"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:46:08 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Wonder why they were going to order 800ATF to replace those 400
F15's?.

Can you point to any reputable source that indicates the F/A-22 is
supposed
to replace the F-16? And FYI, when the original 800 number was proposed,
we
had a few more F-15's in the inventory, and werestill engaged in the Cold
War--neither is applicable today.

yes you had a few more but you still haven't answered the questuion
why 800?

You must have missed the bit about more F-15's being in the inventory at the
time, *and* the Cold war factoid?

, there wasn't that many F-15C's AFAIK there was only 400 odd
F-15C delivered, this would be in the timeframe of the ATF, as for the
209 (ish) F15E's they came a while later around the early 1990's when
the F-22 orders were being cut from 750 to 648.

You conveniently ignore the fact that the F-15A was also (and continues to,
in its MSIP form) still flying during the timeframe the ATF requirements
were developed. Total F-15A and F-15C production for the USAF was in the
order of around 760 aircraft. The 800 number for the F/A-22 was a *total*
program requirement, to include attrition replacements, etc.--compare it to
the *total* number of F-15 models produced for the USAF (760 A and F mods,
120 B and D mods, and 200 E mods, equals 1080). So it appears that if you
dump the E mods from the equation, you are looking at about 880 F-15's
procured as dedicated air superiority fighters--meaning that the old
still-looking-at-the-Cold-War requirement of 800 F-22's was indeed inline
with the existing F-15 situation at that time.


It wasn't originally conceived as a one for one replacement for the
F-15, but a new top teir bomber/fighter, born from a study that said
both the F-15 and F-16 would soon be obsolete because of the new
russian fighters being produced.

It was never intended to replace the F-16. Period.


The original designs submitted for the ATF ranged from 17,000lbs upto
an astonishing 100,000lbs, are you sure they had the F-15 in mind
then?:-).

You are apparently wandering away from the discussion at hand.


You mention your not involved in the cold war any more, is that an
arguement for a reduction in F-22 numbers from you!!.

Duh.



The F-35 will replace how many airframes???, whats the

What's the what?


My apologies, it was meant to read 'whats the latest figures...'

Get over this idea of your's that replacements have to be
on a one-for-one basis. When the F-35 enters service we will still
operate
F-16's; expect to see the later blocks in service for many years after
the
F-35 has entered the picture. As was noted in a recent article
(www.afa.org/magazine/March2004/0304f35.asp ), production figures may
fluctuate in the out years; IIRC the current total for the USAF is some
1700
plus.


Theres a bit of a problem with timing, the best your going to get is a
force thats 10% smaller some time in 2028, But with a deficiet to make
up of over 1000 aircraft when the JSF arrives in 2012. (see the
Quadrennial defence review regarding the Air combat Command), your
older aircraft are falling to bits, so I would expect to see some
legacy aircraft buys soon.

Well, you keep on expecting. It is no secret that we have continued to
purchase both the F-16, lately in the Block 52 guise, and F-15E (though I
think we are now done with that one) over the past few years, but that does
not imply that we are going to change our course in the immediate future and
buy a whole bunch more "legacy aircraft".


They don't have to be more capable!, quantity can overwhelm superior
equipment.

Ah, still rooted in the old "mass always kicks ass" philosophy, huh? When
the other side can't see your lesser numbered force, can't act as agilely
(in terms of reacting to a changing situation) as you can, and can't is
further flying aircraft less capable than your's, then he is in trouble.

Of course he's in trouble, if he plays your 'club the seal' game, If
he goes all out to kill your runways and logistics in one big swamp
attack, then your aircraft numbers do count and no matter how good
your fighters are they will need stop virtually all attackers so they
have somewhere to land.

If he "goes all out" and tries that and succeeds, your numbers no longer
matter; 200 aircraft sitting on an airfield that is unusable are just as
worthless as 80 aircraft sitting on that same airfield. Of course, to do
this he has to run a gauntlet of not only fighters, but also depending upon
his route USN surface-to-air assets and regardless of his route the
inevitable Patriot and Avenger systems that will be defending the critical
bases. Then there is the matter of the USAF now buying into the F-35B...


I wouldn't expect an adversary to play fair and come up to fight in
managable numbers....

And I would not expect us to fight on his terms; bad move. So...we won't.


Even the PRC/PLA has belatedly realized that pure mass is not the answer.
You are using the Lanchesterian attrition model to base that statement
upon--unfortunately, it has proven to be less than accurate, especially
when, as you are here, applying it to the force as a whole. It further
ignores the fact that the USAF will use its advantages in the ISR and C4
fields to acheive localized superiority when it so desires.

Again another of your arguements which undermines the need for the
F-22!

Hardly. It points out that precision and qualitiative advantages outweigh
sheer overall mass in the modern fight, and how the relatively small F/A-22
force can defeat a much larger, less capable force. I don't really see us
*likely* facing such an adversary, but in order to keep the picture like
that we have to be *able* to do so, hence the need for the F/A-22 "silver
bullet" force (keeps those nasty vampires at bay).


