Posted on 02/22/2010 6:32:13 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The first flight of Russia's stealthy PAK-FA is the best recent example of the problems examined in the United States Defense Science Board report on “Capability Surprise”, released in September last year. This study is an important step forward in identifying the causes of many past, current and developing strategic failures. A capability surprise arises whenever an opponent makes use of a new capability, or uses an existing capability in a different way, catching the target or victim off guard1.
Al Qaeda's use in September, 2001, of passenger laden hijacked aircraft as cruise missiles was a good example of a capability surprise.
The PAK-FA is, but at many more levels, another case of capability surprise for Western military leaders.
The DSB study divides capability surprises into two broad categories, and makes some important observations:
Capability surprise can spring from many sources: scientific breakthrough in the laboratory, rapid fielding of a known technology, or new operational use of an existing capability or technology. A review of many surprises that occurred over the past century suggests that surprises tend to fall into two major categories:
(Excerpt) Read more at ausairpower.net ...
We have a winning post!!!
I think they make what the government buys.
The F-22 is clearly superior to the F-35.
But, I believe that there is an unmanned aircraft waiting in the wings. Which can take down any manned aircraft.
Regardless of what you did with the stimulus money, it’s money we don’t have to spend and leads to the same place.
Sure we do.
Same place we’re getting all the rest.
Now is the time.
Actually, that is precisely the problem! Rather than championing the F-22, they can kowtow to Gates and eliminate the Raptor and get the money back in spades with the F-35 crap sandwich.
I wouldn't bet my life on that being the the number of planes bought by the DOD. The Navy is seriously thinking about backing out of the program in favor of the X-47B UCAV which is slated to start carrier trials sometime this year. And it might be a wise decision on their part.
The F-35C almost creates more problems than it solves. It's a big jet, which means it takes up more deck space and causes a reduction in the number of deployable jets. I read somewhere that the max number of C's a carrier could sail with is 44. The UCAV is smaller than an F-18C which means more available strike aircraft.
But the real drawback of the C is combat radius. It just doesn't have the legs the Navy is needing. I think it maxes out at 600km. The X-47B is estimated at 2000km depending on warload. And with it being a tailless design it has much better LO characteristics which makes it a better first-day deep strike weapon.
A better use of the Navy's money might be to max out the capabilities of the Super Hornet and team it with the UCAV.
The F-22 and F-35 won't be facing each other in combat. Comparing what they do an how that perform in that respect....it doesn't make much sense. I look at it this way: Our previous air superiority fighter, the F-15 whipped its comtemporaries. While the F-16 and -18 (originally the -17) were developed as LWFs, they transistioned well into the multi-role niche and could still take their adversaries in the air to air arena.
Considering we took aircraft originally designed for air combat and made them successful in other areas, I am confident we've learned a thing or two and will make a fine true multi-role fifth generation model. If Lockheed/Martin brings us another multi-role aircraft as "poor" as either the -16 or -18, I think we'll be just fine.
Actually, it's 600 n mi, not km. Maybe that's what you meant, I am not sure. I agree the UCAV would be a good investment and may provide the future technological edge to offset potential enemy development of stealth aircraft.
You’re right. I also made the same mistake in ranging the UCAV in km instead of NM. And I jumped the gun on sea trials, which aren’t until 2012. This year they start ground testing.
Both are designed for a different role. However, depending on who's flying, the aircraft could become irrelevant with any of the previously mentioned models.
You are correct, though, concerning the UCAV. Its development will have an impact on many roles like defense suppression, strike, and interception. If developed properly, it would likely outperform any manned aircraft, given it would be capable of maneuvers not possible by a human pilot.
Again, whatever.
You'd be surprised what happens sometimes. When I was young, I remember hearing a lot of complaining about how Carter cancelled the B-1 program. Much to my surprise, I found out years later the Have Blue project was funded during 1976-79 and the decision to build the F-117 was made in 1978.....under Carter, of all people.
We survived the reign of FDR. We survived the inept Carter. We'll survive Zero, as well and may even be shocked one day to see what made it through.
I keep on saying this. What we have seen is a single prototype make two flights. The rest is public relations.
We do not know how this aircraft is going to stack up against the F-22, F-35 or even current birds like the F-15 or the F-18. We only know what the Russians said it was going to do once it is all fixed up and out the factory door.
Pardon me for being skeptical of the Ruskis, but they have been known to bluff before.
Obozo is firmly committed to the ruination of the US military and won’t fund anything!
Capability surprise : Anti Shipping Ballistic Missile (ASBM) Chinese DF-21
I believe that was China’s first solid fuel rocket
They have a ASAT version of that missile.
The F-22 was also meant to be produced in large numbers - almost 800 airframes. However that was cut to around 300, then further cut to 187. At the original numbers, the F-22 would cost less per unit than the F-35.
Second, it will have multi-role capability.
The F-22 is also capable of multi-role capability. In fact, it can be argued that it is BETTER than the F-35 for strike against a foe with an advanced IADS since the Raptor was meant to be a very capable IADS penetrator with its all aspect stealth as well as its high kinematic performance (unlike the F-35 whose stealthiness is most geared towards X-band and its kinematic envelop). With small-diameter bombs (which it can carry 8 internally) launched at s'cruise from high altitude, the Raptor can defeat any current IADS (including double digit SAMs) without problems.
Third, it will be in service with the other branches of the armed forces, operating from forward bases with STOVL and CV (carrier variant) models.
The F-35 is definitely needed for the Marines (due to the STOVL aspect), however one of the reasons the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23 BlackWidow was because of the NATF function (that was thereafter cancelled) that asked for a navalised ATF. The F-22 can be navalised. Anyways, against a REAL foe (not Operation Desert Storm against the Iraqi airforce, or Operation Urgent Fury where F-15s were providing air superiority cover over Grenada, or Operation Nobel Anvil where we faced the decrepit MiG-29s of the Yuglosav airforce .....I am talking about a real foe that employs modern tactics, has modern weapons including BVR and standoff weapons, employs the use of jammers, and has battlespace awareness) like say China, it will be interesting how well the F-18s and F-35s would do. Against the 'usual' threat ...even modernized F-4 Phantoms will warmed over avionics and better weapons could MORE than suffice ...however someday the US may have to fight an opponent who comes close on a qualitative basis (a near peer).
All you who short stroke it over the F-22 should remember the F-35 is produced by the same firm, Lockheed/Martin. I think they know what they're doing.
Yes, LockMart definitely knows what it is doing. A professional firm that has delivered good equipment. However, it also knows (as does the Pentagon and Congress) that the F-35 is not as good as the F-22 due to the roles they were meant to play. The F-22 was the big dog that was supposed to be BOTH an air-dominance fighter as well as an advanced IADS penetrator, while the F-35 was supposed to come in and mop up. In that regard both are flawless. The problem happened when the Raptor when from almost 800 to only 187, and as recently as a month ago talk started coming up of how the F-35 will also replace F-15s (when originally it was supposed to replace F-16s, 18s, Harriers and A-10s). LockMart knows what it is doing ...it is a great firm ....however, Volkswaggen is also a great firm, and it owns Lamborghini and Audi. While it knows what it is doing, it would be ludicrous for it to start offering Audi A-8 (a very good luxury car) as replacement for a Lamborghini Murcielago ....when the competition will be half-way between a Ferrari F-430 and an Audi R8.
Our previous air superiority fighter, the F-15 whipped its comtemporaries.
Yes it did. It beat the Iraqi and Yugoslav airforces...in much the same way that the LA Lakers would trounce the Iraqi and Yugoslav basketball teams. To use my favorite analogy ...if Indian SU-30MKIs flew against Pakistani F-16s, the bloodbath would be just as skewed ...only this time it would be the F-16s dropping. The Indian Sukhois, backed by their Israeli sourced Phalcon AESA radar, and against the F-16As without real BVR capability (though Pakistan will soon be changing that), would be similar to a USAF F-15 backed by AESA coming up against an Iraqi Mirage without a chance in hell.
Considering we took aircraft originally designed for air combat and made them successful in other areas, I am confident we've learned a thing or two and will make a fine true multi-role fifth generation model.
There are several air-superiority fighters that have been turned into great multi-role/attack fighters ....however the opposite direction does not work.
Totally agree. It is never as black and white as things sometimes appear. For instance, Obama recently agreed to a several billion dollar arms package to Taiwan (even as China blew itself hoarse). Obozo is a bozo, just as Carter was what he was, but that doesn't mean the utter and total destruction of the military. The inverse also applies ...most blame the 187 Raptors on Obama when it was under Rumsfeld that the Raptor numbers were cut to 187. Others complain that the navy was left with only F-18s and the F-14 should never have been cancelled but instead updated, when the TomCat was axed by direct orders by Cheney way before he became VP. Rather than black and white it is darker and lighter shades of gray.
I certainly hope so, but the 'wings' could be 20 to 50 years before the thing is sufficiently autonomous that it can fight without an active datalink. That is roughly the lifespan of a fighter aircraft type.
History is full of dead aircrew because some congresscritter said:
"The Japanese couldn't make a quality fighter. They only used our scrap steel and beercans."
"The Germans couldn't shoot down a B-17...It's a flying fortress with 13 .50 calibre machine guns."
"What's a MiG-15?"
"We don't need guns on the F-4 those missiles will never let the enemy get close enough."
"Russian SAMs can never shoot down a high flying plane."
We won the cold war, we are in danger of losing the peace that follows. Whenever we are not prepared to fight the next war, we pay the price in blood.
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.