Does this mean I should remove the sights from my AR15 so I am not “overmatched” with an assailant?
I agree with the article’s statement about us giving up the will to win decisively. In strategic terms that is. I am sure every trooper out there intends to win, but do our politicians and commanders? Or are they more concerned about international opinion (and who is htat anyway, France/ Britain? Germany? China? Russia?).
First we have to get back to agreeing when we fight our number one priority is to win. Then we have to develop strategy and tactics based on that premise and not the one we seem to have adopted that we will exert just enough force to subdue an adversary but not really destroy them. This would change the thinking about arms and rules of engagement.
It is hard to understand that we so readily abandon a weapons platform that has proven its superiority. There may be better solutions, but they don’t exist nor are deployable today. Until we have a better solution ready we should deploy enough F-22 to not only handle current conflicts, but also to be a serious deterrent to any adversary’s adventurism. A good indication that we have deployed enough F22s will be when Russia and China screech to high heaven in protest. Right now they seem pretty satiusfied with our strategy.
Personally, I think we are better served by Navy carrier battle groups and attack subs. Simply stationing them in the in the waters of a potential adversary can stop a war before it starts.
Or, as Ben Franklin put it ‘a sword in the hand keeps another in it’s sheath.’ Or, as Sun Tzu put it ‘to win without fighting is the height of generalship.’
Our drones are currently configured to fight the current threat. I am pretty sure that they could be configured with air-to-air missiles without too much difficulty. Whats more, you could simply have them loiter over international waters for hours on end as an implied threat/deterrent.
Quite simply, we cannot afford the F-22 and we may need to look at other less exotic options.
As for the F-22’s all weather capability, try Google. It can’t survive rain. I can’t wait to see what sand does to it. This has been well documented and covered. SecDef Gates wanted this thing dead a long time ago. He event went so far as to fire the old fighter jock Chief of the Air Force and replacing him with a female general who ran AMC. The current priority is Air Mobility to serve the current war we have been fighting for the last 9 years with no end in sight.
Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
F-22’s Maintenance Demands Growing
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009
The United States’ top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show.
The aircraft’s radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings – such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion – challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.
While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
No current or future carrier based planes (F-18s & F-35s) is a match in terms of air superiority for emerging threats like the Sukhoi T-50 and the Chinese Pakwhatever aircraft.
It is not an either or. We need carriers, carrier based aircraft, subs, and top grade air superiority and strike aircraft.
And not every place is accessible within range of carrier based aircraft. Carriers are also limited in the amount of aircraft that they can carry, are vulnerable to being sunk, and require time to refit and refurbish. It itypically takes 3 carriers in service to keep one at sea at any time. Then comes the support ships and protection ships. Then there is a matter of personel to crew the whole bunch. One minute you are telling us that we can’t afford the F-22, but the next you are suggesting more carriers and ships which is even more expensive.
Our drones are currently configured to fight the current threat. I am pretty sure that they could be configured with air-to-air missiles without too much difficulty.
You’re joking. Current drones do not have the air to air sensors, the speed, the maneuvering capabilities or the weapons to take out anything other than a chopper or a cesna–and this in a world where future enemies will have access to
planes that are as good if not better than F-15s.
And there you go again with the current threat. This isn’t about the current threat–it’s about future threats for the next 20-30 years.
Quite simply, we cannot afford the F-22 and we may need to look at other less exotic options.
The F-35 Joint Strike fighter is likely to be as expensive if not more so than the F-22, and all for a considerably less capable aircraft. They are basing the price on a much larger number of units than they will be buying.
And what do we do when our opponent is Chad, or Uzbekistan? Neither country has a sea border, and is big enough that it can’t be covered effectively by short range Naval Aviation.
Or, as Ben Franklin put it ‘a sword in the hand keeps another in it’s sheath.’ Or, as Sun Tzu put it ‘to win without fighting is the height of generalship.’
I agree and Marine Amphibious Groups and Carrier Battle Groups have their place in the DOD aresenel, but so does the 1st Infantry Division, and the 1st Fighter Wing
Our drones are currently configured to fight the current threat. I am pretty sure that they could be configured with air-to-air missiles without too much difficulty. Whats more, you could simply have them loiter over international waters for hours on end as an implied threat/deterrent.
Seriously? Do you now know about satellite lag? It takes on average 1.5 seconds to 2.0 seconds for a command to complete a trip across non-military sat coms. And I assume that military sat coms are just as slow, if not slower since they are encrypted much more heavily.
Quite simply, we cannot afford the F-22 and we may need to look at other less exotic options.
Really saws who? There are a lot of other wasteful programs in government, at least the F-22 program produces something useful.
As for the F-22’s all weather capability, try Google. It can’t survive rain. I can’t wait to see what sand does to it. This has been well documented and covered. SecDef Gates wanted this thing dead a long time ago. He event went so far as to fire the old fighter jock Chief of the Air Force and replacing him with a female general who ran AMC. The current priority is Air Mobility to serve the current war we have been fighting for the last 9 years with no end in sight.
Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
F-22’s Maintenance Demands Growing
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009
The United States’ top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show.
The aircraft’s radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings – such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion – challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.
While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
And SecDef Gates shows how divided the USAF has always been. Previously it was TAC vs SAC. Now it’s ACC vs AMC. So of course the AMC side is against the F-22, just as attack side was against the Fighter Mafia pushing pure fighters like the F-15, and F-16, which are probably the two best aircraft that the USAF has ever purchased. The F-15 and F-16 shows that you can turn an excellent fighter into a damned good bomber.
And both aircraft were conceived exclusively to be fighters.
And what happens when this current war is over, and we have to take on a country with modern generation 5 fighters?
Carriers can be sunk. And one day, heaven forbid, China and Russia might just try to slap down a war zone in my back yard by way of Canada. A capable Air Force based in Minot wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
So you would like to put all of our force projection power into 12 hulls? Hulls that the Chinese and Russians have been working on ways of rendering hors de combat for half a century? Look at the anti-shipping missiles that they have developed in just the past 10 years. Mach 5, 1600 mile range, and a 600 pound warhead. Not in wide production at the moment, but do you really think that the country that builds most of our electronics and consumer goods cannot crank out a large amount of them without much trouble?
Having the Chinese pop up a sub in the middle of a carrier task force in torpedo range during our war games should instill some caution to relying on just carriers. And they did it TWICE as far as I recall.
See, we don’t take our own forces seriously. If we did we would do what the Chinese or Russians would do if one of our subs made itself known in the middle of their task force: sink the damn thing! And then make sure it doesn’t happen again. Those admirals should have been keel hauled for not knowing a Chinese sub was in their midst.
According to 2009 data the Pacific Command chief presented the House committee, that weaponry includes 27 destroyers, 48 frigates, more than 70 patrol crafts armed with missiles, 55 amphibious vessels, 40 mine warfare ships and 50 support crafts.
What’s more, “modernization programs have included development of sophisticated shipboard air defense systems, as well as supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles,” Willard said.
China also possesses what he called “the largest conventional submarine force in the world, totaling more than 60 boats” to go along with “a number of” nuclear-powered fast attack and ballistic missile subs. The PLA, Willard contended, is also developing a new submarine-launched ballistic missile, the JL-2, which is “capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States.”
The U.S. officials told the lawmakers China could have an operational aircraft carrier by 2012. Gregson raised concerns that “China may be interested in building multiple operational aircraft carriers by 2020.”
The PLA also has a “growing number” of multimission fighter aircraft, Willard said, adding the Chinese are focused on improving pilot skills in “multiplane scenarios, including operations over water.” He said China has put “considerable effort” into fielding air-to-air and anti-air systems, and has developed an anti-ship ballistic missile to target aircraft carriers.
A larger portion of the Chinese Air Force are its own F-10s and Russian-made aircraft. These fourth-generation fighters, as well as China’s improved air defenses, “have reversed Taiwan’s historic ability to maintain dominance of the airspace over the Taiwan Strait,” Gregson said.
New China fighter
A Chinese general is boasting that the People’s Liberation Army Air Force will soon fly a new advanced fighter that U.S. intelligence projections had said would not be ready for 10 years. The new fifth-generation Chinese fighter could be deployed as early as 2017 – years earlier than announced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in explaining his cancellation of the U.S. version of the fifth-generation fighter, the F-22.
Gen. Ho Weirong, the deputy commander of the Chinese air force, told Chinese state-run media on Monday that China’s fifth-generation fighter has been under intense development and will enter service in the next eight to 10 years. Characteristics of this type of jet include radar-evading stealth, supersonic cruise, super maneuverability and the capability for short takeoffs.
The comments by the Chinese general represent an unusual disclosure by the Chinese military, which rarely mentions future weapons systems.
The disclosure will likely fuel further debate in the United States over the F-22, which was canceled in favor of the F-35 by Mr. Gates earlier this year.
Mr. Gates said in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago July 16 that the F-22 was canceled as part of considerations for the proper mix of warplanes needed for a potential of “state-to-state conflict.” The F-35, despite development problems, was chosen over the F-22 for cost reasons, but he noted that it was “clearly a capability that we do need.”
Mr. Gates stated in the speech that the F-22 was not needed because China’s air force would not have a comparable jet by 2020.
“Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds,” he said. “Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth-generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth-generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens.”
As a result, the United States would have about 1,700 advanced fifth-generation fighters “versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America’s national security,” Mr. Gates said.
A Pentagon spokesman did not reply to e-mails or telephone calls seeking comment on the issue. A Defense Intelligence Agency spokesman also did not respond to e-mails.
Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist, said the reports on a Chinese advanced fighter reflected “unprecedented transparency” by China.
“One has to assume they have some confidence in their projections in order to make them public,” said Mr. Fisher, of the International Assessment and Strategy Center. “So what is the Obama administration going to do, ignore this and proceed with F-22 production termination, to the detriment of U.S. security interests in Asia and beyond?”
According to defense specialists, the F-35 is comparable in some ways to the F-22 but lacks what is called “supercruise” capability, a feature that enables it to penetrate deep into enemy airspace, launch its weapons and exit without using up all its fuel.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks that canceling F-22 production without a better warplane in the pipeline is tantamount to unilateral disarmament. “In Asia, this means a decline in American military credibility and an increase in regional instability,” he said.
Mr. Fisher also called on U.S. intelligence agencies to explain “what appears to be a significant underestimation of Chinese capability.”
“The PLA does not make it easy to read their future, but after spending $40 billion a year on intelligence, it would be a real scandal if they got this one wrong,” he said.
Admiral Michael Mullen said China had the right to meet its security needs, but the build-up would require the United States to work with its Pacific allies to respond to increasing Chinese military capabilities.
“They are developing capabilities that are very maritime focused, maritime and air focused, and in many ways, very much focused on us,” he told a conference of the Navy League, a nonprofit seamen’s support group, in Washington.
“They seem very focused on the United States Navy and our bases that are in that part of the world.”
After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a “kill weapon” developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.
First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.
The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.
The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.
Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.
If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.
Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.
It was. It took much more than 30 hrs mx, and that was when spares were actually available in the logistics pipeline. The “30 hours” figure is misleading if one is not familiar with the relative mx requirements on other airframes.