And it derails
completely when viewed against the backdrop of stealth and precision
engagement. Had you applied Lanchester's laws to the operations during
either Gulf War you would have found that the coalition forces should
have
experienced exponentially greater casualties than they did in either
conflict.

All thing being equal that should have been the case,

What?! Read up on Lanchester--he specifically addressed the situation where
side A has equipment that is twice as good as side B's, but side B has twice
as much of it. His Square Law indicates that under that that scenario, with
a 100% better force in quality terms, the smaller force still loses. Using
his model, the casualties we should have sustained during both of the Gulf
conflicts should have been horrendous--but they were not. Lanchester is nice
for tabletop gaming, not so nice for real modern combat, at least when
applied from the aspect of simple brute mass advantage, as you are doing.
After you brush up on Lanchester, go read some of the treatises on maneuver
theory (Lind might be a good starting point); it is applicable to air
warfare just as it is to ground warfare (not to say that pure maneuver
theory is the simple answer to the problem, but it does point out the flaws
in the simple "mass kicks ass" theory you are advocating).

however the
massive technological advantages of C4, AWAC's,Jammers,etc,etc made
even the most mediocre coalition fighters almost unbeatable, The
opposition not going on the offensive is possibley the greatest
mistake they made.

But according to Lanchester that is not the proper outcome. And the Iraqis
did try to go on the offensive--the Khafji operation was actually supposed
to be a division (plus?) spoiling attack to cause heavy casualties to
coalition forces--it got hammered, badly. had the Iraqi air component tried
the same thing, it would have resulted in a lot fewer new additions to the
Iranian inventory, and probably not a significant increase in coalition
casualties. Where they made their mistake (other than attacking Kuwait in
the first place) was in not *continuing* their offensive to seize the Saudi
coastal areas when they had the opportunity, while we still trying to get
the DRB from the the 82nd ABN DIV into the country.


Early raids into bordering countries would have severly hampered the
coalition buildup and deployment, I would have immediatly attacked any
bordering country that allowed foreign troops to land, first by Air
attack then followed up by land forces.

You'd have been too late--they had to attack and seize the SPOD's and APOD's
*before* the US could get forces into Saudi Arabia. Attacking afterwards
merely ensures you **** off the US public by killing our "tank bumps" (what
we called the 82nd troopers when tossed into a desert environment versus an
enemy heavy force). usually not a wise move.



IRAQ's strategy of just sitting there waiting to get pummeled doesn't
seem to be the hallmark of a good commander, and as such should not be
viewed as a good model to base any doctrine on.

But it is a darned good model with which to debase the Lanchesterian
conclusions, which would indicate that regardless of the fact that we were
twice as good as they were (maybe even moreso), we should have sustained
significant casualties in the effort. Take it to a smaller level--run the
numbers per Lanchester regarding the fight at 73 Easting, or the tank battle
the USMC forces fought as they neared the airport in Kuwait City. In both
cases the Iraqis fought, and in the latter they were credited with having
had some fairly decent battlefield leadership. But again, the conclusions of
Lanchester would lead to a significant casualty count on the coalition
side--but that did not happen. The conclusion is simple--in the modern
fight, pure mass does not assure victory, or even a creditable attrition
result.


and our your quite correct its not very likely, thats why
the F-22 isnt' really required, (for that price anyway)!!

Wise to have that "Silver Bullet". By your reasoning, the ICBM, nuclear
bomber, and SLBM forces we bought and maintained throughout the Cold War
were a complete and utter waste--but in fact it was their status as a
force-in-being that acheived their purpose (deterring nuclear, and in the
end even large scale conventional, war between the superpowers).

Don't put words into my mouth, it might be' wise' to have that
technology, but ask the Russians who's economy collapsed under the
strain of trying to have it all, if it was ultimately worth it.

Our economy has not collapsed, and despite the periodic economic slump that
we have *all* experienced, it appears to be quite sturdy. And we are not
trying to "have it all"--that is why we have cut the F/A-22 program back to
its current 269 aircraft level as of last count.


All I'm asking is if the F-22 is worth it, and all I'm hearing is
jingoism's with some unhealthy paranoia thrown in...

LOL! All I am hearing from you is outdated mass arguments and allusions to
immediate economic ruin if we proceed with the current limited production
run for the F/A-22; neither are particularly convincing arguments.



Its being worked on but
it has been worked on for years now and the time between anomolies
(read application crashes) hasnt climbed past 3 hours. the total
system shutdowns are quite a bit better than before but still not
good, and nowhere near where an operation fighter should be.

So what? You think they will solve these problems by cancelling the
program?
Leaving us with exactly what to replace the F-15's in the air superiority
role...?

You would do exactly what the USN did when they cancelled the A12, or
what the USAF did when the Valkyrie was scrubbed, Think about the
Arrow, TSR2 etc etc...
Did any of those cause the government to fall, society to crumble?, a
bruised nation pride is the worst thats on offer.

Go read up on the early fielding problems withthe F-15 and its reliability
concerns. Then come back and tell me that the F/A-22 program is really any
different in that regard.


It would perhaps be better if the USA technological edge was not to
far ahead, then maybe your politicians would not be so gung ho, in
having a hair trigger on the military option!!, the world may be
safer that way!.

Ah, your true sentiments finally come out! The old, "Those nasty 'mercans
got too much advanced military stuff for their own good, and I really don't
like how they dare to use it!" Get back to the topic at hand and stop trying
to wiggle red capes in hopes of misdirecting the discussion, OK?



No I can't enumerate any senario, nor can I think of any senario that
cannot be handled with the present fleet of fighters, now you could
correctly argue this may change in the next 15 to 20 years, but that
doesn't mean you should rush a half arsed engineering and development
program into the front line now.

You are the one making that claim. AvLeak has just announced that the
next
operational testing phase for the F/A-22 is being delayed--hardly a case
of
rushing them into service,

Hmmm at the present time has engineering and development finished,
no!!, is it close to finishing... no, are there any major obstacles to
overcome?... yes quite a few, then why the hell did they start limited
production 3 years ago???...
Thats why I'm asserting its been rushed into production (for
political reasons because its much harder to cancel a program with
'production' aircraft flying)

You have lost your status as an unbiased observer, and when you start
talking about a program that has been ongoing for some eighteen or twenty
years as being "rushed into production", then you need to stop, wipe off
your glasses, take a deep breath, try to forget your anti-US bias, and
rethink your argument.

IMO. And being prepared for the potential threats
of ten or fifteen years down the line is precisely why we are building
the
F/A-22; if you have not noticed, we no longer live in a world like that
which typified the WWII era, when you could design, build, and place into
service a major combat aircraft during a span of three years or so.

The JSF is the aircraft to deal with threats in the next decade, the
F-22 just seems to be superflous.

Haven't you also been rather critical of the JSF? Odd...



You might have to weight the possible purchase of 1000 to 1600 new
F15's rather than 200 F-22's, what force would you rather have?.

The one that we can actually *man* and pay the O&M costs for, and the
one
you notehere ain't it. When will people understand that sheer mass is
no
longer the supreme objective of modern and future military structures?


Quantity has a quality all of its own, you yourself admit that 50
isnt enough but 200 is OK!!!?,

Yep. Gotta have enough to ensure we can surge enough aircraft into the
theater to conduct round-the-clock operations, but that is a far cry from
trying to outweigh every comer in terms of sheer mass.

I've never advocated that you try to outweigh every comer in terms of
sheer mass. I simply stated a widely held belief that a tiny number of
very good fighters will be beaten by a large number of average
fighters. we are arguing about the numbers of Tiny force vs Large
force.

Sorry, that "widely held belief" is not supported by the results of modern
combat operations and is a rather dated conclusion.



If the GAO report is true the present
state of the F-22 means that 200 is too small a number to be
effective, and even with massive effort its marginal, Hmmm. IMHO at
this stage of development the original 800 would be too few!

So you say, but to be honest your analysis is not too impressive thus
far. I
have been watching your repeated rants against the F-22

Rants!!!, I can't honestly recall any Rants!!!, I'm very sceptical
about claims that some big budget items are necessary, nay vital to
the very fabric of society....

Yes, rants. When was the last time you acknowledged anything *good* about
the F/A-22? You recently went to great lengths to try to demonstrate that it
was incapable of attaining a sufficient combat radius, only to get handed
your head on a platter by an honest-to-goodness aerospace engineer type who
thumped your assumptions. I have yet to see you acknowledge any positive
points of the F/A-22 (i.e., supercruise, stealth, data fusion, etc.), while
you are continually jumping onto what you perceive as horrendous failures.
That be ranting.


(and IIRC the F-35),
and it has become obvious that you offer anything but an unbiased
analysis
of the situation--you are a bit remindful of the Tarvernaut in terms of
your
single-minded animosity towards the F/A-22,


Unbiased! I never ever claimed to be unbiased, but my 'single-minded
animosity towards the F/A-22' is a figment of you imagination, I just
don't accept that its good value, its a fine aircraft that pushed
several boundries, for an enormous price.

Name those good qualities.


so it is obvious that further
discussion of this subject with you is pointless. And BTW, the GAO has a
long and lusterous career of nitpicking and opposing a broad range of US
weapons systems, so you might want to broaden your database a bit.

Are they ever right???, comanche? ;-)

FYI, Commanche had its share of detractors even within the green-suited
crowd, and has seen a big chunk of its original raison d'etre assumed by the
UAV, not to mention the switch from being prepared to deal with a massive
armored assault directed at central Europe to having to deal with a more
widely ranging threat scenario. The F/A-22 has also been impacted by the
change in the threat map--but we still need to be able to conduct offensive
counter air operations and stealthy stike missions against the threat of a
good enemy IADS that includes opposing fighter aircraft of the Su-30 or even
Rafale-class (not knowing who the French will deign to sell them to in the
future). Hence the wisdom behind the "silver bullet" theory.

Brooks

Cheers
John Cook