Well, there’s also the possibility of an outbreak of fighting with China over Taiwan, or with North Korea over the Korean peninsula or their nuclear program. Iran is an issue potentially. Russia has been flexing it’s military muscle lately, presumably in an effort to remind everyone that they are still relevant.
So yeah, if the USA wants to remain as a superpower, then yes, we have to stay ahead of the curve and be prepared to have to fight an enemy other than terrorists.
Yes its long term thinking (and basic common sense) to beleive that some super power will emerge to challenge US dominance.
The idea that US will continue unmolested as the world’s only superpower indefinitely is incredibly naive. At some point another power will emerge to challenge it military. Who they are and who confrontational they will be is harder to predict, but common sense say you should plan for the worst (i.e. that they will be real jerks about it, and we will need to confront them militarily).
Just like Herodotus said:
My point was that they were trying to fight the last war. Sure, they had very modern tanks (without radios), a decent air force (without the high levels of training of their pilots) and decent small arms and infantry (while relying on their fixed defenses in place of training of their infantry). They spent a large percentage of their military budget on fixed defenses because they couldn’t project how things could change.
By essentially using old air frames and attempting to simply cram in new technology we would be making similar mistakes…and at some point in the future when we weren’t facing AQ fighting from caves we’d pay the price. Or our sons would, anyway. The thing is, the US military is mostly about deterrence, not really about fighting (our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq not withstanding). The F-22 is part of making sure that the US has one of, if not THE most advanced fighter in the world…instead of continuing to rely on a fighter air frame that was designed and built in the 70’s and has been constantly upgraded since then.
Yeah, they cost a lot. But, the US has been pretty good about getting a lot of mileage out of our weapons systems. Someone up thread mentioned the F-16…my guess is that there are a lot of 'dopers who weren’t even born when that fighter was originally designed. For that, I wasn’t born when the B-52’s were first rolling off the assembly line. If we get that kind of mileage out of the new F-22 then it will be a bargain.
-XT
During the Serbia/Kosovo incident we shot down MIG 29s, F15s, and F16s. We would’ve had to shoot down planes in the invasion of Iraq, but they knew our superiority and the pilots wouldn’t take to the skies.
When was the last time the US engaged in a tank battle prior to the beginning of WW2? I guess they shouldn’t have been designing and building tanks then. When was the last time a missile was fired at one of our ships? Might as well stop ordering ship defense missile systems.
Obviously conflict with another advanced nation in the future is possible. That nation will probably have a fighter with capabilities similar to the F15 (or F15s themselves) or even moderately better. There are other more modern planes than the F15/F16 - I only brought up the SU-27 because as an airframe it is probably the most capable mass production fighter available today.
Seriously? I have to explain why it’s better for us to be able to shoot down another air force with few to zero losses rather than suffering more losses than kills? Or what the threat of being able to do that brings to ward off a potential conflict?
Modern weapon systems have a very slow development time, it often takes over a decade from when a request for a weapon system is sent out and when the system actually reaches operational status. In order to forego advancing our warplanes, we need to be confident that we wouldn’t have any use for them in the next 15 years or so, and that when we will need use for them, we’ll have a 15 year warning. But not only that, but because we’re not actively researching better technology, even when we do design a new system, it will still be generations behind where it could’ve been.
Part of the reason that we haven’t seen that much air to air combat has been because we’ve had a significant edge over the rest of the world for most of modern history. No one wants to challenge us. If we decide to stagnate rather than keep that edge, that could change.
Reopening production lines for those airframes would be expensive. So now you’re paying for research and development for a modernization program, the actual implementation of that modernization program, and reopening the production lines and producing these new airframes with the old design. At some point your marginal cost increases over simply developing a new and far more capable warplane isn’t that high.
And you’re totally confident that from here on out, no war will feature arial combat in a way we’d be familiar with?
Yes, this is true. But yet they still spend a lot of money to advance their military and still flex their muscles regionally. I think it’s naive to think that we can predict decades ahead into the future and see the political and military outlook of our potential competitors. But that’s what we need to do to be confident of remaining stagnant in weapons technology.
It was labelled a “stealth fighter” - fighter meaning intending to carry air to air weapons and fight other aircraft. But it’s actually a light bomber. Your cite just confirms that by talking about its bomber missions. It was given the F-117 designation (the F standing for fighter, just like the F15 and F16) to throw off any soviet spies who came across the designation.
Whee. I don’t know much about him.
This is a strawman, I never argued that the US would remain unmolested. So my argument can’t really be characterized as naive. I am asking about why spend on this tech as opposed to a different one.
Fair enough, you’re right. I thought you were making a point based on a false impression of the capabilities of the French army.
Ok, that’s more recently than I realized.
Well we had discernible enemies against whom we knew we’d be fighting with Tanks, and before WWII the Military Industrial Complex did not exist in the form it exists today, so we weren’t spending so much capital on tanks. We did well in World War II because we had plenty of time to prepare and also had the greatest industrial capacity in the world and just retooled it for military use. They weren’t mass producing tanks in 1925 because ‘Maybe’ we’d go to war in 1940.
