Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

One of the fiercest debates in defense circles today is over the F-22. The fifth generation fighter has the potential to keep the U.S. the undisputed king of the high ground...

But since the current war (Iraq and Afghanistan) do not require air superiority, the fight is over funding the F-22...and at $178M per jet, it is the most expensive ever built.

The Atlantic Magazine has an outstanding article, looking at this subject...why the U.S. needs the plane, and why we can't afford it...

Owning the sky is the first prerequisite of the way we fight wars today. Air supremacy is what enables us to send an elaborate fleet of machinery caterwauling over a targeted nation, such as Afghanistan or Iraq: the orchestrating AWACS (“Airborne Warning and Control System,” the flying surveillance-and-command center); precision bombers; attack planes, helicopters, and drones; ground support; rescue choppers; and the great flying tankers that keep them all fueled. This aerial juggernaut enables modern ground-fighting tactics that rely on the rapid movement of relatively small units, because lightly armed, fast-moving forces can quickly summon devastating air support if they encounter a heavy threat. Wounded soldiers can count on speedy evacuation and sophisticated emergency medical care. Accomplishing all this with anything like the efficiency American forces have enjoyed since the Vietnam War depends on owning the sky, which means having air-to-air hunter-killers that can shoot down enemy planes and destroy surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites before the rest of the fleet takes to the sky. Superior fighters are the linchpin of our modern war tactics. Having owned the high ground for so long, we tend to forget that it is not a birthright.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200903/air-force

Col, is any of our former/current world adversaries developing fighter/attack aircraft capable of competing with our current air superiority within the next ten or twenty years?

Kind of off the topic here, but I have been impressed by the effectiveness of some of our extremely old war birds that we have retrofitted with modern electronics/avionics, I mean is the old B-52 still capable of penetrating and attacking most potential battle grounds around the world?

I know the Russians and Chinese are putting up new fighters, but are they capable of surviving air to air with our F-15 and F-16 fighters one on one, and are these new competitors being built in sufficient numbers to be more of a threat than possibly winning best-of-show at some air show?

Wedgebuster wrote:Col, is any of our former/current world adversaries developing fighter/attack aircraft capable of competing with our current air superiority within the next ten or twenty years?

Kind of off the topic here, but I have been impressed by the effectiveness of some of our extremely old war birds that we have retrofitted with modern electronics/avionics, I mean is the old B-52 still capable of penetrating and attacking most potential battle grounds around the world?

I know the Russians and Chinese are putting up new fighters, but are they capable of surviving air to air with our F-15 and F-16 fighters one on one, and are these new competitors being built in sufficient numbers to be more of a threat than possibly winning best-of-show at some air show?

I don't know the answer to your question, Wegdie, but you can only dress up a pile of shit so much. No matter what you DO to an F-14 or F-16 or B-52, you're still flying an airframe that's (in some cases) 60 years old. Eventually these things are going to start falling out of the sky, and there'll be some twit in Congress puffing out his chest about why we didn't have the foresight to replace these aging planes when the need was there. B-52's have been around since 1955. F-14's started flying in 1974. The F-16 in 1976. These are some old, old planes, and the maintenance alone on these things to keep them in the air is a full-time job.

Like it or not, we need a new plane. Either that, or we just turn to the rest of the world eventually and say "you're on your own."

Wedgebuster wrote:Col, is any of our former/current world adversaries developing fighter/attack aircraft capable of competing with our current air superiority within the next ten or twenty years?

Kind of off the topic here, but I have been impressed by the effectiveness of some of our extremely old war birds that we have retrofitted with modern electronics/avionics, I mean is the old B-52 still capable of penetrating and attacking most potential battle grounds around the world?

I know the Russians and Chinese are putting up new fighters, but are they capable of surviving air to air with our F-15 and F-16 fighters one on one, and are these new competitors being built in sufficient numbers to be more of a threat than possibly winning best-of-show at some air show?

Legit question...and observation...

The answer on former/current/potential future (I'll add that one) adversaries developing fighter/attack aircraft...the answer is yes...

The Russians (They are still very active in developing and selling aircraft) have aircraft they have sold to India (that I'm positive of) and possibily China that are more capable than the current version of the F-15...

Those fighters are not "5th Gen" fighters, but rather 4.5 gen...I have a great video I'll try to post tonight since I can't go to youtube from work...it's the Russians fighter...

France has a 4.5 gen fighter they are offering on the world market...all are serious challenges to the F-15 in air superiority...

The F-22 is a technological marvel...it's got stuff you would not believe (classified)...thus the extremely high price tag...and would be extreme over-kill in Iraq or Afghanistan...

The question is this...and I'll use China as an example...If we purchase only 183 F-22s, and get into a shooting match with them...and they have 500 MIG 31s purchased from Russia...the pure numerical advantage will win the day...

F-15s are 1970 technology...they are good...but no match for an F-22, and an even match for newer 4.5 generation technology coming from the countries I mentioned...so to answer your question about F-15s and F-16s surviving against these newer Russian/Chinese aircraft...I'd say it's a draw, and thus puts ground troops at risk since we can't claim air superiority...

Regarding older planes like the B-52 that have been upgraded...yes, they were originally a long-range strategic bomber, that today because of GPS-guided weapons, can circle for hours over Afghanistan, dropping one bomb at a time when called by a ground controller, to support small Army units...it's a great use of old technology upgraded with modern technology...

But, if we don't own the sky (see arguement for F-22s), we could not put old B-52s over the battlefield to support ground troops...since the Taliban and OBL have no Air Force, it's not an issue in Afghansitan...

