Say bye to F-22

-{SpoonmaN}- · 09 Apr 09,, 00:07

Originally Posted by chakos

So what??? The US still gets 187 of an aircraft that has no peer. What else do you need? What threat do any of you see that will not be able to be handled comprehensivelly by 2000+ JSF, 187 F-22 and a bucketload (not sure how many) of superbugs as well as any remaining legacy aircraft. Is it not enough to be the most powerful air force in the world... do you need to be able to defeat all other air forces in the world at the same time???

Lets get a sense of perspective here. There is an economic crisis, other military programs/organisation need the funds more and the overal deduction in defence spending is like 4%. The problem people have is they get all carried away on the 'porn' equipment. F22s are sexy but im sure soldiers could use better radios, better small arms, upgraded facilities etc. Its the boring stuff that wins wars... In WW2 the Germans flew the Me 262... definatelly the F22 of its day but they lost... and when it was all said and done didnt Patton say that it was the Jeep that won the war for the allies? An ugly, generally underpowered, unarmed (mostly) and unarmoured utility vehicle.

I would be pretty confident in saying that Islamic insurgents dont care how many 5th Gen combat aircraft you have... With decent ground forces you could call in effective air strikes whether its in the form of an F22, a B52 or a P51 for that sake. Problem is keeping the numbers of troops up, keeping them equipped and keeping them trained so they are at the top of their game.

Summed up perfectly in my opinion. The UK would do well to scrap the Trident replacement and spend the money on better pay, I guarantee retaining experienced NCOs and Officers who are leaving in droves, and having the money to actually train your recruits on equipment they're going to use instead of stuff thats either been phased out or isn't being done in theatre is more important than buying kit to fight an imaginary war that just isn't going to happen.

**Jimmy** · 09 Apr 09,, 02:30

If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.

George Washington knew his stuff.

You can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend you can see the future. Another great quote was from Ferdinand Foch:

This is not peace. This is an armistice for twenty years.

"The War to End All Wars" indeed.

Open war will come again, its only a matter of time. Humanity hates peace...individuals love it, but humanity hates it.

**chakos** · 09 Apr 09,, 03:13

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Open war will come again, its only a matter of time. Humanity hates peace...individuals love it, but humanity hates it.

Lets face it... individuals love warfare too. Its just not generally socially acceptable to say so in todays world. Men aspire to be warriors, its satisfying in some deep dark way and also as much as women nowdays deny it because its not 'cool' they love it. We are genetically predisposed to enjoy warfare and a generation or two of peace hasnt changed us as a species.

**Gun Grape** · 09 Apr 09,, 03:40

Originally Posted by Jimmy

That's actually pretty close to how the USAF works. Most of the AF is separated into 10 Air Expeditionary Forces. AEFs operate in pairs. Two are supporting contingency operations (ie, OIF/OEF), two are spinning up to take over, two just got back and are reconstituting, and two are doing normal training and a blend of the reconstitution/spin-up phases. I think the plan is to have 10 understrength squadrons (about 60% strength, numbers-wise) so there are 2 squadrons available for deployment at any given time. A typical squadron will have about 24 jets. An F-22 squadron would have about 16, if we end up with 10 squadrons and the 43FS (training squadron) holds on to 23 jets (I think that's what they had when I was at that base). So a total of 32 F-22s ready to go...except the ones that are undergoing maintainance, also not counting any losses (I did not count the recent crash). 187 tails goes FAST.

The AEF cycle gives a level of predictability to deployments, makes life easier on families, and evens out (what used to be) a horrendously random training cycle. You could still deploy at any moment, but its a lot easier to see it coming early and prepare.

Why are USAF squadrons twice as big as Navy/Marine ones?

USN/USMC have 10-12 aircraft per squadron.

It looks like your "Understrength squadrons" will still be bigger than everyone elses full squadrons.

**Gun Grape** · 09 Apr 09,, 04:12

Originally Posted by GraniteForge

Yes, the crews have done a lot with what they were given. My point is that what they were given is a lot less than was promised. The Osprey is smaller inside, with less carrying capacity than intended.

No it isn't smaller than intended. Don't know where you got that from.

The Osprey would have been on time/on target if not for Cheney. When you start and stop development for 20 years, you are going to have problems.

The design was to be able to carry the M-151 Jeep internally. Remember this as a late 70s design. Full scale development started around 1985. We were doing shipboard testing in 1990.

The plane was never redesigned for the Humvee. The troop requirement never changed. 24 combat loaded Marines. It does that.

They could never get it to autorotate, so that requirement was dropped to keep the program going.

The MV-22 is not a helicopter. There never was a requirement for it to autorotate.

However it can perform a 1 engine autoratation. Demonstrated and trained for.