Well if we fight F-15s how many nations we may have to fight would be able to supply the replacement parts themselves? Recently we screwed over Venezuela by refusing to sell them the parts for their F-16s, which caused them to have to replace their fleet.
More explain what the likelihood of massive aerial battles will be.
Slow indeed, there were F-22 toys coming out when I was still young enough to care, but just too old to buy them. So that’s more than 15 years since we knew what the airframe looked like.
Ok, but on a cost benefit analysis aspect, is there a reason it has to be at the level of the F-22? They couldn’t come in with a package that was 50m instead of 85m? Also you are welcome to correct me as to cost but 85m is the number I’ve heard quoted it just stuck with me. As I recall from when I was a teenager and a lot more into this kind of stuff an F-16 was coming in under $ 20m which is why they were so attractive.
That’s a fair point, but only up to a point. Would it really cost close to $ 80m per plane to start making F-15s with more advanced systems in them?
Not totally confident, but I’m also not totally confident that there will be one that will require the F-22.
Yes, it is naive to think we can predict decades ahead, which is why I am unsure about the Raptor. It is a multibillion dollar prediction that we may have to go to war with Russian or Chinese fighter jets.
No, not at all. Admittedly my response was a bit confused there. Obviously mswas didn’t get it either:
Leaving aside the French aspect, which I admit was confusing, how did the rest of my response not rebut what you were saying in the part I quoted? You are attempting to equate the sum total of US future military response in terms of a conflict with AQ…which is, to put it mildly, silly.
And this leave out the fact that the US military is more about deterrence than it is about simple combat. We haven’t had any major air combat battles in decades because no nation who isn’t one of our allies would dream of challenging us in the air, because our air craft and training were so obviously superior. However, had the US been content to stick with the F-4 and not bother developing the F-16 (after all, the F-4 air frames are STILL in use today…simply tack on some new electronics and there you go…right?), I don’t believe that this happy state of affairs would have continued…do you? After all, the Iraqi’s DID have more modern fighters than the F-4. And they did try and initially mix it up with us in the first Gulf War. It’s just that it didn’t work out so well for them.
However, 20 years from now you can bet that new 4th or 5th generation fighters will be available to the Iraqi’s of the time (the Europeans are developing them and so are the Russians. The Chinese will probably be developing them at some point as well)…and the F-16 will be approaching 50 years old. How well do you expect them to perform at that point?
-XT
I think we’re quibbling over semantics here. Are there any true fighter planes anymore that don’t have some bombing capability? Has there ever been?
You’re right about it being a sneaky bomber, I just disagreed with your assessment that it was only for counterintelligence purposes.
And Hood was a starting CB for the Cardinals last year, a position the Browns find themselves in dire need of, I think.
Your actual quote was:
So yes the point is a valid response. It IS naive to believe there will never be a rival power who will keep up with us in arms race. A technological rival WILL emerge in the future., and that’s what should be planned for. Assuming we will always be facing primitive irregular tropps is incredibly short sighted.
I actually do agree in the drone-vs-manned aircraft, debate. That drones WILL replace manned aircraft, VERY SOON. And investing in expensive manned aircraft is a bit like investing in the Maginot line (or my personal favourite the 1912 British Cavalry Sword, and absolutely amazing peice of military engineering that was out of date by century or so by the time it was issued). But the question to ask when choosing which weapon system to invest in should be “where will the state of the art will be in decades to come ?”, not “what is the best way to blow up a guy with an AK in a cave ?”
No, I understood it perfectly, it just wasn’t a response to what I said. Because I never argued that we shouldn’t build more advanced fighting equipment. I just questioned building more advanced JET FIGHTERS. Or specifically ones like the F-22.
I think that the vast majority of future conflicts will be urban combat, and that Jet Fighters are today as trench warfare was in World War II.
Here’s a question that has been on the tip of my tongue but I haven’t mentioned yet. What about supersonic bomber drones? Why not a $ 10m drone that just has two cruise missiles or to AAMs? with an eye on disposability? Rather than having a Jet Fighter at all? Just field 10 of those for every one F-22 you can field. if you can get the ratio against enemy fighters below 1:10 then we are winning.
Well I am not sure that the F-16 cannot be upgraded with better Avionics and such. But at the same time, why not missiles or armed satellites?
No it isn’t, because you are looking backward even farther than I am while accusing me of looking backward. I never said there wouldn’t be a rival power to challenge us in the future.
Well there you go, we’re in agreement. One of the hardest parts about creating a fighter jet is training the pilot. So if we can kill off their good pilots with drones and keep pumping out drones then we win.
The real problem with a war against China is really that we are dependent upon them for manufactured parts. That’s a far more pressing concern than dogfights over the Pacific. Maybe they should have worked on subsidizing certain factories in the US under the military budget with the idea that those factories had to always be ready to switch from Civilian production to wartime production at the drop of a hat. Create an ‘Industrial’ reserve system if you will.
There were? The contract wasn’t awarded until 1991, and the first plane wasn’t delivered until 2003, and they didn’t enter service until 2005!
