Report asks Pentagon to justify F/A-22

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?, 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.

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.

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


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.

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.

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

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!

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, 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.

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.


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.

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.

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...


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.

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!.


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)
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.


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.


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....

(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.

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? ;-)
Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk