Rynizzle
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User: 
Posts:2578
 |
| 23 May 2009 12:47 PM |
�
|
Well I don't know if there are other examples...there very well may be. I'm sure there certainly are multiple guys that have been waxed sporting SA-7s on their shoulders thanks to UAVs and there probably are other AAA pieces that have been hit. The technology just came of age not too long ago. The point is...it CAN do it and it has. And it will do it better.
A UAV that can loiter longer and has a smaller signature is a better platform in any environment, permissive or otherwise, for SEAD. Of course the way we typically fight we obliterate a country's air defenses with cruise missiles first bringing me to my original point.
I agree that F-15Cs attempting to strafe are not a CAS platform and that is a single event. Personally I don't consider a mission to be CAS unless the enemy is within a click and a factor anyway. Otherwise it's just a ground directed interdiction mission as far as I'm concerned. But I don't know the details of this F-15C but I doubt it "saved the day." |
|
 Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
beast05
Private Message This User:
Posts:79
|
| 23 May 2009 02:39 PM |
�
|
Just wait until the newer, stealth UAVs get fielded. General Atomics has already made one, and it will have more capabilities than the current UAS platforms. The only negative will be a lesser time in orbit. The next operation we kick off will probably consist of these birds leading the way, and they will kick ass. |
|
 Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
FLZOOMIE
Private Message This User:
Posts:5
|
| 23 May 2009 03:24 PM |
�
|
You can't talk about the F-22 without mentioning China so I've got two questions for all the "we need the F-22 because of China" people
1. What scenario other than the defense of Taiwan do you see the US getting into a war with China.
2. Why in the world would the US risk nuclear war with a nation of over one billion people over the pseudo country of Taiwan. Why not Uruguay, how about Chile, they're a nice country and I actually know someone from that country.
Finally, if the F-22 is really only for China, why the hell don't we make the Taiwanese pay for it or at least let's call it the F-22 "Taiwan Defender" rather than the "Raptor" |
|
|
|
|
beast05
Private Message This User:
Posts:79
|
| 23 May 2009 03:40 PM |
�
|
If the US Government would allow the aircraft to be bought by allied nations, then the F-22 could be feasible, but it is still way too expensive. I agree that it is the most technologically advanced fighter, but we really do not need it. It hasn't flown in Afghanistan/Iraq from what I've read, and I wonder what we really need it for. The same could be said for the F-35 as well. |
|
| Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
FlyinCajun
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:227
|
| 23 May 2009 04:04 PM |
�
|
I wasn't saying we need them because of china, I was just using them as an example of a technologically equal or advanced opponent. Though I haven't entirely bought into the uav future, I also agree that the f-22 may have been a premature purchase. Our AF already holds air superiory with what we have. That being said it would almost seem more cost efficient to buy new 16s and 15s in fewer numbers to help maintain that capability, and leavig the 22 in super-duper classified files if the time made itslef ever apparent that a 5th generation, manned fighter was absolutely necessary. This woud allow funding for more advanced weaponry, upgrades to existing platforms, and dare I say it..uavs.
I need to go wash my mouth out with soap now!
Sent from my iPhone
|
|
|
|
|
Hacker
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:190
|
| 23 May 2009 08:22 PM |
�
|
Posted By FLZOOMIE on 23 May 2009 03:24 PM
2. Why in the world would the US risk nuclear war with a nation of over one billion people over the pseudo country of Taiwan. Why not Uruguay, how about Chile, they're a nice country and I actually know someone from that country.
Read any history lately? Google Chiang Kai-shek and you'll see why Taiwan is different than Uruguay and Chile. |
|
|
|
|
Hacker
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:190
|
| 23 May 2009 08:29 PM |
�
|
Posted By FlyinCajun on 23 May 2009 04:04 PM
Our AF already holds air superiory with what we have. That being said it would almost seem more cost efficient to buy new 16s and 15s in fewer numbers to help maintain that capability,
Anyone who says this doesn't know or understand the capabilities of either the current generation Russian and Gray-world fighters, nor the capabilities of current Russian and Gray-world SAM systems.
No. The F-15 and F-16 are NOT sufficient to operate in the Flanker/PL-12 and double-digit SAM era.
This makes as much sense as thinking we should have kept F-86s in service during Vietnam because they were essentially as good as MiG-15s and 17s.
Eagles and Vipers were superb for their time. That was 30+ years ago, and they are getting pretty elderly with respect to basic design -- as in, there isn't enough "new technology" to hang in those airframes to make them survivable against a double-digit SAM. Imagine P-51s serving in the mid 1970s...... |
|
|
|
|
Rynizzle
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:2578
|
| 03 Jun 2009 05:13 AM |
�
|
Before taking a tour of Alaska’s missile defense system, Defense Secretary Robert Gates first addressed the concerns of airmen at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage. The first question was asked was from a member of the anti-terrorism battalion, and centered around the tense situation in Pakistan. With growing violence between the Taliban in Pakistan in the Middle East… Gates says he’s encouraged by the Pakistani Government’s ability to fight back.“I think it really got the attention of the Pakistani Government. And so now, we’re seeing the Pakistani army and it’s political leaders acting in harmony, and really taking the fight to the enemy,” Gates said.Elmendorf is in the process of scrapping the older F-15 fighter jets and will move personnel to maintain the more advanced F-22 Raptors. Gates says even without the F-15 in the sky, the United States will remain unparalleled when it comes to air defense. “In 2020, the United States will have roughly 1,200 fifth generation combat aircraft; the Chinese will have zero. In 2025, the Chinese will have a few hundred; we will have 1,700 hundred fifth generation combat aircraft, plus another thousand fourth generation aircraft,” Gates said.Gates says the U.S. will continue its course of obtaining a total of 183 F-22 Raptors, with construction of that aircraft estimated to end in 2011. After his visit to Elmendorf, Defense Secretary Gates then traveled to Fort Greely near Delta Junction. Gates was taken inside a 70-foot deep missile silo along with Senator Mark Begich, fully equipped with a sliver-tipped ground-based interceptor. Gates says his proposed 1.2-billion dollar cut from missile defense next fiscal year doesn't leave Alaska or Hawaii vulnerable to an attack from North Korea. Gates says the administration intends to focus on perfecting missile defense technologies that are sure to work, while abandoning others that probably won’t be used, like airborne laser weapons. The cuts would halt construction of Fort Greely’s third 20-silo missile field and stop aquiring new interceptors. However, Gates said there's still about 1-billion dollars in the budget for the ground-based system at Fort Greely and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, in addition to radar and control centers. Recent nuclear and short range missile tests by North Korea has emphasized the importance of the U.S. defense systems. Gates says there’s little immediate threat of a North Korean launch against a U.S. target, but says what happens in the future is uncertain.“If anything, I think what the North Koreans have done has won more adherence to the importance of our having, at least, a limited missile defense capability,” Gates said.
Senator Begich says the budget process is still far from over, and changes to it are certain. Regardless of those talks, however, Begich says Fort Greely will remain active in U.S. defense for some time.
(KFQD News)
|
|
| Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Rynizzle
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:2578
|
| 13 Jul 2009 06:56 PM |
�
|
Interesting article on why the F-22 actually sucks from the Washington Post...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html |
|
| Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Hacker
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:190
|
| 13 Jul 2009 09:39 PM |
�
|
Seems like there are probably some valid points in there, but I just can't stand when articles are based on quotes from sources like this: "said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record" The big picture is this: once everyone gets over their Raptor biases -- either pro or con -- we're still left with the fact that this is our only option to replace a fighter fleet that is falling apart and is being sent to the boneyard. For better or worse, this is the airplane we have. There is no alternative...there is no other aircraft waiting on the bench that we can call in for the big game. The Raptor was designed in the 80s, for God's sake, and has taken literally 15 years to get operational. Does anyone really think that any OTHER fighter that is designed as a replacement for the current fighter fleet will be here on any timeline less than that? For anyone who thinks the Lightning is that alternative, I've got news for you -- it's not. People haven't even begun to rip that program apart. If you guys think the Raptor has problems, you should see what the F-35 looks like...it's a damn trainwreck. So, what exactly is the point? Do you want to take all these airplanes and park them in the boneyard because they're too expensive, or too maintenance intensive, or whatever the criticism of the week is? Talk about a waste of money. The Raptor is here...it is operational...and for better or worse, it's what we have. The squadrons are all ready in place...the airplanes are on the ramp, the pilots are trained, the tactics manuals have been written. Poking holes in it does nothing except to complicate an issue that all ready polarizes our service, the DoD, contractors, etc. The effort put into criticism of the Raptor would be much better spent making the airplane as capable as it can be in the role it fills. Got it...point made...now, if we give two shits about our Air Force we'll press on with the business of keeping ourselves (and our equipment) as lethal as possible. |
|
|
|
|
Brett
Private Message This User:
Posts:5
|
| 14 Jul 2009 11:36 AM |
�
|
This is a really interesting thread with many great points made (I seem to be on the fence with this particular topic), however I'm going to go a little off topic to a comment made earlier. What is the "culture war" within the Air Force that was previously mentioned? I'm still a "newbie" so please enlighten me!  |
|
|
|
|
Rynizzle
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:2578
|
| 14 Jul 2009 11:54 AM |
�
|
In my opinion, there is a war between those that "get it" regarding the spectrum of warfare and entrenched fighter leadership that prioritizes their slice of conventional capibilities first. On one side is entrenched leadership. On the other is the CSAF, Sec Def, and the minority that get it.
It's not unlike cultural wars that went on between TAC and SAC back in the day.
Sent from my iPhone
|
|
| Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Hacker
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:190
|
| 14 Jul 2009 01:31 PM |
�
|
In my opinion, there is a war between those that "get it" regarding the spectrum of warfare and entrenched fighter leadership that prioritizes their slice of conventional capibilities first. On one side is entrenched leadership. On the other is the CSAF, Sec Def, and the minority that get it.
It's not unlike cultural wars that went on between TAC and SAC back in the day.
Sent from my iPhone
Astute and accurate observation, although I think you miss the mark by mentioning the "entrenched fighter leadership."
Where specifically is this leadership that you speak of? IMHO, that "fighter mafia" which is often made the point of criticism doesn't exist. It used to exist, certainly...but where is "it" as a policy-making body of individuals today?
Certainly the sides of the battle you identify are correct...but I don't think that it's pointy-nosed guys on one side and everyone else on the other.
(I don't know why those first two sentences are bolded...it won't let me un-bold them, even when I try to re-type.) |
|
|
|
|
Rynizzle
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:2578
|
| 14 Jul 2009 07:38 PM |
�
|
You ask where specifically is this leadership I speak of that is entrenched and doesn't "get it." Well, I'll give answering that a shot.
First, I should point out that although our new CSAF is not a fighter guy he is only one man. I hope you'll agree that there are other senior leadership positions in the Air Force that are very important. Those positions are manned by mostly fighter pilots. Although somewhat dated I think it's still revelvant that fighter pilots are grossly over-represented in leadership positions (Danskine Article).
Now of those leadership positions I would suggest most of the fighter guys are of the "we need to buy more F-22s, concentrate on the theoretical war with China, and the move towards UAVs is overblown" crowd. Are there fighter pilots that don't think this? I'm sure. But I don't hear them talking. Please correct me if your experience is different. I'd love to be wrong on this issue and update my thoughts. I know you have an enlightened view (though I disagree about the need for more F-22s) but I don't hear guys like you speaking in fighter pilot leadership positions.
What I do hear is the ACC Commander General Corley making headlines for his conversation with the Congressman most connected to the F-22 where he states that the decision made by the Secretary of Defense and the President to limit the production of F-22s is "high risk" despite the decison having been made and debated (News Story).
What I also hear is a two-star F-15C pilot giving a speech to AETC student pilots in which he stated that we need to focus on the conventional war with peers like China, called Iraq and Afghanistan "skirmishes," and actually said we need to look at the morality of using UAVs because it took the "honor" out of combat! Really? I wonder if he stood up and said, "whoa...we can't do this F-15C radar thing because BVR takes the honor out of air-to-air." When a flag officer charged with defending the nation decreases the capability of the nation to conquer foes because he wants his own troops to risk their lives more....there is something wrong.
The message I hear is the same from the numerous fighter pilots I've dealt with in my PME and in my current job. The herd all moos the same for the most part. Now they are not in leadership positions....but the fact nearly every last one emits the same moo in cookie cutter unison shows their leadership is not encouraging discussion or debate. In fact, since our Secretary of Defense and our CSAF have made it very clear what is expected of the Air Force I would submit to you that this is evidence that their leadership is actually resisting the vector of our senior leadership by dragging their feet at a minimum.
You say the fighter mafia used to exist but doesn't anymore...where did it go and when? Both the flag officers I mentioned above are still serving.
You're right it's not pointy-nosed guys on one side and everybody else on the other. Unfortunately the majority of the Air Force lacks the SA to really know what side to be on. It's not a slam on them...they're just not as versed in warfare. But most of the Air Force has been trained for many many years to side with fighter pilots. They were the "warriors" of the Air Force yada yada. That is being challenged and needs to be further challenged so that people will understand there is a debate and begin to listen up. Right now the people that get it are a minority in the Air Force because only a minority of people do the fighting, it seems to me. That only makes sense. In the fighter community those with actual no-shit combat experience and SA are rare. I base that opinion on my current job where I ask fighter pilots every chance I get how many times they've deployed and if they've ever pickled in anger. I know there are guys like you out there that are exceptions to my blanket statement but it seems to me you are definitely an exception. Maybe I just haven't met many mudhen guys. I don't know.
There are those that get it in every community. They just need to speak up more and answer the leadership call that has been made by our Secretary of Defense. The fact that I don't hear such calls being made from the fighter pilot leadership may mean I'm just not privy (very possible) or it's just not being voiced very energetically. But I think it's telling.
Got any experiences to counter mine? |
|
| Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Rynizzle
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:2578
|
|
Brett
Private Message This User:
Posts:5
|
| 14 Jul 2009 11:57 PM |
�
|
Rynizzle: I think you've brought up many solid points to this debate that have made me ponder my own beliefs on this subject. The only factor that will obviously put this debate in place for me (and probably most people) is war with a strong, well structured and advanced enemy. Very interesting topic to chat about! |
|
|
|
|
Rynizzle
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:2578
|
| 15 Jul 2009 07:29 AM |
�
|
Don't get me wrong... We have to be prepared for the conventional enemies of the future, as well. And NOBODY in my experience is saying otherwise except fighter pilots painting a false dichotomy of "you want to fight the 'skirmishes' of today at the expense of real wars of tomorrow." But the Sec Def and every other professional warrior I know realizes we must do both. I personally disagree that the F-22 is the right answer in how to do that, however. I think there are better ways to prepare for the conventional war with China and it involves UAVs. Another fantasy I hear from most fighter pilots is that some how UAVs are limited to the wars we do today? Really?? What the hell prevents us from taking out an enemy IADS with UAVs? The biggest problem I have with that "side" of the cultural war is while they may have some good points to ponder the fact is they have acted liked little spoiled children that need to get their recalcitrant little asses spanked (years ago they might have been taken to a firing squad in our time of war) and they have no credibility. The unprofessionalism from this group has been staggering. Again I know there are good fighter pilots out there that get it...they just need to start raising their voices and being heard despite the punishments they will no doubt endure from their "bros."
At the end of the day, we can't forsake the two wars we're in NOW to "prepare" with the unlikely war with China in the future. No matter how much we and our buddies really really want to sell F-22s. |
|
| Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Hacker
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:190
|
| 15 Jul 2009 10:56 AM |
�
|
re: fighter pilot mafia...
Without taking the time to craft a more well thought-out reply (which I don't have time to do during academics!), let me just make this broad-brush statement:
If there were truly a "fighter mafia" at the executive leadership levels of the AF that was pushing an "anti-UAV, pro manned fighter" agenda, then we wouldn't be retiring masses of pointy-nosed fighters while buying dumptruck-loads of UAS.
The fact that this is happening means that such a "mafia", even if existent, doesn't have the power to push any agenda in the way that so many people in the AF espouse.
I don't disagree that there are a large number of pointy-nosed pilots who think in the way that you've painted them...but it doesn't represent some shadow power organization that is plotting to overthrow the leadership and impose their dastardly ways.
Just like we talked about, everyone -- including you and I -- are products of their upbringing. You see things in a way that is slanted by your community's beliefs and your experiences, just like I do. If you take a step back and factor this into your beliefs, then it's much easier to get closer to what I consider to be 'the truth'. The attitudes you have toward them (and the words you use to describe it) closely mirror the way that the "spoiled children" speak back at those outside of their community. This really doesn't do anything to break down the rivalry....with everyone hiding behind their fortifications and lobbing hand grenades at each other, nobody can progress anywhere.
The answer is for everybody to put aside their prejudices the best they can and attempt to look at things as objectively as they can (and fully realizing their inherent prejudices and biases based on their upbringing, education, and experiences). Only then can we actually find the right way forward. Anything else simply perpetuates -- or fans the flames of -- the "class war". |
|
|
|
|
ENmafia
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:409
|
| 15 Jul 2009 11:23 AM |
�
|
"To Gersten, it's not a question of fighter jets over remote-controlled airplanes – the future will require both." I think this quote is lost in most of this discussion. A mix of UAVs and Fighters going forward makes us more versatile and more combat capable IMO. Do we really want to hang our hat on UAVs needing Secure Comm and working satellites with not a single manned fighter?
Ryniz it seems like you won't sleep until the Raptor program is canned, the F-35 is canceled and replaced with UCAVs, and every fighter pilot is forced to retire or not allowed a high leadership position?
It seems like those wanting to shift the culture of the AF want to do away with all fighter pilots and fighters in general. Hopefully the fighter haters and UAV pilots who might eventually run the Air Force don't won't overcompensate for their hatred of the community and make us a UAV only force...it would seem as though many people want it that way and I wonder if it is because of their vendetta against fighter pilots more than their logic. Let's hope prejudices don't get in the way but more than likely they will as they have before.
Why can't we have both? Do people on here really think we will fully and completely get rid of the human element in the air with all the questions that have been raised? Can we really feel safe knowing that all a peer enemy has to do is hack our computer systems or get into our comm network and crash our UAVs or send them back on us? |
|
| ENJJPT Class 10-08 "Tators" Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|
Rynizzle
Team WantsCheck
Private Message This User:
Posts:2578
|
| 15 Jul 2009 11:43 AM |
�
|
Posted By Hacker on 15 Jul 2009 10:56 AM
re: fighter pilot mafia...
If there were truly a "fighter mafia" at the executive leadership levels of the AF that was pushing an "anti-UAV, pro manned fighter" agenda, then we wouldn't be retiring masses of pointy-nosed fighters while buying dumptruck-loads of UAS.
The fact that this is happening means that such a "mafia", even if existent, doesn't have the power to push any agenda in the way that so many people in the AF espouse.
As usual, you make many good points. I do think your logic above is flawed. Just because we are moving in the UAS direction more rapidly doesn't mean such a mafia (or culture) doesn't exist. It does exist but it does so under a President and Secretary of Defense and CSAF that are forcing a cultural change. This cultural change being forced implies resistance. That resistance is from a culture of fighter pilots (particularly in leadership positions) that are not as onboard as they should be IMO. I agree with you the mafia isn't as powerful as they once were (and my money is they will be less powerful in the future) but they are still there. Case in point...the ACC/CCs recent statement which required the CSAF and the Sec/AF to respond to his remarks publically to again assure the public that his "concerns" had been factored in when the decision was made previously. There is a culture that is pushing its agenda and its working with members of Congress (not in our chain of command in case anybody was wondering) and is requiring our Secretary of Defense to have work overtime to get people to salute and sally forth. Now I like a good dissent to keep the boss doing the right thing as much as the next guy...but this is not a matter of the right thing. This is a matter of money and that's it. There is NO WAY that the SecDef and the President are thinking, "Yeah, that makes sense, we really do need 380+ F-22s to make us truly safe but we would rather battle Congress, the defense establishment, and the fighter pilots in the Air Force because we don't have anything else going on." That's not how it's going down. Whether you like President Obama or his Bush-appointed Secretary of Defense I can assure you that is not what is going on. It's people who make money off the F-22 in league with people who go to work post-retirement for such companies and who realize the reigns of power on the Air Force are tied to the F-22 who are acting like spoiled bitches when they should be working on our two current wars.
ENmafia, I don't hate fighter pilots. I hate officers that don't have their priorities straight and then make it harder for leadership that DOES to protect our interests around the world including the man with the rifle in the trenches. Right now, I find many such officers in the fighter pilot community.
Should there be manned and unmanned? There may be a room for both. I'm open to it. But it won't look anything like it does today. |
|
| Click here to view my Pilot Slot Statistics |
|
|