And as for cost…you can’t compare a weapons program from the past in terms of dollars then to a current program in today’s dollars.
Yes, the Raptor is expensive, but so is everything else our government buys from contractors. And the Raptor is stuffed to the gills with new technology, and that shit costs a lot of money. The Reaper, the newer UAV costs $7 million each. And Lord only knows how much money it costs to build the control stations, maintain them, etc. Yeah it’s cheaper, but it is still more limited in capability than a piloted aircraft (for now).
If you think that we can replace fighters with drones soon, check out the very recent GQ thread on the subject. It is not as easy as many think. If all goes well, the Navy will have the first autonomous carrier based strike aircraft maybe in the early 2020s.
Here you go, mswas. They’re on the way…http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/04/airforce_predator_new_042709/
The last real gunfighter was the F-8 Crusader, while it may have had some capability to drop bombs, its air to mud weapons tended to be 5 inch rockets.
The F-102/106 were strictly air to air interceptors that had no bombing role.
The F-14 tomcat, was probably the last real fighter that had no bombing role intended, the upgrades that came with the D model, or the bombcat were an application of knowledge that came from the F-15 strike eagle, and the amount of F-18 hornets that were in fleet service made the tom available.
I think you might be mixing two separate concepts here.
Counter intel purposes meant that we knew the soviets would be sneaking around looking for data on the stealth, so I am guessing that we gave them what they were looking for ,and then muddied the waters , with revell the model manufacturer to come out with a fictional model called the F-119.
Counter intel with the aircraft usually means there is a pod onboard thats meant to screw with something on the other side or spy on them in some manner, or what that P3 was doing back in 2000, when the chinese got a bit miffed.
Declan
Well lets just hope mswas is right and we won’t have to face an adversary equipped with them before then. Remember China does not have an existing carrier fleet to design around (or possibly as many powerfull ex-fighter-jock officers resistant to pilotless aircraft, but somehow I doubt that, I imagine the feeling is universal) .
Air superiority is critical on the modern battlefield…unless one assumes all you’ll ever be fighting is a bunch of terrorists in caves in particularly hostile parts of the world like Afghanistan. Even then having air superiority is critical, but you are right…it’s not essential to have an air superiority fighter in that situation since your dominance of the skies will be unchallenged.
However, in terms of even a regional conflict it’s critical to be able to establish and project air superiority. That’s why in the first Gulf War the Iraqi’s DID try and challenge the US for air superiority (at least to contest locally). And you saw what happened to the Iraqi’s because they were unable to do so. The flip side though is that had Iraq actually been able to contest, even locally, for air superiority, things would not have gone as well for US. THAT’S the reason why the US needs to continue to push the envelop on fighter technology…without air superiority (both tactically and strategically) it renders a lot of our other military technology useless.
To shift the perspective a bit…there are good reasons that the Europeans and Russians are developing next generation fighters. And it really doesn’t have much to do with cock size or projection. It’s necessary…and they realize it.
I don’t think there is any basis for your assertion that jet fighters be rendered obsolete. In fact I think quite the opposite…even if your theory that future conflicts will revolve around urban settings is true. You would STILL need to impose and maintain air superiority…otherwise you’d be at the mercy of your enemies ability to interdict and strike you at will from the air using attack air craft.
Well, jet fighters have different roles than attack air craft, so I’m not sure what you are asking there. If your thought is to equip 10 drones for air to air for ever 1 F-22 then you are probably going to lose a lot of drones, at least with the current technology. My guess is that 20-30 years down the pike the 6th or 7th generation fighters probably WILL be ROV’s. The technology just isn’t ready for prime time (yet) for ROV’s to mix it up with something like an F-22, even at 10 to 1.
If your thought is to equip a bunch of attack air craft as drones for air to ground combat, well, we are doing that already and will continue to develop that technology. The problem is, the current state of the art for this technology isn’t up to the same level as manned attack craft…it’s not as versatile yet, being more niche oriented.
The F-16 can and has been upgraded with better avionics. But the air frame itself is becoming dated (the design)…it simply can’t compete with the F-22 even if you made one brand new today. It doesn’t have anything approaching the performance characteristics, it doesn’t have the stealth capabilities, even with upgrades it doesn’t have the same level of avionics since it wasn’t designed for them, etc etc. It’s just not in the same league.
This isn’t to take anything away from the F-16, mind…it was and still is a top notch fighter. It’s just getting a bit long in the tooth. I know the price tag on the F-22 is throwing you, but consider how long we had the F-16 in service. If we get the same longevity out of the F-22 then it really will be cost effective and will give us another level of force multiplication and capability that we currently don’t have. It will allow the US to continue to be one of the premier air forces in the world for the next decade or so.
As for missiles or armed satellites, I’m not sure what you mean there exactly. We already have missiles…but missiles don’t grant air superiority. I’m not sure what arming satellites would do for us, at least not wrt the role an F-22 plays on the battlefield.
-XT
If mswas thinks F-22’s are expensive, and envisions that armed satellites can fulfill the role that the F-22 currently fills, then I shudder to think how much an armed satellite would cost. And launch. And test it. And rearm it (with the space shuttle?).