I'm very serious and don't go off the deep-end by making suggestions on what I may or may not believe (ref. carriers).

I think my point was valid. UAVs are the wave of the future and pilot-less aircraft bring more to the table than manned ones. As a pilot, I don't like it, but it is the future.

We also need to look at what other countries know. Technology wise, their fighters can't hang. However, when they throw mass numbers of old cheap technology in the air, even the F-22 is a sitting duck.

We need to start looking at our total force and deciding where the money is best spent. The previous USAF administration sold people, parts, and planes to buy the F-22. Now we we realizing just how destructive those cuts have become.

Ironically, we still don't have a tanker replacement for the KC135s and our KC10s have just as much flying time as the KC135s. And how many of our big airplanes are GATMS compliant? The FAA will probably give us an exception to operate, but, I wouldn't hold your breath on ICAO.

These are just a handful of big issues with even bigger pricetags that have been put on the back burner while we sold out for the F-22.

-Fatty

 

Fatty,

No deep end implied with the carrier comment, was simply an example to your argument that's all. No insult intended whatsoever.

Your argument for unmanned aircraft is very valid, however, in terms of what F-22 and JSF bring to the table, I challenge you to program an aircraft or a dude behind a console to be able to make the real time decisions necessary or more importantly maneuver his airplane in such a way to save it if needed during an engagement or an intercept. Best served for a discussion elsewhere and not on this board. It is what it is.

The previous USAF leadership did not sell out on their own but the number of aircraft they wanted was severely cut on line item cuts to a budget. To save what they could, yes cuts were made. The tanker buy is an apple in comparison to an orange with a whole bunch of other challenges. Certainly you're more well versed to the status of the tanker community. I'm here to tell you that the strike fighter shortfall is real and pending and no UCAV or UAV program is going to fix that shortfall. I would venture to say that that shortfall is being felt across the board for the USAF as well.
As long as the mission requires air supremecy the need for platforms like F-22 and JSF will continue to exist.

 

Valid points, no offense taken, and just you know, this isn't a "tanker guy jealous because the fighter guys are getting new toys." I enjoy having debate like this.

I agree there are short comings with UAVs. If we already have the F-22 for Air Supremacy, why do we need the F-35? Does the F-22 suck? Are there shortcomings (don't discuss this here obviously)? And if is so, why are there?

If we are buying the F-35 to be a fighter (air-to-air), but we are going to employ it as a bomber, I think that is a mistake. 99% of the fighters I've refueled (F-14, F-15, F-16, F-117) were employed to be a bomber, but, the air-to-air capability was there.

For the record, I hate UAVs. I hate the thought of our machines fighting the enemy. I just don't think it is ethical. But then again, our enemies today don't seem to want to play by the rules.

-Fatty

 

Air supremecy is just one of those items that F-22 and F-35 bring to the table. However when I say air supremecy, I don't just mean the ability to fly around at will without being shot at from an air to air threat. So why JSF, because it's cheaper per copy(relatively speaking) and it has a very robust air to ground capability as well that necessarily isn't captured with F-22. Can the Raptor perform that mission? Sure, but in a limited role. It's the same reason we have or had at one time 6 different airplanes(A-6, A-10, F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18) to do arguably the same mission, dropping bombs.

I don't discount the spending required to maintain or sustain these programs, nor do I support robbing from Peter to pay Paul at the expense of degrading another community's mission but at some point the food fight for $$ has to be won and in the case of JSF with the international support and funding it has, that will win out IMHO.

 

I don't mean to poke my nose into a conversation where I have no credentials... and this is just an outsider observation:
Our primary focus is non-state groups like various terrorist and insurgents. Our military has put a lot of attention (and rightly so) into that particular threat (i.e. UAV). There is, however, states with growing power. The African Union, headed by Muammar Kadhafi... and Mr. Putin of Russia who has enormous support of the Russian people. These states growing combined with a growing demand for oil, etc.... could possibly summon the need for semi-conventional war-fighting aircraft. I would suspect that insurgency will dwindle down as larger states come to power (i.e. kind of an inverse of Iraq).
I personally think the JSF is not exactly the best designed fighter, however the lower cost per unit will hopefully weigh against the quantity threat of these states coming to power. Just from a tactical perspective... wouldn't it seem like UAVs right now wouldn't last long against a well designed semi-modern air defense net from a larger state?

 

You are absolutely right about one thing in your post Ryan and that is that you don't plan for the current war - but the one looming over the horizon. I doubt that you will ever see a decrease in the near future of the asymmetrical warfare though; as more and more non-state actors can engage in this type of combat than ever before and there is no reason to believe that with state support that this will decrease. The fact is that with the collaspe of the Soviet Union and the 'Eastern Bloc' that many thought the time of more conventional (or semi-conventional as you say) warfare might have been a thing of the past. This thought process ignores current state actors like North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan, a reemergent Russia, and China which some continue to grow in influence.
I'm not sure why you don't think that the F-35 is a well designed fighter or where you are drawing these conclusions from; but it will be a leap of technology above anything that we currently have and I would expect some very nice capabilities to come from this aircraft in both the A/A and A/G roles; although it is a UGLY duckling in my humble opinion!

USMCFLYR

 

Well sir,
It isn't that the F-35 is not well-designed... I believe it isn't the best designed fighter. However you are certainly right in that it is improved over existing technology. It would just seem that there will be a lot of mx problems to come.... but hopefully that won't be the case. As far as asymmetrical warfare decreasing...there are many, many different possible outcomes for that... and I'm certainly not the expert.

 

I don't know about the mx issues either - but I'll agree with you that every time I see that rear part of the engine rotating on the STVOL version I get a chill up my spine wondering how many pieces have to work perfect for that complicated machinery to operate as designed! Well...I don't worry about for myself but for the future aviators to come

USMCFLYR

 

What testing? At the McKinley Climatic Hangar or with the locals?

Have been in the Climatic Hangar a few times.. wow.. what a facility. We went in during a 95F summer day and they were doing arctic testing with temps below zero.. slight shock for us.

 

I would submit that in a fighter-bomber role, the A/C needs to be able to be an air-to-air fighter all the way into the target, drop its bombs and be an air-to-air fighter all the way back home. Just because it is not designed to be an Air Dominance machine, it still has to be able to fight its way in and out.