F-22 cleaning house at Northern Edge Alaskan exercise(news video)

AF.MIL ^

[Kozak]

So what if the F-22 dominates the sky one-on-one? What if it is attacked by five planes having the capability of the F-16; would it even carry enough air-to-air missiles to defend itself?

The F22 is so far above them it's still a slaughter. The F 16's never SEE whats shooting them down, they just start to see a few seconds of incoming missle track before they are destroyed. NOTHING is as expensive as a second rate military.

[RunningWolf]

Unmanned airplane can maneuver more violently than a manned craft & unmanned fighters can be combined with other modern concepts as well

Yes, for arguments sake use a couple of current fighter tactics (bracket, drag etc) except now you are in a fighter controlling 3 or 4 stealth UCAV's, (and if you get shot down your wingman can take over yours and his to) At some point the F22 is not so effective. I could go on with more examples, but what I am getting to is the the Yamato analogy in that 2nd article. I found that intriguing perhaps telling.

At the same time due to the nature of combat-war and degrading assets, man will always be at the point of the spear either by design or default the question is when. Bayonets and trench knives are not issued for just for show/analogy> agree?

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Death from Above, Death on Call

Sounds like Air Cav to me. But I think most Cav units are integrated like mine was so it was more like Death from Above, Death from Ground, Death now.

W.

[RunningWolf]

I get you.

At some point these systems can become like the Maginot Line.

[DesScorp]

One, I doubt the Air Force's claims about the Raptor...this is the service that, after all, says we dont need an Army or a Navy...that the Air Force can win our wars for us all by itself.

Second, even if it was that good, we can't afford many at 220 million apiece. That's the latest flyaway cost, per Popular Mechanics, folks, which is getting their figures from the Congressional Budget office.

[RunningWolf]

wasn't "homeland defense" the mission of the DoD to begin with?

Perhaps, but then the DOD would have to be modified ,since the original purpose was 'homeland defense' against total nuclear attack of known, source (USSR)

W.

[IrishCatholic]

Pardon me for veering of the topic for a moment. I am all for the F-22. It seems silly to wait until we are in the middle of a war to try and come up with something that will match what the enemy is already fielding.
But my question is the Navy retired the F-14. What is in the works for them as an air superiority fighter? I gather from other threads that the FA-18 wasn't up to beating an F-14, so what are they going to have?
The requirements for carrier service I understand means special features, but are they going to rely on Air Force fighters coming to their aid? With China's build up I see somewhere down the road a potential naval conflict. What will we have that is carrier based to counteract that?
Any info would be appreciated.

[DesScorp]

"The Navy fought airplanes"

Bullsh!t. The Navy created carriers, why? Because the Air Force told them too?

The Navy recognized the potential of airpowr early on. What they didn't accept was Billy Mitchell's insane theories that airpower alone could win wars.

[Redmen4ever]

My point about five enemy F16 type planes is that an F22 carries four air to air missiles.

[steveyp]

later

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The F-35 has a variant for carrier landings I believe, also one for the marines with Vertical takeoff's....

[IrishCatholic]

Is the F-35 an air superiority fighter that is capable of fleet defense as a primary role? The F-18 is a strike fighter too but is it capable of defeating first rank enemy fighters? Isn't the F-35 also a strike fighter along the lines of an F-16?
I thought the F-35 was a plane that could replace the F-16/FA-18. Or is it that good it can also replace the role the F-14 had?
Isn't there also some delay in the F-35?
Any info would be great.

[gregwest]

Let's see...the first Gulf War was an almost total air campaign that allowed a ground campaign of about 100 hours and cost about 100 casualties. The current one has cost us 2000 lives because of that outdated thinking that it takes boots on the ground to win.

There are two definitions of winning a war. Billy Mitchell's concept was that air forces can completely destroy an adversary's ability to make and sustain war by the destruction of counterforce and countervalue targets. That in my book is victory.

The modern day definition of winning is nation building; recreating one's adversary in the victor's image. That concept is too costly in blood and treasure. I think I like Billy Mitchell's better.

Speaking of Billy Mitchell, I recall that he was the one who proved the Admirals wrong who claimed an airplane couldn't sink a ship. They had to eat crow when they watched him drop a bomb down the smokestack of a battleship and sink it during a demonstration.

[DesScorp]

"Let's see...the first Gulf War was an almost total air campaign that allowed a ground campaign of about 100 hours and cost about 100 casualties. The current one has cost us 2000 lives because of that outdated thinking that it takes boots on the ground to win."

Yeah, and it knocked Saddam right out of power and...oh wait...

"Speaking of Billy Mitchell, I recall that he was the one who proved the Admirals wrong who claimed an airplane couldn't sink a ship. They had to eat crow when they watched him drop a bomb down the smokestack of a battleship and sink it during a demonstration."

You mean that war scrap that was left stationary, floating in the ocean, with no crews, no propulsion, no evasive maneuvers, and no defensive arms? THOSE ships? Yeah, Billy sank those. YOU could have sank those. Try doing that with a carrier battle group that's ready to shoot back.

[gregwest]

You're missing my point entirely, trying to turn this into some kind of interservice rivalry. I'm not debating the value of the Air Force against the Navy. I'm talking about airpower, which is the strategic concepts developed, most particularly by Gen. Curtis LeMay, the father of Strategic Air Command. If you my last post, you'll see that my point is about WHAT defines victory.

Billy Mitchell, Hap Arnold, and the pioneers of strategic aviation proved that airpower could completely destroy an enemy's ability to wage war by destroying their factories, fuel depots, staging areas, population centers, etc. When an enemy no longer has the means to wage war, the war is over and victory is achieved.

My lament is that the definition of victory has changed today. Instead of completely destroying Iraq and going home victorious, we continue to put ground forces in harms way for the unlikely chance that you can take a Muslim nation and convert it into a democracy. That process, like it did with Japan and Germany, will take a generation.

The fact that the navy has aircraft carriers, guided missile cruisers, and submarines that launch ICBMs and cruise missiles simply proves the point that airpower (whether launched from land or sea) is the key to destroying an enemy. Likewise, surface ships are scared to death of Iranian/Chinese Silkworm missiles more than they are of other ships. Today, ships are simply another means to project airpower into a combat theater.

However, it's what you do with the enemy after you've destroyed them that defines victory. That's where we're making big mistakes today.