"Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 7, 4:56*am, Andrew Swallow wrote:
frank wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:52 pm, 150flivver wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, Richard wrote:

On Mar 5, 12:39 pm, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...an_air_superio...
Vanishing American Air Superiority
what a load of ****.
That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its
finest.
What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and
hi/lo mix?
You've given us so much to think about Ray.
what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody
else.
the points the author makes are false strawman types.
the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were
building them.
maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s?
if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky.
technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced
manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in
1935.
what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely
expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste
Worse. *Given the cost of the airframe, maintenance, crew training and
support vs Drones...its more like bldg BB in 1935 instead of carriers..
Aren't y'all making quite a leap saying UAVs have surpassed manned
fighters when to my knowledge, not a single UAV has ever successfully
engaged a manned fighter. *Suddenly manned fighters are obsolete.
There's a bit of difference between firing a hellfire or dropping a
GBU on an unsuspecting pickup truck and attacking an IADS. *UAVs may
be useful weapons but they hardly are close to having the speed,
range, flexibility or firepower of a manned aircraft.

Not to mention I'd trust Ed on scene far more than some throttle
jockey watching screens at Nellis. Or Yeager.

I've heard this we can do it unmanned before. Some stuff, maybe.
Dumping manned fighters for UAVs. Stupidity. And you know what, when
we need manned fighters in the future, its not a matter of going to
wal mart and taking 2 of them.

The next successful fighter may be a stand-off launcher of missiles
that can be guided to their incoming target by the weapons officer.

Andrew Swallow

Tell me now what pilot would allow himself to be portrayed as the cab
driver delivering the gunman to to the target?

William Black wrote:

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
Ray O'Hara wrote:
{snip}


you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
{snip}

Next wars -

Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.

Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works...


Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short.

USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America

Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually
just forment a coup and deal with the military.

The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming.


West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
of the current war)

The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't
amtter who the government is or what they say.


Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the
Americans.

USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil

Possible. What will Iran use for weapons?


Iran has its own armaments factories. As well as IEDs Iran can now
launch satellites on its own rockets.

China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
may decide to stay out.)

Interesting idea.

How does China get their army there?

Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
security guard as occupation.

Andrew Swallow

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
may decide to stay out.)

Interesting idea.

How does China get their army there?

Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
security guard as occupation.

I'll bet the 'wherever' visa office will be busy that week.

Have you ever tried to get a work visa for a 3rd World country?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
may decide to stay out.)

Interesting idea.

How does China get their army there?

Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
security guard as occupation.

I'll bet the 'wherever' visa office will be busy that week.

Have you ever tried to get a work visa for a 3rd World country?

Chinese mines etc in Africa appear to have many yellow skinned
security guards.

Andrew Swallow

On Mar 7, 8:42*am, Andrew Swallow wrote:
William Black wrote:

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West
may decide to stay out.)

Interesting idea.

How does China get their army there?

Guess. *On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
security guard as occupation.

I'll bet the 'wherever' visa office will be busy that week.

Have you ever tried to get a work visa for a 3rd World country?

Chinese mines etc in Africa appear to have many yellow skinned
security guards.

Andrew Swallow

I would view that concept with a jaundiced eye

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
Ray O'Hara wrote:
{snip}


you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
{snip}

Next wars -

Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.

USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America

West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
of the current war)

USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil

China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
may decide to stay out.)

Andrew Swallow

we don't need the F-22 for any of thise wars and I doubt China invading
Aftica is a likely scenario.

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
Ray O'Hara wrote:
{snip}


you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
{snip}

Next wars -

Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.

Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works...


Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short.

USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America

Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually
just forment a coup and deal with the military.

The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming.


West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
of the current war)

The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't
amtter who the government is or what they say.


Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the
Americans.

USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil

Possible. What will Iran use for weapons?


Iran has its own armaments factories. As well as IEDs Iran can now
launch satellites on its own rockets.

China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
may decide to stay out.)

Interesting idea.

How does China get their army there?

Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state
security guard as occupation.

Andrew Swallow

we need F-22 to defeat the Iranian air force?

"Alan Dicey" wrote in message
o.uk...
Paul Saccani wrote:
wrote:
British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
Indeed, to say the least.

*Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.

We still won.

The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason
why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a
shock.

"Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."


won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London
"won" the battle.

On Mar 7, 2:58*am, Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:56*am, Andrew Swallow wrote:
The next successful fighter may be a stand-off launcher of missiles
that can be guided to their incoming target by the weapons officer.

Andrew Swallow

Tell me now what pilot would allow himself to be portrayed as the cab
driver delivering the gunman to to the target?

Sixth generation jet fighter pilots are going to be the leaders of
swarms of robotic aircraft.

Since they are already officers, this won't be much of a change for
them.

And fortunately they will grow up playing real-time strategy video
games.

-HJC

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 23:27:36 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal.
Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only
for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect
fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible.
(Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real
fighter' needed?)

We had the wing root wiring for QRC-160 installed in the F-105 in late
'65--early '66. The pods didn't get fielded until October '66. That
was ECM, counter-measures. The RHAW gear for radar detection like a
Fuzzbuster was deployed in F-100F Weasels in '65 and the F-105 force
in spring of '66. It was considerably more sophisticated than
Fuzzbuster. I suspect that tale is urban legend stuff.

Found it in "The Pentagon Paradox" as being allegedly used during
AIMVAL/ACEVAL for the F-14 and F-15.

"During the work-up phase prior to the actual tests, the Red Force used
a modified Fuzz Buster. The modification cost approximately $100. It was
so successful that the Blue Force complained and the Red Force had to
stop using it because radar warning receivers held the potential of
revealing how easily radar guided missiles could be defeated and were
therefore not permitted."

It's the usual hype from that clique. Even if the RWR warns you of an
incoming missile, you still burn off a lot of energy to avoid it,
putting you at a disadvantage if you survive to the merge: and with BVR
weapons against an enemy without, you have the option to snipe from
range and then decline to close, should tactics and mission permit.

I know I'm being a smartarse, but why not? Look at the roll rate of the
F-5 family (including the T-38), look at its small size and low cost,
see its successful utility as an Aggressor aircraft, why isn't it a
contender for a Boyd war-winner? It's got guns and Sidewinders and not
much else, it's cheap and agile and small, why isn't this an airframe
the USAF should procure by the thousand and send into frontline combat?

Thousands of airplanes mean exponentially more aircrews and manpower.
Mission flexibility, payload/range, weapons system integration, etc.
are all missing in the F-5. We used to joke at Williams AFB with the
guys flying the training mission that they were like MGs; every
fighter pilot should have one for fun but they weren't a daily driver.
(PS, the F-5 didn't have Lucas electrics.)

We're having similar problems here in the UK armed forces where there's
a proposal to buy "hundreds" of Super Tucanos for close air support.

After all, the airframe's cheap... and yet again the grown-ups have to
explain that once you take your cheap airframe, equip it with the
sensors, comms and countermeasures needed to get in, find and hit the
target and get out alive, trained the pilots, stockpiled the spare
parts, built up the ground crews, established the forward operating
bases, set up the force protection and logistics for those bases... then
your "cheap" airframe is delivering less capability for more money than
a fast jet, and the pointy-nose fast-mover is usable in higher-intensity
conflicts as well (so you still need them, and the Tucanos end up an
extra not a replacement).

It's like the 1990s "Bring Back the Battleships!" enthusiasts, who never
really got their heads around the fact that - considering just the costs
to reactivate the four Iowa-class BBs - the thousand or so shells they
fired in action could have been one-for-one replaced with TLAMs and
still worked out cheaper (as well as delivering many times the actual
explosive with more accuracy).

The cynic in me says the short-term answer to that problem is more and
better carrier battle groups, unless you can guarantee that you have
ready access to well-prepared airbases close to every credible threat.

That's a specious argument. Blue water operations can't reach an
incredible amount of land. Start drawing lines on continents that are
more than about 150-200 miles from the coast and you'll disclose how
much you can't service.

And yet back in 2008, the HARRY S. TRUMAN was putting twenty sorties a
day into Iraq, most well over the 200-mile line from her station, and
some into Afghanistan. Carriers don't replace land-based air, but they
get you some usable airpower faster while the land-based side spools up
(and they retain utility when you've got political sensitivity about
flying armed aircraft out of allied bases, but tankers are acceptable: a
good case study was ALLIED FORCE where much of the British input
consisted of Sea Harriers flying off Ark Royal in the Adriatic, because
the Italians wouldn't let us fly offensive sorties out of Aviano).

The example carrier aficionados like to cite is from 1992 or so, when
Saddam Hussein tried to rattle what was left of his sabre post-GRANBY:
the USN put a CVBG into the Gulf in three days and were flying
operational sorties immediately. The USAF put a wing of, if memory
serves, F-15Es into Saudi Arabia and were flying operationally within a
week. There are times when four days without air cover is four days too
long...

CBGs are incredibly inefficient. The US has always operated as "one
up/two back" and occasionally tried "one up/one back" but it's tough
to keep the carriers on station without the numbers. Then take your
combat capability and start factoring in self-defense requirements
(include subs, cruisers, destroyers as well) add typical operational
readiness rates to a 72 airplane air wing and you wind up with an
assett that hovers around 40% offensive air capability. It's not a
good bargain. Throw in slow deployment and you really don't have a
solution for all your eggs in one basket.

Absolutely agree it's not the sole solution, but as one tool in the box
it opens up many options. (And land-based air has its own baggage of
logistics, force protection and so forth).


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam