"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

,snip agreeable type stuff


As to the F-22 (Roche's belated addition of "A" being little more
than a sop to congress), yeah, we should produce enough of them to be our
silver bullet, but unless it is developed to be a better striker as well,
the 200 number look quite sufficient. Are you really worried about
Chinese
Flankers? With no effective AWACS support for them, and precious little
tanking support? Not to mention the questionable quality of pilot
training?


If all I had was F-35s? Yep. In a China / Taiwan scenario the
Flankers wouldn't NEED tanking.

Begging the question of how much value *any* of the landbased tactical
fighters would be in such a scenario--I don't see us likely to base fighters
on Taiwan proper. That places under the the gun of the complete threat
envelope, including TBM's, cruise missiles, SOF attack, etc. IMO the China
scenario, as *unlikely* as it is to actually materialize, is a place where
the truly long range strike assets, in cooperation with the air wings from
the USN CVBG's and Tactical Tomahawks launched from CG's and SSN's, would be
the primary players. Plus, your Flankers are still without good C4ISR
support from AWACS.

As far a pilot quality goes all it
would take is for someone over there to determine that they NEED top
of the line pilots and in a few years they could have them.

I believe you are minimizing the requirements to solve that problem. They
would have to finally completely do away with their "mass is the answer"
approach (they have admittedly made progress in that direction, but they are
not there yet, and won't be in the immediate future), and they have a
problem with their basic foundation (i.e., tactics/techniques/procedures,
qualified instructors and doctrinal developers, and last but not least, the
PLA's historical mistrust of individual initiative). That is a lot to have
to contend with before they even *start* developing a world class fighter
force.

Look what
the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that
in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as
close to zero loses as possible.

The USN had one heck of a foundation to start out with--the PLAAF does not.



I suspect you're right that the F/A-22 will be built in limited
numbers,
though I woudl also not be surprised to see produciton continue
after
the
intial batch is bought. We've bought far more F-15s than originally
planned, after all.

IIRC the original number for F-15s was 729 and F-16s was 1388 or
thereabouts. Both were far exceeded. I think it's just going to
depend on how the F-22 does in service. If they can get the kinks
worked out it wouldn't surprise me if they found a way to buy more
beyond the cost cap.

The only way I see that happening is if they optimize a strike version.
The
potential threats we face today are vastly different from what we faced
when
we built that fleet of F-15's.

I agree. On the other hand China has close to 300 Flankers and
counting, have intriduce the AA-12 into service, and are working on
acquiring the J-10. I have no doubts that Russia would offer the
KS-172 to China if they asked. I wouldn't want to face a Su-30 with
THAT thing in an F-15. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just
saying that the cost in pilots and airframes lost would be higher.
This is a rhetorical question but is it worth losing F-15s, F-35s, and
their pilots to save a few bucks by not buying the F-22?

Or, is it worth buying *more* F-22's than we really need to ensure against a
rather remote threat set, while other critical needs go unfilled? the budget
is not completely elastic--and it appears that it is not going to have the
largesse we have seen the last couople of years for all that much longer.
How many ground troopies are likely to die in *other*, more likely
scenarios, because we still lack a decent mounted breaching system for
minefields? How many more convoy participants lost to off-route mines
because we don't commit enough money to developing countermeasures against
that threat? Or, how many strike missions get cancelled because the tanker
force continues to decline? Ya gotta rob from Peter to pay Paul, and
anything more than the absolute minimal F-22 buy makes a pretty goof Peter
IMO.



snip

I don't know. I see the FB-22, or something similar, offering a couple
of
advantages; it provides a solution to the "what do we use to start
replacing
the Mudhen in 2015-2020" problem, and it could bring down the unit
cost
for
a reduced F/A-22 buy as long as significant commonality remains.


Just from what they've shown so far it doesn't see like there would be
a significant amount. Maybe the forward fuselage. The FB-22 as
they've showed around has different intakes, would use different
engines, completely different wing, long weapon bays, different
landing gear, etc. etc.

I am not sure the FB-22 as originally sketched would be the same as what
we
could end up buying. In the end we could very well see a "steroidal"
version
of the existing F/A-22, with larger wings and a fuselage plug to
accomodate
a larger weapons bay that handles maybe an additional 50% increase in
carriage capacity for something like the SDB.

Something more like what they did with the F-15E than the drastic
changes GD offered witht he F-16XL? It would certainly shave $$$ off
the proposal, not to mention retain more of it's air-to-air
capability.

Yeah, good analogy.

Brooks



Changing to a different
engine, while requiring some work, is not truly a major change as far as
the
overall program would be concerned--witness the past engine changes
within
both the F-15 and F-16 fleets. And maybe space for a second
crewmember...?
(gasp!)

Yeah, it had a second seat too.