clipka wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
> 
>> Isn't this the way it is going? According to what I read on
>> strategypage.com recently, F-16s, F-15s and F-18 are wearing out and are
>> not being replaced. Additionally, much funding is being "saved" by
>> decommissioning many (hundreds, apparently) of these aircraft early as
>> well, in order to spend money maintaining the F-22 and F-35?
> 
> I'd guess that the number of F-35 to be bought will /not/ be as low as
> for the F-22. And it will not be anywhere as expensive.

Ok, I guess it'll much less expensive then too.
 
>>> (A) Besides being able to carry BVR AIM-120 AMRAAMs, the F-22 is
>>> designed to bear much cheaper AIM-9 Sidewinders into battle.
>> 
>> Of which there'll be how many? As far as I know the AIM-9X is not in
>> production anymore, and funding is being cut for buying it - again to be
>> able to afford "enough" AIM-120's and to feed the budgetary monster that
>> the F-22 has become.
 
> Let's see... Wikipedia speaks of some 3.000 or 3.600 AIM-9X already in
> the arsenals (figures vary between language versions of the article),
> and some total of >10k to be purchased in total by American armed forces.

Ok, that blows my argument out of the water. You'll just have to hope all 
those missiles, stored for all those years, will actually work when pulled 
from a shelf and fired.
 
> However, the F-22 currently doesn't even support the AIM-9X yet, and
> instead is supposed to use the AIM-9M, which I guess is available in
> stock at even larger numbers already. Not to speak of the other members
> of the AIM-9 family, which I'd suppose the F-22 could fire as well if
> needs be.

... if the software works. Didn't it have trouble with some ground ordinance 
a while ago? E. g. its on board computer(s) couldn't talk with a certain GPS 
guided bomb. But then, that wouldn't hamper air-air combat capability.
 
>> That's damn impressive! No, I didn't know that. That could come in very
>> useful in a low and slow situation. Though I wonder what the price is in
>> fuel consumption? High-alpha maneuvers like that probably need a lot of
>> thrust to be applied to keep from stalling?
> 
> Probably so, yes. But when was the last time the U.S. of A. bothered
> about fuel consumption in their armed forces?

Since it got a bit expensive - strategypage.com had an article about 
increased use of simulators a while ago. Apparently they -are- trying to 
save. And they're having problems (because the -22 is so expensive) with 
training their pilots properly, in real aircraft while gaining real flight 
experience - all because JP4 is so expensive.
 
>> True, but that is a mark against the F-22 in my book. I was thinking when
>> I said that of the situation where US ground forces are under attack from
>> the air, and need to be protected against MiG strikes. So, the USAF sends
>> the F-22. It -has- to go low and slow to get at the MiGs, assuming it is
>> out of missiles. Sure, it can outclimb and outrun the MIGs, but it has no
>> choice now - it has to tangle with them on their terms, low and slow, to
>> protect US ground forces. Wouldn't that obviate its enormous speed and
>> rate of climb? (Though the slow maneuver you pointed me to above would
>> obviously help I readily agree.)
>> 
>> Also, that is if they have decommissioned all those F-16s and F-15s by
>> that time, of course - which seems to be the way they are going.
> 
> ... and purchase F-35 instead, which by the way seems to be a totally
> different beast, and shouldn't be mistaken for a smaller copy of the
> F-22 concept.

I'd think I'd buy that if they can say that the F-35 is at least as good as 
four F-15s (e. g. it can shoot down the same number of aircraft as four 
"older" air-superiority fighters can) - since I'm guessing that roughly they 
will be able to afford that much less units, due to higher price-per-unit.
 
> The F-22 is designed mainly as an air superiority fighter, the concept
> being to suppress any enemy air activity way before they can be a PITA
> to ground forces. Recent conflicts have shown that the US will not even
> think about sending in troops before this air superiority has in fact
> been achieved.

Good point. I guess the USA is the only country in the world that currently 
can do that - establish air-superiority. Nobody else on Earth can certainly 
challenge them on that currently. I still wonder though, how good it really 
will be low and slow in a turning dog-fight. I guess time will tell - it 
seems as soon as the US has invented a new weapon, they organize some action 
or mission where it can be tested, either at first hand or by an ally. 
(Widespread use of US combat aircraft by the Israeli Air Force  comes to 
mind - wouldn't be surprised if they are the first export customer for the 
F-35.)
 
> Also, a MiG may be an adversary to reckon with in a dogfight (I have no
> idea whether that is anywhere close to true), but with F-22s out of
> reach of their guns but close enough to make a run any moment, a MiG
> pilot probably couldn't really afford to attack grund targets. I guess
> he'd be eating 20mm Vulcan rounds any moment.

That's the thing... what you might do is swamp a single F-22 with eight 
bogies, or even twelve? Sure it could splash four, or even six, but two 
might get through. The thing is, the Chinese for example, can -afford- this 
loss rate, and its still a bonus to them if even one 1950's era MIG-19 or 
-21 can get one napalm canister onto US troops. The Chinese were famous for 
this type of tactics in Korea for example, as concerns ground-fighting - an 
unstoppable human wave, with complete disregard for the lives of their 
soldiers. If you have thousands of aircraft (and an apparently constantly 
improving corps of pilots), why not try this from the air as well?

As regards how good an old crate of a MiG is, I'm not sure either. But they 
sure made F-4's (which didn't even HAVE guns originally) eat nails when the 
F-4 went up against them with missiles only. Admittedly older crap like the 
AIM-120 Sparrow which apparently never was worth much.
 
> Plus, it's also a question of what you consider the primary threat: The
> world hasn't seen any all-out war between superpowers for >60 years, and
.
.
.
> survivability of only 90%. Not only for the sake of material costs, but
> even more so for the sake of morale at home.

Ok, I partially agree. But a factor in US thinking is always "morale at 
home". I don't think the Chinese have this same respect for human life, or 
will give a hoot about Chinese public opinion - look at their track record 
of how they treat their own citizens, or anybody who opens his mouth or 
protest the rule of the Chinese Communist party. E. g. a nation most often 
fights true to national doctrine, and I think Chinese doctrine wouldn't mind 
sacrificing many pilots to kill a few US personnel - of which each one will 
contribute to blunting US war appetite. (Pretty much what the "war on 
terror" has happening at the moment - support for any war the US is involved 
in plummets as casualties rise. The Chinese will apparently keep going until 
the Communist party decides IT has had enough, screw the citizens, public 
opinion and dead soldiers.)
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message