2D thrust vectoring for the F-35A and F-35C?

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Can you please list all of the air bases the US Air Force has within 600
miles of Taiwan that they can use without needing a permission slip from
a foreign government?

Trust Henry to jump in a day late, a dollar short, and with his skivvies on
fire. We do have one such base in Okinawa, looks to be close to the five to
six hundred mile range. Of course, the PI are a possibility, and they have
no great affection for the PRC, either.

See the bit above about permission slip.

What if we had a war and the US Air Force didn't show up because their
F/A-22s couldn't reach it?

While I sympathize with your position here (and indeed believe the USAF
fighters would likely be a minor contributor in this particular scenario),
you seem to have forgotten some platforms that do indeed have the range to
ensure that the "US Air Force shows up"--B-1, B-2, B-52, Global Hawk,
KC-135/10 (which your USN folks *do* appreciate when they can get them),
etc. And how far was it from the Gulf states to Afghanistan?

How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing
China and turning a minor conflict into a general war?

Better yet, what if we didn't have a war because the US Navy deterred it?

But how, Henry? By your estimate, we'll only have 20 knot capable ships,
which will still be enroute after it is over...

Given the slow rate the Bush regime is building big deck carriers we may
well end up that way.

Pity we can't cancel those F/A-22s and put the money back in the Navy
where it can be put to some use.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Can you please list all of the air bases the US Air Force has within 600
miles of Taiwan that they can use without needing a permission slip from
a foreign government?

Trust Henry to jump in a day late, a dollar short, and with his skivvies
on
fire. We do have one such base in Okinawa, looks to be close to the five
to
six hundred mile range. Of course, the PI are a possibility, and they
have
no great affection for the PRC, either.

See the bit above about permission slip.

How much of a permission slip do we need for Okinawa? We are not in the
habit of creating large bases, and keeping them in place, if we can't
operate as we choose out of them.


What if we had a war and the US Air Force didn't show up because their
F/A-22s couldn't reach it?

While I sympathize with your position here (and indeed believe the USAF
fighters would likely be a minor contributor in this particular
scenario),
you seem to have forgotten some platforms that do indeed have the range
to
ensure that the "US Air Force shows up"--B-1, B-2, B-52, Global Hawk,
KC-135/10 (which your USN folks *do* appreciate when they can get them),
etc. And how far was it from the Gulf states to Afghanistan?

How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing
China and turning a minor conflict into a general war?

Duh. You use the B-2, etc., to hammer the crap out of the targets in the PRC
(like maybe their airbases, huh?). It goes to the level of armed conflict,
we are not going to be ditzing around with them while giving them sanctuary
across the 12-mile limit.


Better yet, what if we didn't have a war because the US Navy deterred
it?

But how, Henry? By your estimate, we'll only have 20 knot capable ships,
which will still be enroute after it is over...

Given the slow rate the Bush regime is building big deck carriers we may
well end up that way.

Pity we can't cancel those F/A-22s and put the money back in the Navy
where it can be put to some use.

Ah, good ol' Henry, firmly convinced he is the only one with a clue--those
danged folks who actually wear the uniform being rather stupid and all, of
course. Go back to SMN and tell everbody again how the LCS has to be able to
change out mission modules at sea, and anything over what, 20 knots is
wasted effort? And how it should have an armament suite that would make an
Iowa BB blush and run in fear, of course. While operating a vertiable fleet
of helos from each one...

Brooks


-HJC

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
See the bit above about permission slip.

How much of a permission slip do we need for Okinawa? We are not in the
habit of creating large bases, and keeping them in place, if we can't
operate as we choose out of them.

How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing
China and turning a minor conflict into a general war?

Duh. You use the B-2, etc., to hammer the crap out of the targets in the PRC
(like maybe their airbases, huh?). It goes to the level of armed conflict,
we are not going to be ditzing around with them while giving them sanctuary
across the 12-mile limit.

Like the Korean war?

-HJC

Today that is the case. Nothing stays the same forever and China has
already tried to get real AWACS capability from Israel. True they
didn't get it this time but even 80's technology AWACS is nothing to
dismiss.

They have one heck of a learning curve to master.

Okay lets take AWACS out of the picture for the sake of arguement. In
the China/Taiwan scenario we'd STILL have to take out a lot of ground
based radar if we don't want to get shot at my SAMs or have
interceptors directed at our aircraft. Until those radars are down we
need something that can cope with Flankers and SA-10s.





Again, hoping China doesn't figure it out isn't the best way to go
IMO.

But neither does committing a larger chunk of resources than is justified by
that particular threat scenario. Firstly, as much as I believe in honoring a
threat (we have to address both the most likely and most dangerous threats,
but not to the *same* degree in terms of resource allocation), China is in
reality a decreasing threat for us, and the more their populace gets plugged
into capitalism and the information age, coupled with their ever increasing
economic ties to Taiwan, the likelihood of this scenario ever playing out
grows ever more dim.

As long as they keep the hardliners and cranks out of power I'd agree.
Right now you still have those in power who would like to get Taiwan
back under their thumb and then start looking ar other terrain they
claim is theirs.




Even *if* it were to happen as you are positing here
(China overcomes all of its training and doctrinal shortcomings, buys a
bunch of AWACS and learns how to integrate them into the battle in record
time, etc.), then IMO there is still no real justification for buying more
than 200 or so F-22's.

We pretty much agree on the number of F-22s though I hope they get the
full 277. The thing is the F-22 will be our top of the line aircraft
for 25-30 years assuming it gets purchased. A lot can happen in that
time. If you take the change in China's military over the last ten
years and then extrapolate it out another 20 or 30. . .



That would be what, maybe seven squadrons worth plus
attrition spares and training birds? Worst case it and you surge up to four
squadrons of F-22's into the AO--maybe they are going to fly long range
operations out of Okinawa and the PI. The F-22 is supposedly so much better
than all comers (including your PLAAF Su-30's) that we don't have to plan to
acheive anything close to a 1:1 parity in terms of raw numbers; plus you
have to toss in the USN contribution (figure a couple of CAW's minimum, with
their Super Bugs and later F-35C's), and you can't forget the Taiwanese
contribution of both F-16's and Mirage 2000's. Those combined forces alone
are enough to swat the PLAAF a rather nasty blow--coupled with the *fact*
that the PLAN/PLA are just not capable of executing and supporting the
required assault operation into Taiwan, I don't see this a very concrete
example of why we need to buy umpteen *more* F-22's for the air dominance
role.

We're pretty much agreed on the numbers though I'd add that when
they've finally got the couple hundred they want that they keep the
line open and trickle them out to account for attrition and to keep
the line running at reduced capacity so we don't end up screwed if we
end up wanting more of them. The USAF has been kicking around the
idea of buying more Strike Eagles and the reason they can do that is
because the line has stayed open. The Navy couldn't by any Tomcat 21s
if they had the money because the production line and tooling no
longer exists.






Every conflict that occurs drives home that mass isn't the
answer and that good pilots willing to use initiative and having the
skills to use it is the way to go. Eventually China will figure it
out, it's just a matter of time.

During which time the PRC as an offensive military threat will continue to
diminish (while the PRC as an economic competitor continues to grow).


Possibly. It's definitely going to become an economic competitor and
if they keep in mind that keeping good relations with the US makes
economic sense then I'd agrre about the thret diminishing.



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.

Not on hand. How hard would it be to invite in some Israeli pilots to
get advice on how China ought to train it's airforce? Or from
somewhere else. The talent is out there and if China ever does put
the pieces together they will be a force to rekon with. Just because
they don't today doesn't mean they never will.

It takes more than just a few trainers. It will take the PLAAF developing an
entirely new paradigm regarding how they operate, from the individual pilot
level all the way up through their air division's and beyond. And that is
going to take some serious time to come together.

They've got time. I'm not trying to say they could do it over night.
I'm saying that if they're smart they'll get there eventually.





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?

No. That's not what I'm saying. They've got the cap in place and
whatever they can buy with it would likely be sufficient to deal with
the China scenario. I only mention China, not so much because I think
that it's going to happen, but that it's the biggest threat on the
horizon from an air to air perspective. As I pointed out in another
thread, in Desert Storm there were suprisingly few F-15Cs tasked for
patroling air to air in comparison to how many the USAF has. Even the
180 number that has been kicked around would likely be enough. The
fact is though it's apparently been decided that the cost cap that has
been given to the F-22 program is affordable. They should just let
the USAF do with it what they can rather than cancelling the program.
To sum up I don't think MORE is what we need but we do need SOME.

You must have misunderstood my earlier comments--I have not advocated
cancellation of the F-22. Indeed, I believe in the "silver bullet" approach
to their inclusion in the force structure; that 180-200 figure sounds plenty
sufficient to me.

Yeah somewhere lines got crossed.



I don't think transformation is directed at merely killing heavy armor. In
fact, a lot of the Army's initial transformational effort has been directed
at the light and medium fighters (i.e., improving personal communications,
battlespace awareness, and individual weapons for the light guys, and of
course the new Stryker BCT's in the medium weight arena). In fact, IMO we
have (rightfully) moved further away from the Cold War focus on armor
killing, as witnessed by the deaths of so many anti-armor systems over the
past few years (SADARM, MLRS with scatterable AT mines, etc.).

Brooks

I meant killing heavy armor as in there was talk going around of doing
away with it in the future. When the time comes to retire the M-1 it
won't be replaced by a heavily armored vehicle. They want to go with
"active defenses" and cut way back on the armor for speedier
deployment. Dumb idea in my opinion. Armor isn't going to go tits up
at inopportune times and isn't going to get spoofed or overwhelmed by
numbers. Anyway, that's another rant.

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
See the bit above about permission slip.

How much of a permission slip do we need for Okinawa? We are not in the
habit of creating large bases, and keeping them in place, if we can't
operate as we choose out of them.

How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

Very different situation. We *gave* Okinawa back to the Japanese after
kicking their butts in WWII--with the understanding we get to keep the base
there (and use it as we see fit). A bit different from our being essentially
a visitor in SA.


How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing
China and turning a minor conflict into a general war?

Duh. You use the B-2, etc., to hammer the crap out of the targets in the
PRC
(like maybe their airbases, huh?). It goes to the level of armed
conflict,
we are not going to be ditzing around with them while giving them
sanctuary
across the 12-mile limit.

Like the Korean war?

That would be the place where we learned NOT to do that again. Sorry, Henry,
but you are about fifty years out of date.

Brooks


-HJC

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

More than either party will admit, I believe. AWACS, tankers, etc. seem to
have flown from their, though not actual strikers.

Very different situation. We *gave* Okinawa back to the Japanese after
kicking their butts in WWII--with the understanding we get to keep
the base there (and use it as we see fit). A bit different from our
being essentially a visitor in SA.

More importantly, Japan has a similar relationship to Taiwan as the United
States does. Officially it discourages independance, but it has quietly
developed defense ties and would very likely assist in the defense of
Taiwan. They might not actually thrown in combat forces, but Japanese ports
and bases would almost certainly be available, and they might even provide
logistical support.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

More than either party will admit, I believe. AWACS, tankers, etc. seem to
have flown from their, though not actual strikers.


Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive ways as
to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be some
time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where, but a
certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"Ron" wrote in message
...
How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?

More than either party will admit, I believe. AWACS, tankers, etc. seem
to
have flown from their, though not actual strikers.


Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive ways
as
to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be
some
time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where,
but a
certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too.

It is no secret that the US flew over Israel and Jordan to strike Iraq. The
aircraft carrier parked of Isreal in the Med was a hint. Overflying Saudi
only became an issue after USN kept crashing cruise missiles in the Saudi
Desert.

Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive ways
as
to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be
some
time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where,
but a
certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too.

It is no secret that the US flew over Israel and Jordan to strike Iraq. The
aircraft carrier parked of Isreal in the Med was a hint. Overflying Saudi
only became an issue after USN kept crashing cruise missiles in the Saudi
Desert.

I was hinting at the fact that we did fly aircraft from Jordan.






Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive
ways
as
to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably
be
some
time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from
where,
but a
certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too.

It is no secret that the US flew over Israel and Jordan to strike Iraq.
The
aircraft carrier parked of Isreal in the Med was a hint. Overflying
Saudi
only became an issue after USN kept crashing cruise missiles in the Saudi
Desert.

I was hinting at the fact that we did fly aircraft from Jordan.

It is a different thing to fly from Jordan, than to fly from Saudi. The
comparison of Jordan supporting the democratization of Iraq is a little
different from Saudi doing so. There is also the issue of the US staying
too long on Moslem Holy Land and the need to get out of Saudi. If the
previous Administration had made some move to get out of Saudi, there would
not have been so much co-operation with America's enemies by other Nations.