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Col, is any of our former/current world adversaries developing fighter/attack aircraft capable of competing with our current air superiority within the next ten or twenty years?

Kind of off the topic here, but I have been impressed by the effectiveness of some of our extremely old war birds that we have retrofitted with modern electronics/avionics, I mean is the old B-52 still capable of penetrating and attacking most potential battle grounds around the world?

I know the Russians and Chinese are putting up new fighters, but are they capable of surviving air to air with our F-15 and F-16 fighters one on one, and are these new competitors being built in sufficient numbers to be more of a threat than possibly winning best-of-show at some air show?

I don't know the answer to your question, Wegdie, but you can only dress up a pile of shit so much. No matter what you DO to an F-14 or F-16 or B-52, you're still flying an airframe that's (in some cases) 60 years old. Eventually these things are going to start falling out of the sky, and there'll be some twit in Congress puffing out his chest about why we didn't have the foresight to replace these aging planes when the need was there. B-52's have been around since 1955. F-14's started flying in 1974. The F-16 in 1976. These are some old, old planes, and the maintenance alone on these things to keep them in the air is a full-time job.

Like it or not, we need a new plane. Either that, or we just turn to the rest of the world eventually and say "you're on your own."

In addition to my longer post....what he said...

Like a new car, the maintenance costs on an F-22 are very low right now...for the B-52, F-15, F-16...and KC-135...they are growing to the point that we have to take still usable aircraft out of the inventory simply because we can't afford to maintain them (FACT)...

Well let's get 'em built then.

<nostalgia>

It'll be a sad day when the B-52 is finally retired. I grew up on Barksdale AFB. There was nothing cooler as a kid than seeing these huge, base-shaking airplanes lifting into the air everyday. The A-10s were pretty neat too.

I remember the day, in 87, when this KC-10 exploded during refueling.



All us kids hopped on our bikes and hauled ass to the flightline to watch the aftermath through the fence.

</nostalgia>

Mountaineer wrote:<nostalgia>

It'll be a sad day when the B-52 is finally retired. I grew up on Barksdale AFB. There was nothing cooler as a kid than seeing these huge, base-shaking airplanes lifting into the air everyday. The A-10s were pretty neat too.



</nostalgia>

Right now, based on the current Air Force program, the last B-52 retired will be about 90 years old when it flys to the boneyard in Arizona...

So is the answer to build two different models?

A 'bare-bones' version for Afgan type conflicts, and the souped up model for others?

The F-35 is the poor man's F-22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

dbackjon wrote:So is the answer to build two different models?

A 'bare-bones' version for Afgan type conflicts, and the souped up model for others?

A bare-boned F-22 would be a huge waste of money...actually, the Air Force and DOD are looking at much smaller aircraft...even prop-driven aircraft...for the type of war we are fighting in Iraq and Afghansitan...

One of the issues right now is, we are flying the wings off F-16s to support ground troops...that's like buying an 18-wheeler to haul your weekly grocery purchase...

Smaller planes that don't require air superiority are needed...and unmanned aircraft...that's the ticket...

The Air Force is finally getting it's head out of its azzes on that subject...why trying to stay engaged in the fight for modern, 5th generation fighters for potential future conflicts...you can't put it off till just before trouble and then expect to spin up production...

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:So is the answer to build two different models?

A 'bare-bones' version for Afgan type conflicts, and the souped up model for others?

A bare-boned F-22 would be a huge waste of money...actually, the Air Force and DOD are looking at much smaller aircraft...even prop-driven aircraft...for the type of war we are fighting in Iraq and Afghansitan...

One of the issues right now is, we are flying the wings off F-16s to support ground troops...that's like buying an 18-wheeler to haul your weekly grocery purchase...

Smaller planes that don't require air superiority are needed...and unmanned aircraft...that's the ticket...

The Air Force is finally getting it's head out of its azzes on that subject...why trying to stay engaged in the fight for modern, 5th generation fighters for potential future conflicts...you can't put it off till just before trouble and then expect to spin up production...

Ok - different platform - but mass produced (relative term) smaller aircraft for Afganistan.

How soon could we design/produce some?

Mountaineer wrote:The F-35 is the poor man's F-22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

I don't know if I'd agree with that...

The F-22 is intended to replace the F-15...

The F-35 is intended to replace the F-16 and the A-10, and Marine's AV-6 Harrier, and be the next generation fighter for the Navy...

It's not intended to sweep the skies and achieve air superiority...

dbackjon wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
A bare-boned F-22 would be a huge waste of money...actually, the Air Force and DOD are looking at much smaller aircraft...even prop-driven aircraft...for the type of war we are fighting in Iraq and Afghansitan...

One of the issues right now is, we are flying the wings off F-16s to support ground troops...that's like buying an 18-wheeler to haul your weekly grocery purchase...

Smaller planes that don't require air superiority are needed...and unmanned aircraft...that's the ticket...

The Air Force is finally getting it's head out of its azzes on that subject...why trying to stay engaged in the fight for modern, 5th generation fighters for potential future conflicts...you can't put it off till just before trouble and then expect to spin up production...

Ok - different platform - but mass produced (relative term) smaller aircraft for Afganistan.

How soon could we design/produce some?

Working on it right now...I think something will be announced soon, but I can't define soon...lots of pressure from the Secretary of Defense for an answer...

Col. Charles 'Chappy' Sinclair wrote:
I don't know if I'd agree with that...

The F-22 is intended to replace the F-15...

The F-35 is intended to replace the F-16 and the A-10, and Marine's AV-6 Harrier, and be the next generation fighter for the Navy...

It's not intended to sweep the skies and achieve air superiority...