Posted on 01/31/2008 9:02:42 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
The Reaper is just a souped-up contemporary UAV.It’s payload is far too less(about 2 tonnes) to replace any real combat aircraft & it’s air to air capability is minimal(poor speed,no big radar & just Stinger missiles).Even A Mig-21 can finish it off.
Editorial writers are always fighting the last war. It’s like saying the U.S. didn’t need to develop jet fighters after World War II because the Luftwaffe had been defeated.
No. Ever expanding social programs robbed our air force of funds that could have been more wisely spent. Even with the WOT the defense budget as a percentage of GDP is relatively low.
The United states spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[9] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.
Of course Sprey would think the F-22 is irrelevant. It doesn't match his philosophy of a lightweight, low cost, and low tech day fighter. If Sprey had his way, we'd still be flying Block 10 F-16s with no sniper pods, AESA radar, JHMCS, or AMMRAMs. We'd have tarmacs full of shiny aircraft that stay on the tarmac when it rains.
There is a need for both the F-15 and the F-16, and for the F-22 and F-35.
Of course Hillary could bring back Robert McNamara who would not only cancel the program, but order the tooling destroyed so you can never build another one.
Or Cheney as he did with the F-14.
You should find out who Pierre Sprey is before you dismiss his arguments.
bump
I know who Pierre Sprey is. Can I dismiss his arguments now?
Whoever wrote this clearly has never run a combat theater.
The A-10 is a great weapon, but its also one that requires air superiority to already exist to be effectual.
The A-10 is not going to get you to air superiority, once you have control of the skies, it can come in low, slow and tear the crap out of anything on the ground.
If your enemy has air superiority, the A-10 gets picked off like fish in a barrel.
The F22 is 1 shot 1 kill before the enemy even knows you are there... Its not designed simply for classic dog fighting, its designed so that the opposing pilot doesn’t even know you are there until he’s got a missle crammed up its butt.
The best trained pilots in the world, in the most advanced planes of previous generations aircraft, have been “shot down” every time they have engaged the F22 in exercises. In fact they have pitted single F22’s against many multiple aircraft at the same time, and every time the F22 has shot down every single plane without ever taking a “hit”.
The F22 is a good aircraft, and does what it is designed to do well. Its not meant to replace the A-10 or the B-2 or B-52... Its capabilities are to ensure air superiority, pick off ground to air defenses and capabilities in the early stages of a conflict etc.
bkmarking. Thanks 30.
I know Pierre Sprey/Spey (sp) quite well going back to the 1970's and the John Boyd days. As Yo-Yo said, Sprey's "lightweight fighter" scheme couldn't survive the first requirements analysis because an F-16 designed for only dogfighting was like taking a knife to a gunfight.
The F-16 that finally did emerge was successful because it was modified, as Yo-Yo has pointed out, with enough avionics, thrust, and smart weaponry to fight the entire spectrum of air-to-ground and air-to-air warfare.
A generation ago, Sprey/Spey/Spray type thinking gave us an F-4 with no gun and a carrier-defense air-to-air mission only. Its disastrous initial combat record in Vietnam required rapid modifications including guns, advanced missiles, bomb carrying capacity, and the first use of smart weapons.
You should learn something about our past experiences with PowerPoint generals before you speak on a complex subject like this. It's not Air Classics or Flying magazine.
One wonders if the authors have taken proper notice of the rate at which China is acquiring & building advanced aircraft — particulary the Sukhoi derivatives. Those planes are probably better than our F15’s when properly handled. The Chinese are also fielding AWACs. When the flight training catches up we’re going to have our hands full over the Taiwan Straits.
A cheaply-maintainable version of the P-51 Mustang might have served us well for close air support in both Iraq and Afghanistan
There are situations where the high-end whiz-bang is best for the job, and there are situations where the ability to field massive swarms of "good enough" gizmos gives superiority
In WW2, the Germans had the Tiger tank. It was a great tank, lots of firepower and great armor
Unfortunately, the Germans were only able to build 1,355 Tiger I and some 500 Tiger II tanks. Although the US Sherman and Russian T-34 were inferior tanks, the Germans faced over 40,000 American Sherman and 58,000 Soviet T-34s
Let's say we get into a war with China, and we're able to field 60 F-22's into theater, each being able to carry just 6 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders. Even assuming all missiles get hits, if the Chinese send a wave of thousands of UAVs against us, we're going to run out of missiles long before they run out of aircraft
I believe that American industrial might was the weapon that beat the Axis, along with the leadership of the Axis leaders, of course.
Michael Frazier
The Reaper can't out maneuver a P-51. It's a turbo-prop (propeller) plane with a top speed of 250 mph. It's not designed for air-to-air
You brought up the F86 experience in Korea. It’s one of the first things I thought of while reading this article. We never had very many of them in Korea. The MiG-15 was a technical match (better in some respects) and it was also far more numerous flying out of Manchurian bases. Still the small F86 force kept the MiGs off the strike forces so that the infantry got the fighter-bomber support it needed.
The only thing that bothers me about the F22 is the likelihood that it will be handcuffed by restrictive rules of engagement. Beyond-Visual-Range engagements are the Raptors bread & butter, but they are relatively rare. Usually the politicians & generals are too afraid of fratricide to allow the planes to shoot at radar targets. So I’m left with the nagging question: Is the F22 good enough in a close-in fight?
Spey & his “Fighter Mafia” were upset when the Air Force insisted that the F16 have radar. They wanted to build an even smaller craft - a pure dogfighter armed with sidewinders and cannon. Essentially they wanted an updated MiG17.
As a philosophy it is undeniably important, but let’s be real, Spey’s ideas, while influential, have always been a ‘minority report’. The AF fighter generals usually end up getting what they want.
The F51 was used in the ground attack role in Korea. It did well enough, but the P47 would have been better. The F51 Mustang was quite a bit more suseptible to damage from light weapons. The radial engines of the F4U5/A1U Corsair were able to drop cylinders & still operate. The Jug would have been the better choice from a technical standpoint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.