Thread: Does the U.S need a cheap fighter?

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I should add that while we lost our dedicated AB battalion, the Regular and Reserve Commando Rgt.s are still parachute trained so I guess they could fill the void if we really need it.

No, quite different actually.

Got the lecture about the lost of capability from a former Canadian Airborne Regiment, currently Jump Company Master Warrant Officer in the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment. Airborne assualts are very different than any other infantry operation. They're designed to be self-sustaining battalion level operations. You train to use what little fire or for air support that you have.

That is very different than from SOF or even a Jump Company. SOF relies on stealth more than anything else. They don't want to announce their presence until the bad guy is sleeping in the toilet, taking a crap with his pants down around legs. A Jump Company's main effort is always to support the mech or the motor guys on the ground. That means that they're not the main force but a supporting force.

These are all quite different from an airborne assault where the battalion is the main force.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

No, quite different actually.

Got the lecture about the lost of capability from a former Canadian Airborne Regiment, currently Jump Company Master Warrant Officer in the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment. Airborne assualts are very different than any other infantry operation. They're designed to be self-sustaining battalion level operations. You train to use what little fire or for air support that you have.

That is very different than from SOF or even a Jump Company. SOF relies on stealth more than anything else. They don't want to announce their presence until the bad guy is sleeping in the toilet, taking a crap with his pants down around legs. A Jump Company's main effort is always to support the mech or the motor guys on the ground. That means that they're not the main force but a supporting force.

These are all quite different from an airborne assault where the battalion is the main force.

Well from my understanding the Commandos here are a little different, they don't really do the stealth element for the SFG, they leave that to the SASR. The commandos specialise more in the 'punch in the face' element of spec ops for us. Right now in Afghanistan their job is to chopper in to bail the SAS out if they get themselves into serious trouble while their on the LRRP operations, and to provide the heavy-weight punch if the SAS find a target that needs eliminating. I still have no idea if they'd be a suitable unit for an Airborne assault but their official role is to 'bridge the gap between conventional and special forces' so it wouldn't be quite so much like sending a Navy SEAL unit in to do an Airborne attack.

Got ya. They're Jump Companies then.

Well once China gets the S400 they can cover all of taiwan it will be difficult for taiwan to fly tankers however the JASSM and ACM 129 are made for surviving ina modern iads like a russian or chinese one. We can launch them at standoff and destroy the chinese airfields and help shut down sams however their mobility is an issue, but if they move too much they going to leave big gaps where even conventional AC can slip through, they can only move a kilometer or so. I am terrified of chinese airfields and their sam network. Besides the E/A 18G growler is coming soon.

Back to the issue i dont think the US needs a cheaper fighter The flankers have already shown to be at parity with the Eagle and the russians have the R77 bvr missile not to mention S300 P/V and S400 systems and these are being sold globally. I mean c mon there are only 20 B-2's in the force we need the raptor. The JSF doesnt have it's stealth level or performance level of the raptor and not designed for the A2A role. They can't even carry the amraam internally.Also what will we do once the Su 35 comes out we cant just design an SU 35 type AC because of the sam threats and the fact is we cant retain air dominance with that for a long time.The US needs the raptor not some cheaper AC Russian arms sales prove it.
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/index.html
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/stealth.html

Umm, I dont think you're getting what everyone has been on about. The problem with the Raptor is cash, in that it requires mountains and mountains of it, and thanks to budget cuts, the high cost of continuous combat operations, and stupid buys like the Opsrey, the USAF isn't getting the money to buy enough Raptors to fill out their numbers. Now it looks like they might not get enough to fill their order of F-35s, especially if that program keeps getting cost blowouts, so people are wondering if they should go for a cheap fighter to supplement the two without breaking the bank.
And personally I figure they should if a suitable design is available, perhaps the new model Strike Eagles or the Super Hornet.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Got ya. They're Jump Companies then.

They're also amphib warfare trained as well, I'm not sure if we have any dedicated Amphibious units anymore. The focus seems to be on having a blend of mechanised and motorised infantry for the time being, I guess ADF Command doesn't figure we're going to need to be carrying out any serious insertion operations for ourselves against a defended position for the time being, or they just can't make it happen with our current resources (which are rather pitiful).

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I believe we lost our Airborne battalion a few years ago, it got converted to mechanised infantry from what I heard (which seems like a strange move). I think what Canoe said about having a well-equipped light force is true for Australia, we should try to sturcture ourselves around say, 3 Light Brigades if we're not going to bother with a proper Tank force. Right now we have a lot of LAVs and the Bushranger "APC" (it's more of an armoured car from what I've seen of it, kind of like a larger Hummvee) is coming into service, so we have a basis for Light Units, and we could of course structure them in a manner so as to have them nicely inter-operable with a US Division. As for fire support, if there is a decent MGS in service that DOESN'T have stability issues then it might be a good buy for the ADF, and I'm not sure if our LAVs currently pack ATMs but we should definately be sure to see that they do.

This video answers the questions about the MGS' stability.

MGS

Australia uses the AT version of the LAV that's very similar to the US LAV-AT if I recall.

Air National Guard ADF units would probably be better off with something like the JAS-39E/G Gripen then they would the F-35.

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Air National Guard ADF units would probably be better off with something like the JAS-39E/G Gripen then they would the F-35.

F15SGs would be even better.

I would rather think that US does not necesserilly need a stock of cheap fighters but it needs to keep some CAPACITIES to build them once such a need is on a horrizon. For example US industries are capable producing around 150 of F-16 annually. Keeping those capacities (including components) would be resolving the potential problem with numbers.

Too expensive. What we need is flights of point defense fighters around our major cities.

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Too expensive. What we need is flights of point defense fighters around our major cities.

Point defense fighters are of minimal use for the USAF. USAF is an offensive force. Its doctrine is to take the fight to the enemy and destroy it. Destroy the enemies capacity to make war and war won't come home. PDF is more suitable for a small country who's main concern is defense and long range is unnecessary. There's a place for PDF in this world. Just not here.

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Too expensive. What we need is flights of point defense fighters around our major cities.

I disagree entirely.

The closest interceptor base to my city is in NY state- hundreds of miles away. ONLY a LR fighter operating out of NY can defend philly from air attack.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Point defense fighters are of minimal use for the USAF. USAF is an offensive force. Its doctrine is to take the fight to the enemy and destroy it. Destroy the enemies capacity to make war and war won't come home. PDF is more suitable for a small country who's main concern is defense and long range is unnecessary. There's a place for PDF in this world. Just not here.

And because of that offensive doctraine, we have an open border and jets flying into high rise buildings. We have no military assets for homeland defense.