorant of reality. ALL other forms of military service exist to support this...

 


...All military operations are ultimately balanced around what this guy and guys like him need. As war has increasingly become a technology contest where America is accelerating away from all other nations at an exponential rate, our opponents, some of them at least, are abandoning technology and the rules that civilized nations generally follow when waging wars and are returning to fundamentals. This is why an gaggle of men in Flip Flops and Robes can wage war against the worlds most powerful military ever for a decade and still have a good chance to win. Instead of recognizing the truth, people who are entrenched in their various career paths are sucking funds and resources away from the tools we need to win both high and low intensity conflict. Again, I cannot emphasize enough, a DF-21 does not seek to dogfight, do BVR or engage fighters directly. It avoids their strengths and hits at their fixed basing vulnerability to kill them in the nest where they are vulnerable. It doesn't matter if there are 1 or 100 F-22's on the tarmac. If the Runway is gone or critical infrastructure is gone, the F-22's don't matter. If they do take off and fight, there actually has to be targets for them to engage. In the low intensity domain, cruising at M1.5 doesn't help much when your target is as stealthy as you are on the modern battlefield...

 


...Somewhere in that Bazaar is an enemy stealth bomber. Except it doesn't fly and it wasn't made at a LM Plant. It's an imported White Toyota truck with a young man holding a detonator in his pocket...


The moral of the story is that the few nations who still adhere to and wish to abide by western rules of war are not capable of facing the F-22 fleet we have. The rest have chosen strategies, tactics and technologies that make F-22's irrelevant. We have enough.


-DA 

  
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy