Comments on: Another Eagle Down

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:40:46 +0000

It seems to me that no-one, and that is no-one (unless they can read the future) can know for sure what conflicts will arise in the near or not so near future. Isn't it better to be prepared for all possibilities than to only concentrate on the wars being fought right now. Sure China/Russia or whoever may not want to start a conflict, but who can say that with complete surity? If the US strays away from producing the sort of weapons needed to stop a larger power, isn't that a bit of an invitation for that larger power to try their hand? I am actually from Australia, so I may not be in such a place to say what the US should or shouldn't do, but thats just my opinion. By the way Indonesia are buying weapons from Russia as fast as they can, SU-30's and the like, currently RAAF has F/A18's and F111's - surely no match for an SU-30. We are supposedly going to get some super hornets until we buy some F-35's (if our new Prime Miniter doesn't crap the idea) but I for one would like to know we had some Raptors to take on the Indonesians if need be. Again, they may never attack us, but we won't know that unil it does or doesn't happen. Prepare for all possibilitys.

By: NTV

NTV — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:48:30 +0000

Cole–
Just a few thoughts on some of your comments.
> Time limits at supercruise?
I dont think there is a time limit, but while it doesnt burn fuel like an afterburner, its still gonna use much more fuel at mach 1.75 than at mach .95. I thought the max range/radius was with some time at supercruise, but not the whole time.
Even if the squadrons can be transported in fewer C-17’s, there will be of stress on the transports.
> F-35s on the U.S.S George H W Bush?
I dont mean to imply that other planes, including the F-35 will be involved. But the F-22 is far and away a much better plane, and as such it will have a big impact. In fact, my main point is that if the F-22 is only 35–50 million per copy more than the F-35 why not buy 4 F-22’s instead of 5 F-35’s. Cut the F-35 buy by 150 — 175 and buy ~125 F-22’s.
> Plus why fly to the mainland when the bad guys are probably over the top of Taiwan
Its best to intercept the bad guys furthest from where they can launch/drop their ordanance.
> Sounds like the argument for two sets of pilots
The AF keeps multiple pilots for its planes, since each pilot/aircrew must have crew rest before they fly again. But the planes have a regeneration time as well, this is not dictated by the aircreww, mut on maintanace for the plane.
> But if they do that, the USAF should consider
> coming off its 1760+ F-35s…by a lot
Like I say, if the the costs of the F-35 and F-22 are within 40–50 million then we wont have to cut the F-35 buy that much.

By: Cole

Cole — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:34:18 +0000

NTV, great comments as usual. Thanks for providing concrete examples for the unfamiliar like me.
NTV: “Supercruise is great, but its not going to help in transit, besides the problem is bigger than just getting the F-22’s to the region. The logistical tail needs to get their as well.“
———————————–
Time limits at supercruise? Thought I read that max range was at supercruise. From Virginia to California to Hawaii to Guam with tanks and/or aerial refueling…can’t take, what, 15–16 hours at just 500 knots with refueling stop? Maybe an 8 hours rest (or other ferry pilots)but still seems you arrive a day from VA launch. Hopefully, satellites picked up preparations and we arrive before the attack. I thought moving a F-22 Squadron dropped from 14 C-17s to 5 C-17s?
————————————
NTV: “But, where will the F-22 be flying from in a potential conflict with China? S. Korea? Japan?, Phillipines? We can’t count on the ability to fly missions from any of those countries in the region. We might be able to, but we cant be certain. Where does that leave us? Where would the F-22’s fly from? Taiwan? They would be subject to air attacks, so probably not.“
————————————-
F-35s on the U.S.S George H W Bush? That includes some VSTOL versions and maybe others from Okinawa that can land on cratered runways. Taiwanese engineers? I’ve played with Google Earth and see Taiwan’s airbases on the east side of the island, with taxiways leading nowhere. Supposedly the steepness of the mountains precludes missile attack trajectory. Maybe we deliver Taiwan’s AMRAAMs to them before the Chinese attack.;)
Hopefully some of Taiwan’s many F-16s can survive to help protect both sides of the island for a while and Patriots will take out some PLAAF aircraft as well. I understand parts of the west side are within the S-300PMU-2 threat and we know the west side will bear the brunt of many missile attacks.
Still suspect between Air Force F-22s, Navy/Air Force/Marine F-35s, and Taiwan aircraft we still dominate and B-2s help bomb the bases where Chinese aircraft launch.
Can’t see too many slow transport planes making it all the way with airborne troops. Our Navy shoots them all down.
————————————-
NTV:“So then where? Guam, 1800 miles away. A round trip from Guam to the Chinese mainland and back, plus 2 hours on station is a 8 hour mission.“
——————————————
I’ve got no clue how you guys will operate but isn’t 1800 miles about two hours away with tanks at supercruise? Plus why fly to the mainland when the bad guys are probably over the top of Taiwan and you want to stay away from the China ground air defense envelope? Let them come to you, especially for the Taiwanese F-16s? Or will they fly low on the waves to take out radars/ships?
—————————————-
“This mission does not including penetrating the mainland. Now throw in a 4 hour regen time for the aircraft and a F-22 could make 2 flights a day. In order to keep 4 planes on station the US will need 24 F-22 planes operating with no down time. Keeping 8 planes on station will take 48 total F-22’s.
—————————-
Sounds like the argument for two sets of pilots. ;) Isn’t 48 F-22s about 3 squadrons with 60 at an optimistic readiness rate?
—————————————
“These missions, as I said are only CAP type mission, not interdiction missions, which would take 2–4 more hours each. So, we need more F-22’s to carry out that mission. Keep in mind that Airplanes wont be operating at 100% availibility, maybe 80%. so we need to bring in another 20 0r 30 to cover for that.“
—————————-
Langley AFB,Virginia aircraft? Two pilots per aircraft?
—————————-
NTV: So now we have 48 CAP + 50 Strike + 30 backup = 128 F-22’s leaving a grand total of 52 left over. Thats a VERY thin reserve, considering we need to train, a perform depot maintanece, not to mention let other bad guys know that we have F-22’s to smack them if we need to. Now the number I metioned are examples for illustration, and I would bet the PACCOM wants more F-22’s in an event of conflict with China. The point being that the 184 being proposed falls short.
————————————
I hear you, but it isn’t F-22s all alone. That’s my primary point. They have lots of help.
There is a big difference between 187 and 381 and seems like a compromise quantity in the low 220s would be sufficient without breaking the bank.
But if they do that, the USAF should consider coming off its 1760+ F-35s…by a lot…and keeping A-10s and upgrading some F-15E and F-16s.

By: NTV

NTV — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:38:17 +0000

> How long does it take to fly to the Pacific at
> supercruise with stops in Hawaii or with linked
> up aerial refuelers?
Supercruise is great, but its not going to help in transit, besides the problem is bigger than just getting the F-22’s to the region. The logistical tail needs to get their as well. But, where will the F-22 be flying from in a potential conflict with China? S. Korea? Japan?, Phillipines? We cant count on the ability to fly missions from any of those countries in the region. We might be able to, but we cant be certian. Where does that leave us? Where would the F-22’s fly from? Tiawan? They would be subject to air attacks, so probably not. So then where? Guam, 1800 miles away. A round trip from Guam to the Chinese mainland and back, plus 2 hours on station is a 8 hour mission. This mission does not including penetrating the mainland. Now throw in a 4 hour regen time for the aircraft and a F-22 could make 2 flights a day. In order to keep 4 planes on station the US will need 24 F-22 planes operating with no down time. Keeping 8 planes on station will take 48 total F-22’s. These missions, as I said are only CAP type mission, not interdiction missions, which would take 2–4 more hours each. So, we need more F-22’s to carry out that mission. Keep in mind that Airplanes wont be operating at 100% availibility, maybe 80%. so we need to bring in another 20 0r 30 to cover for that. SO now we have 48 CAP + 50 Strike + 30 backup = 128 F-22’s leaving a grand total of 52 left over. Thats a VERY thin reserve, considering we need to train, a performe depot maintanece, not to mention let other bad guys know that we have F-22’s to smack them if we need to. Now the number I metioned are examples for illustration, and I would bet the PACCOM wants more F-22’s in an event of conflict with China. The point being that the 184 being proposed falls short.
> ? Does the F-22 carry HARM missiles? It sounds
> like we need EA-18s and UCAVs, plus F-35s
I dont think the F-22 is going to caryy HARM’s, but they couldfity them with it. And yes, more of the other planes would be nice, but if a F-35 costs 115 million and a F-22 costs 150 a shotbuyiing more F-22’s makes sense.
> China has few logistical reserves to fight a
> long war. How much force do you think China
> could put on Taiwan in a few days and how would
> they support it once there?
Yes, their logistics is limited, currently. But they have been increasing it, and will do more in the future. Also, the limited distance to Tiawan reduces their logistical issues. They wont go away, but its only 150 miles across the straight. The question becomes, how well will Tiawan defened itself once troops are on the island? Its hard to say. So IMO its very important to keep China’s troops from actually invadeing in the first place.
> How long do you think starving Soldiers would/could fight for Kim Jong-il?
I dont know, I would have expected thier starving soldiers to quit putting up with him long ago.
But in reality, I dont see an invasion of SK that much of a threat. I do see a NK implosion and resulting instability in NK and the region as a bigger threat.

By: NTV

NTV — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:11:06 +0000

@Captian
> if china invades anything, there is nothing we can do about with military force
Really? Why wont we be able to use military force?
> Wake up folks– yesterday’s ideas about war are
> worthless when you are sitting on 10K nuclear
> weapons
An odd statement, for sure. We have had nukes for the last 50+ years, how are things different today?
And a note our nuclear delivery capability is around 2500 — 3000, and going down.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:03:23 +0000

Cole,
Your reality is based on one thing: US Army. And you don’t pay attention to the rest because your focus is on the Army and their needs.
You speak of China and Iran like they aren’t major players, easily beaten. It would take a triad of dominance to do anything against China. We need as many F-22s as we can muster to dominate the skies. We need as many combatant ships as possible to protect the convoys of prepositioned ships leaving Diego Garcia and subsequent supply ships (as well as Marines on amphibs). And we need a dominant Army to finish the fight once a beachhead has been established.
All you can see is FCS because that is what you work on. If you look at the overall military budget and procurement, you will see that all three services are spending about the same amount of money (just over $100B each) on purchases. This is everything from bombs, planes, M-4s, F-22s, CVN-21, everything. That seems to be pretty fair to me.
Yes the Army and Marines are bearing the burden right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a result (believe it or not) the other services are suffering too. But we are passing over $200B in supplemental funding each year to help alleviate that situation and the majority of that money is going to the Army and Marines.
My Navy is retiring the last squadron of S-3s right now, even though the airframes still have many hours of life in them. That will leave the carriers with no fixed wing ASW platform. The reason: it can’t fly over Iraq and drop bombs. You might not think that is a big deal until you are waiting on supplies to get to you either in China or Iran. But the ships can’t get through because we can’t find the subs.
DC2

By: Cole

Cole — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:46:54 +0000

“Not ANOTHER thread where Cole demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of reality…“
Enlighten me where I’m wrong smartarse.
History?
Chinese worst case air/AMD threat?
Our capability to get F-22s into the Pacific theater…at supercruise…
The strain on the budget of another 200 F-22s?
Ground threat?
Future Combat Systems?
Its easy to throw out oneliners without backing ‘em up. Show me what you got. I haven’t been a PFC Combat Engineer since 1975, so I’m a bit rusty on reality.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 04:15:04 +0000

Not ANOTHER thread where Cole demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of reality…

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:31:27 +0000

Brave Captain,
Yes, we’ve seen that modern military technology is absolutely useless since the creation of the atom bomb. It had absolutely no effect in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq I, Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq II. I remember when we fought communist forces in Vietnam and the Soviets destroyed Los Angeles. Oh, wait.

By: brave captain of industry

brave captain of industry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:18:29 +0000

R U really going to compare football to global power politics ?
What happens to the game when either coach can vaporize the stadium if things are not going well ?
What kind of possible situation puts us in a war with russia or china that does not involve all of our metro areas being glassed over ?
truth is, if china invades anything, there is nothing we can do about with military force. All we can do is to try and make them a lot poorer by cutting them (as much as possible) out of the global markets. Or vice-versa.
We dont really need the kind of power we are maintaining– and its basically hollowing out our nation to keep it up. We are going to go the way of the USSR if we keep up this level of spending– which does nothing for us because we only now have two possible quanta of warfighting; all out or pretty limited. If its all out, its a nuclear war and who gives a shit at that point who ‘wins’. If its pretty limited war, other nations should be helping in big way or the object is probably not worth the effort.and it wont take a trillion dollar military machine to ‘win’those conflicts.
Wake up folks– yesterday’s ideas about war are worthless when you are sitting on 10K nuclear weapons– and when other global players have some number of thousands themselves.
This aint a football game– its bar scene where three or four guys have big guns drawn and pointed at each other, and everyone else is milling around– little scuffles can happen, but when all hell breaks loose, F22’s wont mean shit.