Replies

You can include the T-34 tank from the Soviets as well. I always argued that we need more of an F-5 (well, F-20 to be more up to date) type vs F-22. Perhaps we can see a middle ground with an updated F-15 wit the F-15SE Silent Eaqle, either or, you have more proven technology with various tweaks to update it.

What you say makes a lot of sense. The only question I would ask is doesn't it make it more of a fair fight for any potential adversary? By this I mean that a F-20 type fighter (or for that matter, a middle-ground technology like an updated F-15) would be easier for an enemy to match. Already the latest generation Flankers are a match for Eagles/SHornets, and will continue to be so as they get AESA MMRs and better engines. I am not saying that the Chinese or Russian airforce would defeat the USN/USAF (or even the Australian airforce's SHornet force), because any modern engagement in the air has more to do with systems (e.g. the coalesced/force-multiplied result of the fighter+the training+the support systems+networking+situational awareness etc). So, it doesn't mean that the PLAAF will be defeating the USN/RAAF anytime soon ...but the fact does remain that when it comes to airframes the latest foreign analogues are become a match (or more in some specific areas) vs legacy Western fighters. Which brings up the 'what if' the foreign forces invested in training and networked support systems with enhanced/augmented situational awareness?

Anyways, that is my concern. That investing in F-20 type (actually, let me focus on F-15 type since in your post you mentioned updated Eagles like the Silent-E) ...that investing in updated Eagle variants basically puts us at closer parity with foreign forces than we would have with the Raptor. An updated Eagle would have better avionics, and in particular an AESA MMR. So will the upcoming Flankers who are already testing their own AESAs, and in some cases engines capable of low-level supercruise. Again, it doesn't mean they will win! I would rather be part of a flight of South Korean F-15K updated-Eagles than in a flight of SU-35s flown by (insert non-Western airforce here), but in terms of individual airplane vs individual airplane the gap that was there between the MiG-23 and the F-14 TomCat will simply not be there between the SU-35 (and similar evolved Flankers) and the F-15K/SG (and similar evolved Eagles). The two airframes, with AESA radars and updated avionics, and more or less equal. That is dangerous in a fight against a near-peer adversary, because it is a fair fight and in fair fights it might be your nose that is bleeding. What about the F-15SE? Well, it is basically a F-15K type updated-Eagle that has weapon bays molded into its conformal tanks (and other stealthy treatments like canted tails and RAM coatings) to enhance its RCS. Well, there has also been some work on a similar system for the Flanker (link: http://paralay.com/bm/flanker2010.jpg), to create more or less a 'Silent Flanker.' Again, even if it is not to the level of the Silent Eagle (I am sure their knowledge of RAM coatings for instance may not be as advanced as that of the West), the fact still remains it is a far larger gap than existed between the MiG-23 and the F-14 (or even between the MiG-29/SU-27 vs the F-15). It becomes more and more a fair fight, with the only advantage in the West's favor being its better training, far better situational awareness/networking, and (put together) a better system. That advantage is sufficient to ensure the Blue Side wins against the Red Side, but what if the Red Side puts more money into training and more funds into situational awareness? Then what?

Hence the Raptor in my opinion. Even against new airframes (such as the PakFa and the various J-XX Chinese variants, of which the first - the J-20 - popped up earlier this year) with higher stealthy ratings than legacy fighters, the Raptor is still better than those fighters. Furthermore, the Raptor still has loads of growth potential, meaning that by the time the PakFa/JXX gets to a point where it is equal to the F-22A, by that time there might be a F-22C (or even a new aerial fighting system, in much the same way that by the time the advanced Flankers started becoming a match for the F-15s people were talking F-22).

As for cost - yes, I agree the cost is a bother. No doubt. However, new build F-15SG (basically an upgraded F-15E sold to the Singaporeans that has an AESA radar) types are going for over $100m (I am actually quite curious as to the cost of the F-15SG to Singapore, because the cost of the F-15K to South Korea, which doesn't have an AESA radar, was $100m per plane in 2006 ...which makes me wonder what the same plane with an AESA would be? Basically currently F-35 costs for a plane that is 4.5gen). Thus, if that is the cost of the middle-ground, isn't it better to get actual stealthy fighters than 4.5gen fighters for almost the same cost?

Another alternative would be to enhance some of the avionics of existing fighters (e.g. putting AESAs into current F-16s - for instance the RACR and SABR 'commercial' AESAs that can be put into existing Vipers), but that would also be an expensive proposition.

If I had my way, and in regards to American national defence I do not (which may be a good thing lol), what I would do is keep the current numbers of F-22As (that Bush and Obama froze). However, I would open the production lines for F-22Cs (the proposed variant that had smart skin, side-facing radar in the cheeks, advanced EODS from the F-35, etc) and build maybe 2-3 hundred of them (the sunk cost was already paid for). That's a total force of about 450 Raptors (the 186 As and the rest Cs). I would also ensure that the F-35 program has a fire lit underneath its behind. As a safety measure, there would be an ongoing process on delving into possible mid-life upgrades for the newest build F-15/16/18s as a safety-net measure just in case the F-35's problems are too complex from a commercial perspective.

Anyways, sorry for the long post. I could have summed it far more succinctly by simply saying that I agree with the point you are trying to make (from a cost perspective, as well as from the perspective of 95% of the possible foes that the US would be facing - mostly third world nations that upgraded F-4 Phantoms would probably suffice), but my concern is that when one looks at possible near-peer adversaries, the only thing giving the US an advantage (when it comes to legacy platforms like the F-15/16/18) is the better training and layered support/situational awareness systems. From a plane vs plane perspective any advantage in legacy fighters has undergone attrition. Yes, there are currently hundreds of F-15s compared to the smattering of latest generation Flankers (with most of those being the ones used by India), but in the next decade you will see more and more advanced Flanker types used by countries we may not necessarily like. It concerns me because it is a fair fight, and personally I think those should belong to the movies. Unless I cannot help it, I would rather have the gattling gun with the other guy having the flintlock rifle (or better yet, again if I can help it, a slingshot). Apologies for the long post.