Thread: Langley seeks third squadron of Raptors

Originally Posted by Jimmy

True, but Gates put the bullseye on the F-22 before Obama announced his candidacy for President.

But did that come from Gates or Bush? I think Bush.

Originally Posted by highsea

But did that come from Gates or Bush? I think Bush.

That's the first time I've heard of Bush wanting to can the Raptor early, if you're saying what I think you mean.

Geez, looks like everyone is betting everything on the F-35.

Reading more about F-22s and the given state of the defense budget and the deficit, as much as I like the Raptors, frankly the reality is that we cannot afford super expensive high tech weapons anymore. I mean, we won WWII with fairly average tech weapons. Look at Shermans vs. Tigers, P-51 Mustangs against Messermicht planes, etc.

As long as US retain the edge in overall electronic and combat capability, US will remain top dog. I hate to say it but there comes a certain point where the cost of the weapons does not outweigh the costs of the inevitable casualties if using lower tech weapons. That is the nature of war.

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

That's the first time I've heard of Bush wanting to can the Raptor early, if you're saying what I think you mean.

Raptor has been under attack for years. Rumsfeld halfed the buy back in 2002, and wanted to cancel it in 2005. Gates just carried on the tradition, but was advocating for elimination since day one of his tenure in the DOD.

As it is right now both the F-22 and F-35 are hugely expensive. Building F-22's (in serial production and active duty) seems like a good bet as we know what they do. The next F-35 to enter active duty shall be the first. I want the F-35 to come into active duty and be built in significant numbers. I also want enough F-22's to be built to make them a reasonable and upgradeable airplane. To me that is a total of around 20 squadrons (around 250 airframes) in the USAF. I see no reason to not build an additional 60 to 65 F-22 as each one built is cheaper than the last (sinking the development costs across more airframes). I do see lots of reasons to get more planes in place as soon as possible and the way to do that is F-22's and the buy numbers of f-35's are already being cut for the USAF which is a terrible idea.

As an advocacy note I'm not a huge raptor fan or a huge lightening fan i am just seeing a big airframe numbers reduction. I don't care if we build high block falcons or golden eagles for that matter (honestly these aircraft are capable enough to hold their own against most air forces for the next 15 years) what i want to ensure is enough fighter squadrons to credibly be in the air and the area to produce sorties as needed. You don't need a super fighter to take on most of the worlds air forces and you certainly don't need it conduct air support and bombing of command and control centers formation movement, and logistics areas.

^^ It's a question of what you are willing to give up.

I'm less concerned about a potential enemy's air force as I am the proliferation of triple-digit SAMs. If you have to strike at someone like Iran that will have modern air defenses, you will lose F-teens.

Look at Israel's experience in 1973.

Highsea,

I do not think so. Take a look at the Israeli's strike against the Syrian nuclear reactor and even USAF's strikes against Iraqi air defenses during Gulf War I. As long as you have overwhelming electronic warfare dominance coupled with complete air superiority (not air dominance) then those SAMs can certainly be negated. SAMs are passive defenses not active defenses.

With SEAD aircraft and B-2 bombers loitering around until the given go ahead to bomb those SAM sites, the USAF is well equipped to take out anything that the Iranian forces can throw at USAF. Don't forget about USN aviation and LACM assets, too.

Thing is Highsea that the triple digit SAMS are not available to most of those countries in large numbers but in a few units supported by lesser tech systems, and while are mobile aren't really able to keep up with troop movements in firing configurations. You've also got the numbers of raptors and lightenings. There is also a fair amount of leeway and evasion capable by fighters that aren't tied to set locations and low altitude to support the ground forces. While there is definitely issues there stealth is not the only answer active ECM jamming and sead missions at range also help.

Look at Israeli experiences since then as well as Nato experiences over Yugoslavians air defense networks.

The "IADS" faced in Allied Force and Iran isn't the best comparison.

The thing people continue to forget is that the F-22/F-35 combination wasn't supposed to be the answer for the next 10 years. It's the next 30-50 years. What condition is the F-22 fleet going to be in after 30 years of attrition, spare parts drying up, and airframes aging?

Originally Posted by Jimmy

The "IADS" faced in Allied Force and Iran isn't the best comparison.

The thing people continue to forget is that the F-22/F-35 combination wasn't supposed to be the answer for the next 10 years. It's the next 30-50 years. What condition is the F-22 fleet going to be in after 30 years of attrition, spare parts drying up, and airframes aging?

Exactly. A fleet of 146 planes is going to be half that size in 2 decades.

Current IADS systems aren't the issue, it's a question of what will be there 10-20 years out. Given the current threat assessment of S-300 and the requirement to avoid those airspaces today, I don't see a fleet of new build F-teens as something we want to sink any money into.

The Israeli example was just to show that you can have air superiority and still lose planes in significant numbers. As these S-300 variants proliferate in the coming years, that threat will only go up. We need aircraft that are survivable in that environment.

A fleet of 120 teen series jets will also be half that size in 20 years and should be able to be built in the next 3 which isn't happening with the new stealth jets. I'm not arguing for simply hey lets throw up teen series jets I'm arguing for lets get some jets so that we can carry out enough missions simultaneous to meet our needs..

The question is whether F-teens will be able to meet our needs. The AF's position seems to be "no" or at least "not well enough considering they cost almost as much as an F-22 anyway."

So basically F-35 is the only gig in town and the basket where all the eggs are. Great. How likely is their chances of turning into a "buyable" aircraft? The lack of stragic depth in airframes is quite frankly disconcerting.

Well, if it's any consolation the Chinese and Russians are probably going to have the same problem with the PAKFA and JXX, the cost of those aircraft alone is going to put a serious strain on other PLAAF and RuAF responsibilities.

To say nothing of the maintenance downtime time for those two fighters. If you think the F-22A is expensive to fly, its Chinese and Russian counterparts will probably be worse off. Compressing the prototype flight to serial production timeframe in 8 to 10 years cuts off a lot of valuable experience that could have been used to make maintenance and production more efficient and durable.