Air Force Campaigns to Save Jet Fighter

NY Times ^ | January 13, 2005 | LESLIE WAYNE

[GBA]

"I love this plane and am a pilot myself but it's clear we own the skies with or without this plane."

We have better training and thus, better pilots. But we don't necessarily have the best airplanes. We used to, but not any more. So while we do "own the skies" for now, it is unclear how much longer that will be true. All of our current fighters and bombers are decades old designs. Do you really want to bet the lives of our pilots and those who depend upon them to complete their missions that we will forever own the skies?

[GBA]

Have you seen the advanced G suits the Typhoon pilots are wearing that are designed for sustained 9G manuevers?

[Nowhere Man]

Can we compromise and build the Avro Arrow? B-D



I don't know how I feel about the F-22 and F-35, I guess we need to keep up and build some, do we need a lot of them, it depends. If the USSR was still around, we would really need to, depending how far technology would have gone in the USSR. War on Terror, I don't think we need as many F-22, heck, if you really want to go bare bones, you can bring back the P-47's, P-51's, Ju-87 Stukas, A-1 Skyraider and Gloster Gladiator (British made 1930's era biplane, Finland used them) and other such pre-World War II and World War II aircraft, maybe add some modern electronics for the smart bombs and countermeasures and off you go and probably do just as well if the missions are to attack ground targets and terrorist camps. Sic some P-47's and Stukas on Fallujah and you'll get much the same result.

The crumpler is although the USSR is gone, we still have Russia, Red China, India, the EU and so on who we cannot rule out as being adversaries in the future. So we need to keep pace with them of not a step or two ahead. Still even so for now, we don't need as many F-22's and I'm sure our F-14's, F-15's, F-16's and F-18's (and others) will be adequete for some time to come. If things get really bad, maybe go to the boneyard and get the F-4's operational. B-)

The future is murky and these questions have to be answered and scenarioes dealt with.

[fallujah-nuker]

You wrote "The F-22 is the Modern UASF version of the B-36."

Is this a reference to the revolt of the admirals in 1949?

[zzen01]

What do you think?

[Archangelsk]

A few months ago, I got into a debate with our resident Tomcat driver, Pukin Dog, over this issue. I said at the time that the F-22 program would be cancelled and he answered that the first squadron was on its way to Langley and that they already had the the footprint laid out, etc. etc. etc.

Sorry Puke, I won and I'm not gloating. The internecine battles over programs like this usually doom the product and I believe that the F-22 is being sacrificed for the F-35 (JST), and is just one more nail in the coffin of Boeing.

CN 18F you can you please address the Boeing issue considering the 767/C-17 debacle that's unfolding.

[fallujah-nuker]

I do not know, I was asking you if it was. I suspect it may be because there was a magazine article critical of the B-36 at the time titled "The Billion Dollar Blunder." My dad served on the B-36 in the mid to late 50's, by that time they had added a pair of J47's on each wing and deleted all guns except the tail. The version he was on was the B-36J Featherweight III, he said they had a pretty high ceiling and at altitude they could hold their own against the fighters of the day, but not with the century series that were entering service.

[Tallguy]

I am no Air force expert, but I do not like the idea of a UAV doing CAS. Sure, UAV's are great for recon and some ground attack roles, but CAS is too tricky with friendly's in close proximity.

Yes, but they'd be a whole lot more cost effective at the deep battlefield (interdiction) role. Put a flight of networked UAV's on a Wild Weasel strike and watch the fun begin. Just lighting off a ground tracking radar would be tatamount to sticking you hand into a hornets nest.

[Tallguy]

The A-10 is so rugged and simple that it is sometimes the ONLY aircraft immediately available to support the frontline troops. When you are operating in a primitive environment like Afghanistan, it is a perfect choice. When the Russians were in the 'Stan, they utilized trainers & light strike planes to do most of the dirty work, and they had all kinds of aircraft to chose from.

[GBA]

You've been quite clear about your superior knowledge in this matter, so I'm very curious. If the F-22 is a "POS", as you say, what should the DOD, the Air Force and the other PTB have chosen?

Are you claiming as others have that we will have air superiority forever w/o new designs such as the F-22?

Or are you one of those who believes that pilot-less aircraft are our future air force?

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I am curious as to how you would answer those questions.

[King Prout]

the Air Force is dominated by fast-mover-lovers.

I say: Dissolve the fixed-wing provisions of the Key West Accords and give the Hog to the Army and Marines.

Problem solved.

[King Prout]

ok, fellow, I've read enough of your vague castigations.

be specific.

name defects.

name flaws.

give some documentation to back up your bile.