See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. MartiniPundit
2. murdoc online
3. Blog lorazepam 1163762452
4. college basketball betting odd
5. alaska fishing lodge
6. coastal kayak fishing
7. cheap patio furniture

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On July 8th, 2004 at 12:26 pm, Jeff Harrell said:

   Today is, without exception, the happiest day of my life.

2. #2
   On July 8th, 2004 at 1:20 pm, Scott said:

   The best pilot wins regardless of the aircraft he or she is in.

   Think of Top Gun where pilots flying current generation aircraft get creamed by older, more experienced pilots flying aircraft as old as, well as old as they are and then some.

   Problem with killing projects that rely on advanced technology is that you also kill the ability to produce it in the future. Think of when we ran out of Tomahawks in Kosovo and it took two years to get the production line up again.

   We may not need advanced fighters now, but what about thirty years from now? If we don’t keep producing and developing now we won’t be able to in the future.

   And so what if there’s no threat? Back in ‘94 NOBODY would have predicted we needed the defense posture we have today, so who wants to bet the farm on 2015, (that’s the year the Chinese say, (in their military journals) that they will be in a position to challenge the US directly on the Pacific rim).

3. #3
   On July 8th, 2004 at 1:40 pm, Slabsides said:

   That’s a good point. The Su-27 Flanker is an outstanding jet, equal in performance (superior in some areas) to our ftont line jets. However, it is the pilot who makes the difference. The old USSR couldn’t afford to give their pilots adequate flight time to keep their skills sharp or to practice firing live weapons.

   Even though Russian pilots have a proud history that dates back to WWII (the Il-2 was an outstanding aircraft), you are only as good as you train. And almost no one trains like US pilots. Maybe the IAF is as good. better? nah…
   Even though this is all true, Scott is right. American aero-industry needs to keep its edge as well — by producing state ot the art jets and keeping the ability to do so. This, coupled with well trained jet drivers, equals an air arm second to none.

   Slab out.

4. #4
   On July 8th, 2004 at 1:46 pm, Marshall said:

   As an Air Force veteran, I can say that during their day the F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-15 Eagle were the best fighter aircraft in the world. But let’s face some realities here….both of these aircraft have been in production for over 30 years! Time for an upgrade.

   FY ‘04 Defense spending was less than 4 1/2 percent of the budget. I’m sure “Taxpayers for Common Sense” can find some domestic “boondoggles” out there that aren’t quite as important as equiping our pilots with the best aircraft possible.

5. #5
   On July 8th, 2004 at 1:53 pm, Noble Eagle said:

   The F-15 and F-16 are fabulous aircraft that have served us well. They are, however, getting old. Increased opstempo has also taken its toll on these aircraft. They are not only in constant use in the war on terror overseas, they are also engaged in continuous patrols in US airspace for the homeland defense mission. Sooner or later, they’ll have to be replaced. We might as well replace them with a state of the art airframe like the Raptor.

   Scott has a point about pilot skill. Most of the pilots of our potential adversaries average less than 100 hours a year flight time in their assigned aircraft. They can’t hold a candle to our pilots.

   In refernece to the Top Gun example, a point to keep in mind is that these programs use rules of engagement that are designed to mitigate the techinical superiority of the “blue” fighters. This is nitpicking on my part; none of our would-be adversaries even have a program like Top Gun/Red Flag.

6. #6
   On July 8th, 2004 at 2:03 pm, JD said:

   Can we just get the darn thing into service? It’s been TEN freaking years! Disclaimer: I have worked (a little) on (one of) the classified multi-ship flight simulator programs.

7. #7
   On July 8th, 2004 at 2:05 pm, john yesford said:

   OK,
   First, our pilots train better than most others in the world, that does give them an edge.

   Next, our AWACS, give a better situational awareness to our fighters than is available to any other country. This coordination means that OUR fighters can often attack ememies without revealing their own location, while often enemy fighters have to start their own radar in order to attack enemy aircraft, thus alerting those aircraft to their presense.

   Some have made the case that we do not need the F-22 because we will soon also have the cheaper F-35, but that ignores the very different capabilities and missions of those two aircraft. The F-22 replaces the F-15, while the F-35 replaces the f-16.

   Finally, even with the edge produced by our training and AWACS, do we still want to loose pilots because their aircraft platform is sub-par? And remember training and event the AWACS platform are far more easily matched by adversaries then are the advanced technologies on the F/A 22!

8. #8
   On July 8th, 2004 at 3:20 pm, Toejam said:

   Well, Well…..

   All that tax money spent on toys for the testosterone fuelled boys? tsk, tsk!

   The comely peace-maidens in lacy gowns and floral hair pieces along with their male consorts (I call them fags) would rather have American tax dollars spent on give-a-way, Socialist inspired, projects, like “free cocaine for the disenfranchised deniers of terrorism” and the worthless social leeches for human rights rather than an effective air-defense program.

   GO FIGURE!

9. #9
   On July 8th, 2004 at 3:21 pm, Nick said:

   The F-22 (Can I still call it the Lightning II?) is an incredible plane. It’s also incredibly expensive. My concern, and I’m not decided one way or another as to canceling the program, are whether we will risk such an expensive plane. Will we put this plane on the front line in Iraq and Korea and everywhere else the F-15 and F-16 fly? The B-2 Spirit did finally see some use during Iraqi Freedom, but was it enough to justify that cost?

   As you note, the F-22 can do it all (except close air support like the A-10) and do it better than any other plane. Do we really need all of that capability? “Because we can” is not a good enough reason to add every single feature that the F-22 has. This “feature creep” is a good chunk of the plane’s price and a considerable part of the reason it’s taking so long to field the plane.

10. #10
    On July 8th, 2004 at 3:41 pm, Mike James said:

    “…can wipe out ground targets like radar, anti-aircraft sites, and armor formations as readily as it can sweep the skies.”

    I’ll grant you radar and anti-aircraft sites–that’s been a keen concern of the zoomies for years, seeing as how it directly affects air supremacy, and their longevity, but armor formations? Please.

    Ask the Army and Marine Corps, those who are on the ground with tanks all day, every day, what they want, and they’ll tell you that there are too many A-10’s sitting in the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB for their liking. They continually announce the retirement of the most effective CAS aircraft we’ve got, only to call them up whenever something ugly is about to happen.

    The Army has tried to get the Warthogs placed in Army Aviation, only to be told by the Air Force, which doesn’t like the Close Air Support mission, that the National Defense Act of 1947 says that the Army doesn’t get fixed-wing assets. The Marine Corps would dearly love to figure out how to operate the Hogs off of aircraft carriers–it’s one part of the Air Force that the Marine Corps very clearly loves. And the Air Force shuffles the A-10’s off to the Reserve and Air National Guard, and commanders of A-10 squadrons can figure that they will end their careers as Lieutenant Colonels.

    “…and armor formations as readily as it can sweep the skies.”

    The Air Force has a proud tradition of resisting the CAS mission, and will never bring a $122,000,000 aircraft down where the ground fire lurks. To suggest otherwise is a joke in bad taste, inasmuch as we are discussing matters of life and death.

11. #11
    On July 8th, 2004 at 3:43 pm, Walter E. Wallis said:

    Other nations can improve their pilot training. I went to war in Korea with WWII weapons. We should never send troops into battle with less than the best. I want the F-22 with pilotless outriders that can do 20 Gee turns at command as wingmen. I want our infantry to go into combat in armored carriers and to posess the very best weapons and the very best defensive systems, like anti-mortar counter battery radar.
    I think we should, by law, replace every item of military equipment at ten years of age.

12. #12
    On July 8th, 2004 at 3:45 pm, King of Fools said:

    Not only is this kind of development helpful for our military, but the R&D money does eventually result in improvements in civil aviation as well as other areas. There are countless items we use daily where are the product of military R&D.

    It helps our military. It helps us develop/maintain an edge in research and science. It helps us economically.

    I like it.

13. #13
    On July 8th, 2004 at 4:20 pm, Marshall said:

    Well Mike, I don’t think you should discount the hundreds of Air Force pilots who have given their lives in CAS missions in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and Iraq. But CAS can only work if air superiority has been achieved.

    How many armored divisions have the Army and Marine Corps faced in Iraq again?

14. #14
    On July 8th, 2004 at 4:26 pm, pak152 said:

    After reading Coram’s bio of Col john boyd I wonder what 40 second Boyd would think of the ‘raptor’. i suspect that he would say it is another gold-plated boondoggle that has everything but the kitchen sink hung on it.

    the F-16 and F-15 are what they are today because of Boyd’s and others work.

    I noticed that they have added CAS to the Raptor. The program mgrs within the Pentagon only did that so they could satisfy Army and Marine supporters. it shouldnt take ten years to bring a new aircraft into service.

    Build mission specific aircraft, not multi-taskers.

15. #15
    On July 8th, 2004 at 4:47 pm, LarryConley said:

    Couple of things:

    One can the F-22 be flown from a carrier? If not what is going to replace the current generation of carrier fighter jets. I believe that most if not all air superiority missions will be flown from carriers because by the time we secure bases close enough to the action for fighters to be ground based.. They enemy won’t have any airfields left.

    Two: No way will the F-22 be a good ground support platform… They definately need to consider more B-52’s and do the upgrade of the A-10 that has been talked about.

16. #16
    On July 8th, 2004 at 4:49 pm, William Meisheid said:

    >Build mission specific aircraft, not multi-taskers.

    In the days of a segmented battlefield and large deployment that made sense. Not now with the demands that current deployments make. You have to get it there and multipurpose lets you do more missions and more types of mission with less ability to project.

    Think about it…

17. #17
    On July 8th, 2004 at 5:09 pm, Marshall said:

    Larry - the F-22 is the replacement for the F-15. Unfortunately, the suits in Washington are also trying to make it the replacement for the F-16 and A-10 - hence the 10 years in the making.

    I believe the Navy is going to replace their air interdiction fighter (the F-14) with an upgraded version of the F/A-18. Also, it will always be the primary mission of the US Air Force to provide air superiority over a battlefield. With in-flight refueling, the location of the bases does not need to be in a close proximity. The Navy’s air interdiction fighters are their to protect the fleet and Naval attack aircraft who often provide CAS to Marine units.

18. #18
    On July 8th, 2004 at 5:44 pm, Jeff Harrell said:

    Regarding carrier-basing the Raptor, the answer is no. The F/A-22 was designed from the ground up to be a land-based aircraft.

    The F-35 is going to include a naval variation with (if I recall correctly) bigger wings, more powerful engines, and an arrestor hook. We’re several years away from that, though, so the F/A-18E/F is the carrier-based jet of choice for the near term. The Super Hornet is a thoroughly modern weapon, but because it’s built on the F-18 airframe, it doesn’t included the same sort of stealthy features that will be found in the F-22 and F-35.

    But in the meantime, let’s not underestimate the importance of platforms like the X-45. For carrying out things like precision strikes on terrorist not-so-safehouses, a stealthy, unmanned weapons platform is a good choice and an important option.

    As y’all probably know by now, my view is that the F/A-22 is more important for homeland defense right now than it is for offensive purposes. Yes, we need to forward-deploy it to places like Italy and Turkey and Korea and Japan, but even more importantly we need to base it right here, at home, to make sure a 9/11-style attack can’t succeed again.

19. #19
    On July 8th, 2004 at 5:46 pm, Wind Rider said:

    Interesting discussion.

    With the exception of mods/improvements to the F-15/16/14/18s, these airframes have been in service longer than any other line fighters in history. We have reached a point of diminishing returns of cost versus benefit on hanging new equipment, engines, or avionics mods on these birds.

    The SU-27 is not the only fighter out there of concern - although it is the only design that made it off the fourth generation drawing board and into significant production. Including PRC production, which is most significant.

    The statment has been made that the AF has long resisted the CAS mission. True enough statement. But the reasoning has less to do with the willingness to physically conduct the mission, but a doctrinal perception that is is better to interdict armor and other massed forces before they fall into the ‘close’ category. Killing them 50 miles from the Forward line of troops provides more options for directing fires than does dealing with hostile forces in close proximity to friendlies. This disparity of concept goes to the root of the desire of the Air Corps to be split of as a seperate service. Although I’ve gone off on a tangent - the anser for this lies in purpose built weapons, not so much in purpose built platforms to employ them.

    The ponderance of actually employing such an expensive piece of hardware is a moot question. The B2 was employed in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq; and individual unit cost of the aircraft wasn’t the deciding employment factor - mission needs and capabilities of the platform were the driver for their inclusion in the Air Tasking Order. As would the F-22 in a future scenario. The F-22 would certainly be employed for a deep interdiction, hostile air defense environment mission - certainly over a less survivable platform, or a platform without the combat radius to reach the objective and return.

    The issue of why construct another manned platform at all is raised. Fair question, as the human component is the current performance limiting factor in aircraft overall performance (particularly in manueverability). It is simply because remoted and or automated systems lack one key ingredient present in the manned platform - the Mark I Mod 0 biologic processing unit, and it’s capability to deal with the unforseen, with on-the-fly autonomous reprogramming as a standard feature.

    After I finish typing up this comment, I’ll head out to my 1983 Nissan, then drive by a flightline full of F-15’s, too many of which, judging by the Year of Contract portion of their tail numbers, I know are older than the car I’m driving home in.

    Now I know what shape the car is in. And it is only by the daily diligence, dedication, sweat, tears, blood, and colorful language of young men on that flightline in the 95 degree, 90 percent humidity heat that keep those aircraft from being the same.

    Time to hand those maintainers, and those pilots, a better tool. That they can better use to serve all the rest of us with.

20. #20
    On July 8th, 2004 at 6:13 pm, Mike McDaniel said:

    How quickly people forget.

    There was once another fighting force that had won dominance, and thought they would rule forever….the Royal Navy after the Napoleonic Wars. And they did - up until the Germans decided to get into the seapower game seriously. By the start of World War I, the Germans had nearly as many capital ships as the British - and the German ships were better.

    People assume that because Iraqis and the Taliban didn’t put up a fight, the U.S. will rule the skies forever. WRONG. Our current hardware was designed during the Nixon administration, and bought during the Reagan administration. The Russians build fighters every bit as good as an F-15 or F-16. And they haven’t stopped development work. Nor have the French.

    Do we have a training advantage? Sure - today. But that doesn’t mean that other countries can’t duplicate it. Or won’t.

    War isn’t a game. It’s not a “fair” fight. The idea is to be as “unfair” as possible, securing every possible advantage to make sure that WE win and our opponents lose.

    But perhaps losing is what our opponents want……

21. #21
    On July 8th, 2004 at 8:42 pm, charles said:

    I second Mike’s comments. I work in aviation maintenance has a precision calibrator. Not only are our fighter jets old, but the equipment we use to support these aircraft are getting old as well. The sheer number of support personnel, and equipment required just to launch one aircraft is mind-boggling. These ease of maintenance factor of the F-22 (of course, in this business, we hope to see exactly how easy this really is) is extremely important. Even in the best squadrons, it’s good luck to have all your airframes operational.
    I think it’s important when thinking about this issue to think about the time frame involved. We only achieved world wide air superiority 60 years ago, and it didn’t take long for Russia to catch up. only 20 years ago, the Flanker, Fulcrum and MiG-31`were produced. The Chinese do not exactly suffer from the same economic reliance on pure communism and in time can catch up and even surpass us if we fall asleep. Fair fights are for football and NASCAR. To play parity with potential enemy world powers is to invite the destruction of our country.

22. #22
    On July 9th, 2004 at 7:19 am, Bob Ulrich said:

    I am old enough to remember the introduction of the F-15 in the early ’70’s as a replacement for the F-4 Phantom. As the saying goes, its deja vu all over again. The very same arguments used now against the F-22 were used then against the F-15 - in some cases by the very same people. The F-15 was too expensive, gold plated, too complex, we didn’t need it, we could upgrade the F-4, yada, yada, yada. Now those who hated the F-15 30 years ago want to cling to it. All the other comments have covered the facts well, but let me put this question to the critics. The undeniable and inescapable truth of this is that the F-15’s are out of production and the existing examples are getting to the end of their service lives (this has been accelerated by the greater than anticipated usage we’ve recently been obliged to ask of them). If we are to retain a fighter force we must build some new aircraft. Our choices are to build an all new design like the F-22 or restart production of F-15’s. The critics should ask themselves if they really would expect General Motors to restart production of 1973 Chevrolets, and would they buy one if GM did?

23. #23
    On July 9th, 2004 at 12:16 pm, Billy Beck said:

    I just want to point out that it is quite ridiculous to “consider more B-52’s”. That is never, ever going to happen. At this point, cranking up that sort of effort would just about equal the effort of beginning with a whole new design from scratch. No; we’re stuck with the 90-odd examples in service, and the graveyard of all the BUFF’s that got chopped to pieces under START II.

    “Someone over thirty you can trust.”

    Here’s a different angle for the fighter crowd: Rear Admiral Paul T. Gilcrist (US Navy, ret.) has several times made a very intriguing argument that the money-move — at least in the near term — is to buy Su-27 and Mig-29 basic airframes, and stiff ‘em up with western powerplant and avionics. The idea always sinks like a rock in official circles, but I’m not sure if it should be dismissed that summarily.

24. #24
    On July 9th, 2004 at 1:54 pm, John Yesford said:

    Remember the object of war is NOT to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for HIS. Every advantage needs to be persued so that more of them die for their country than do ours.

25. #25
    On July 9th, 2004 at 2:21 pm, Mike James said:

    “…Rear Admiral Paul T. Gilcrist (US Navy, ret.) has several times made a very intriguing argument that the money-move — at least in the near term — is to buy Su-27 and Mig-29 basic airframes, and stiff ‘em up with western powerplant and avionics. The idea always sinks like a rock in official circles…”

    I’ll bet. It’s a wonder the boards of Boeing or LockMart haven’t retained the services of Tony Soprano to have a little ’sit down’ with the admiral.

26. #26
    On July 9th, 2004 at 5:08 pm, James Kotthoff said:

    The one comment that truely sticks out and is accurate is that military R&D leads to commercial innovation. And as far as mission specific versus multipurpose platforms…It is impossible to predict what use you will need a plane for tomorrow and given that production time is involved better a multi-purpose platform built today then to try and build a mission specific when it is needed.

27. #27
    On July 9th, 2004 at 6:30 pm, LarryConley said:

    “”With in-flight refueling, the location of the bases does not need to be in a close proximity.”"

    Well If I was planning to go into air to air combat I wouldn’t want to do so after a 4+ hour flight..
    -
    “”I just want to point out that it is quite ridiculous to “consider more B-52’s”. That is never, ever going to happen. At this point, cranking up that sort of effort would just about equal the effort of beginning with a whole new design from scratch. “”

    Ok.. I’ll buy that, it is not my field of expertse. Actually for what I was thinking of a UAV of a larger sort might be the way to go. Basicly a bomb platform that can loiter over an area for long periods of time till its needed.
    Something that can fly up at 50,000 or so feet. carry 2-5 tons of JDAMS (and whatever they call that standoff gliding bomb???). and stay up there for 12+ hours.

    –

28. #28
    On July 10th, 2004 at 2:12 am, Edward Yee said:

    My own take is mixed: I heard about a USAF training exercise with the Indians where the kill ratio against their Su-30s (upgraded with Western fire control systems, and their AA-10s assumed to have AMRAAM “stats”) was only 1:1 — spooky, and possibly a USAF case to beg for more Raptors, but StrategyPage.com reported an Indian theory that the USAF pilots, in F-15s, had been ordered to hold back.

    However, I’d prefer the idea F/A-22s that had been built as UCAVs to halve the cost …

    P.S. Ignore the spam comments on my blog.
    P.P.S. Larry Conley, I think that that’s what the USAF is looking for as well! Probably manned, but a heavy bomber designed for loitering …

29. #29
    On July 10th, 2004 at 5:38 am, Robert White said:

    I’m not AIr Fore, I’m a grunt. SO I have to ask my questions from that perspective.

    Given that the need for dogfighting has declined drmatically in every engagement since WWII and the need for Close Air Support (CAS) has increased, can the F-22 perform the CAS role? If not, why are we pouring all the money into this fighter of limited utility.

    Does the F-22 have significanly better capablilites than the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. If not, why buy the 22 when the 35 costs a fraction per copy? And the F-35 does do CAS.

30. #30
    On July 11th, 2004 at 1:17 am, Billy Beck said:

    Robert — “Given that the need for dogfighting has declined drmatically in every engagement since WWII…”

    That’s not true. The USAF and Navy learned this lesson the hard way in Vietnam, which is how and why the Navy’s Fighter Weapons School (aka “Top Gun”) was instituted (1969, I believe). America’s air forces have gone through lapses of ACM (”Air Combat Manuevering”) skills for various reasons, most notably the dependence on Air Intercept Missiles, presuming the obsolescence of ACM doctrine. It’s a damned curious thing, though: how the furball-fight turns up when it’s least expected in combat.

    It is not a smart thing to discount “dogfighting”. That sort of fight is not where one wants to be, but those skills are not to be missed when it happens. We’ve seen that film before, and it’s not good.

    Larry — “Basicly a bomb platform that can loiter over an area for long periods of time till its needed. Something that can fly up at 50,000 or so feet. carry 2-5 tons of JDAMS (and whatever they call that standoff gliding bomb???). and stay up there for 12+ hours.”

    B-52 just about fits those criteria, now. “50,000 feet” is over-the-top for a BUFF, but the rest of it is no sweat.

31. #31
    On July 11th, 2004 at 1:37 am, Billy Beck said:

    Ps. — I just looked this up:

    Operation SECRET SQUIRREL launched from Barksdale AFB (Shreveport, La.) and attacked Baghdad with Air-Launched Cruise Missiles on the first day of the war in 1991. (596th Bomb Squadron, 2nd Bomb Wing.) These airplanes flew 34 hours round trip, tanking twice each way. It was the longest single combat mission in history, to date. (I believe that record has since been superceded by B-2’s.)

    This was the very first combat launch of the war: these airplanes were in the air before anyone else.

    The mighty ‘52 can definitely hang.

32. #32
    On July 11th, 2004 at 8:29 am, Robert White said:

    Billy Beck–

    I’d never advocate giving up the dogfighters. It is indisuptuable that the need is less. The Fighter is more glamourous than the CAS mission so that way go the dollars.

    If its going to be muti-role I want it to be muti-role. If its just a fighter, then why do we need so many?

    At least that’s the view from (below)ground level.

33. #33
    On July 11th, 2004 at 11:13 am, Billy Beck said:

    Robert — A Vietnam F-105 veteran (a very special thing, that) with whom I occasionally correspond likes to point out that “Air-to-air is something a fighter pilot does on his way to and from the target.” It is not a precept calculated to win the hearts & minds of “The Fighter Mafia”. It does, however, state the reality of things far more cogently than most of the debate over the issue. In truly rational doctrine, air-to-air and ground attack go hand in hand as an integration. As far back as WW II, the total Allied domination of the Luftwaffe late in the war devolved the mission to the point of the vaunted air-killing P-51 at work in low-level attack, for the obvious reason that the device of air power still had work to do (e.g.; deep attack) even when the FW-190’s were sitting around idle for lack of fuel.

    I don’t dispute the value of CAS or interdiction strike. I argue against throwing the V-8 out with the oil-change: it is just as unwise to argue against air-to-air in favor of strike as vice-versa. There will always be a need for strike forces to be able fight their way in and out of the target area, on their own.

    At least two facts conspire against manifesting this integration of philosophy in the hardware: the very delicate business of balancing requirements when it comes to drafting airplane designs (perhaps the most exacting exercise in compromise in the world), and the politics with which procurement is suffused.

    I would also point out that this country has not engaged a seriously competent enemy in the air in a long, long time. (This can be a very deep and subtle argument. The North Vietnamese air order of battle was always very small, but it could not be ignored, and — again — it forced a drastic reconsideration of Cold War air doctrine.) Just because it hasn’t happened lately is no rational reason to bet that it never will again.

34. #34
    On July 11th, 2004 at 9:35 pm, Larryconley said:

    “”Larry — “Basicly a bomb platform that can loiter over an area for long periods of time till its needed. Something that can fly up at 50,000 or so feet. carry 2-5 tons of JDAMS (and whatever they call that standoff gliding bomb???). and stay up there for 12+ hours.”

    B-52 just about fits those criteria, now. “50,000 feet” is over-the-top for a BUFF, but the rest of it is no sweat.
    “”

    I believe the B-52 can carry 10 tons of bombs. I had something the size of a B-17 in mind with a bit more ability to fly high.

35. #35
    On July 12th, 2004 at 12:22 am, Billy Beck said:

    “I believe the B-52 can carry 10 tons of bombs.”

    Oh, yes. It can certainly do that.

    And the H model (currently the only one in service) can keep going all the way up more than 70,000 pounds of total ordnance payload.

    The reference to the B-17 is confusing to me: the B-52 utterly dwarfs its grandfather from the Boeing production lines, and I’m not sure why we might be talking about a smaller airplane, which would necessarily imply a smaller payload.

    BTW — in reviewing its capabilites, I see that the H-model BUFF’s can do 50,000 feet, too.

36. #36
    On July 12th, 2004 at 12:19 pm, ohwillek2004 said:

    Given the historic success the U.S. has had in obtaining air superiority quickly in the past couple of decades, I have a hard time believing that likely U.S. opponents would be able to achieve 95% win percentages in conflicts with U.S. air forces. Worst case scenario we would be facing China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, or many other third world or developing countries. All out dog fights with Russia are highly unlikely. And, if those fights do occur training, intelligence, surprise, and the number of fighter deployed on each side may be as important as sheer technical capabilies of the aircraft. Few fights are true “fair fights” in war.

    We have invested a lot in the F-22 and should build a meaningful force, to maintain that edge in the first week or so of a conflict when air superiority is first obtained, but an F-22 is not cheap and the notion that it is really desirable as an anti-tank weapon doesn’t hold up. A-10s and AC-130s can remain airborne for far longer than an F-22 (critical for a CAS role), and the touted and expensive stealth and supersonic capabilities of an F-22 aren’t very useful against targets that have visual identification of you and are moving at 40-50 mph in any case. The F-22 can also drop bombs, but a B-2 or B-1 or B-52 can drop a heck of a lot more, faster, from a more distance base.

    The reality though, it that air superiority is not the #1 weakness of the U.S. military and we can buy of lot to address our real weaknesses for the cost of a squadron of F-22s, so making a conservatively small sized buy makes good sense. It isn’t as if the F-15 can be flown forever either. Old planes wear out and have to be replaced and the replacement may as well be new technology instead of old technology. But, the F-22 and F-35 may well be the last manned fighters the U.S. ever buys and unmanned combat vehicles replace them.

    Also, it is worth noting that with the CAS debate, the real fight should be between Apaches and A-10s (or successors in its image), not between A-10s and F-22s. The Iraq War (and some prior conflicts such as the first Gulf War and the slow deployment in the Kosovo conflict of Apaches) showed that A-10s, despite being Vietnam era technology, kill more enemy tanks, are more reliable, and are less vunerable to kills themselves than Apaches. Basically this is a Keep It Simple Stupid situation. An A-10 is a simple and robust tool for the CAS problem, something never true of any helicopter. Unfortunately, arbitrary jurisdictional boundaries created when the air force and army were seperated have lead to undue army reliance on helicopters which it can command, instead of fixed wing aircraft which are better suited for the job. (A problem which has also come up with an air force inclination to unbuy transport aircraft). I think there is real reason to revisit the question of whether splitting the Army and the Air Force was a good idea.