There was a requirement for a glide landing capability. Its a hybrid aircraft. Its not going to have the same requirements as either a fixed wing or rotary aircraft does. But a mix of both.

As to armament, it was supposed to carry the GAU-19 integrally, but instead had to be shipped unarmed.

No it wasn't. That was always going to be a "Maybe Down the road" upgrade if the Corps cannot figure out the escort problem.

Its a troop transport craft, not a gunship.

The AF is looking at putting a BAE chin mounted machine gun on their CV-22s. They have a need, its a AFSOC bird.

**obrescia** · 09 Apr 09,, 04:24

Boy it's hard to know what to think.

I wonder if DRFM has turned active-radio BVR upside down for everyone (all air forces) and it's all about helmet-sighting and IRST now..???!

…crazy

**leib10** · 09 Apr 09,, 04:34

IMO we really don't need more than the 180 or so F-22's ordered. The F-35 can handle most of the missions that the F-22 can, and there's really no need for a couple hundred more F-22's at more than a hundred million dollars a pop.

**Jimmy** · 09 Apr 09,, 05:20

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Why are USAF squadrons twice as big as Navy/Marine ones?

USN/USMC have 10-12 aircraft per squadron.

It looks like your "Understrength squadrons" will still be bigger than everyone elses full squadrons.

We're not stuck on boats. Real estate is a bit harder to come by for the Navy.

Also, everyone else isn't kicking down the door and blazing a path of flaming MiG wreckage from the get-go. F/A-18s aren't going to be escorting B-2s on day one. F-22s will. Air Force airpower doctrine is very different than naval aviation. The Navy can use a smaller squadron because its missions are different. And the Marines have a very narrow mission, relative to the Navy and AF.

**Gun Grape** · 09 Apr 09,, 05:27

Originally Posted by Jimmy

We're not stuck on boats. Everyone else isn't kicking down the door and blazing a path surrounded by the shredded remains of MiGs. F/A-18s aren't going to be escorting B-2s on day one. F-22s will.

But you could have more Light Bird slots if you had double the squadrons/same planes.

Kicking down the door? How long did it take for the AF to get basing rights so they could play in Afghanistan?

You guys only "Kick down the door" in a permissive basing environment.

Northern Europe during the WW3 cold war scene. But not world wide.

**Shiny Capstar** · 09 Apr 09,, 14:23

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

Summed up perfectly in my opinion. The UK would do well to scrap the Trident replacement and spend the money on better pay, I guarantee retaining experienced NCOs and Officers who are leaving in droves, and having the money to actually train your recruits on equipment they're going to use instead of stuff thats either been phased out or isn't being done in theatre is more important than buying kit to fight an imaginary war that just isn't going to happen.

What happens if that war does happen then?

We cannot just focus on the type of conflict we are in currently, to do so is very short minded and damn foolish.

**BenRoethig** · 09 Apr 09,, 14:36

Originally Posted by Shiny Capstar

What happens if that war does happen then?

We cannot just focus on the type of conflict we are in currently, to do so is very short minded and damn foolish.

Right. The ones that are usually least prepared are the ones who try to think where things are going. We prepared for an era of Nuclear bombers, got Vietnam.

**Shiny Capstar** · 09 Apr 09,, 18:05

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Right. The ones that are usually least prepared are the ones who try to think where things are going. We prepared for an era of Nuclear bombers, got Vietnam.

If we prepared for Vietnam we could have got WW3. The reason we didn't get WW3 was probably because we prepared for it.

Yes we never know where the world is going but not continuing to prepare for conventional wars is stupid. We cannot just assume that all the wars we fight will be like those we are fighting now.

**Dreadnought** · 09 Apr 09,, 18:09

You guys only "Kick down the door" in a permissive basing environment.

IMO,

When you want to kick in doors or take something strategic you send Marines or Army.

When you want to level a block or blocks call the Navy.

When you want to level a city or country then call the Air Force.

**Kommunist** · 09 Apr 09,, 19:12

Originally Posted by BudW

Say bye to F-22

Bye.

Originally Posted by Shiny Capstar

If we prepared for Vietnam we could have got WW3. The reason we didn't get WW3 was probably because we prepared for it.

Yes we never know where the world is going but not continuing to prepare for conventional wars is stupid. We cannot just assume that all the wars we fight will be like those we are fighting now.

Yes, I agree fully, but the more than a couple of hundred F-22s is overkill.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

When you want to kick in doors or take something strategic you send Marines or Army.

When you want to level a block or blocks call the Navy.

When you want to level a city or country then call the Air Force.

)

**Maxor** · 09 Apr 09,, 19:15

Hum does anyone else see the US pulling in its horns for another 2 decade or so isolationist period? If the US does who fills the power vaccum? China and France, Russa or India?? I don't see england doing it financially.