Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was it a mistake to retire the F-14 Tomcat??...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Curtis Malone View Post
    Only that it HAS no aeronautical solution, which was precisely my point. I rather doubt the Chinese will need air superiority to retake Taiwan and I further doubt anyone will truly try to stop them, especially since the US, for one, has for quite a long time now maintained a One China policy.
    Can you name a single mid to high intensity conflict that has been won without air superiority? I cannot. You control the skies, you can control what happens below the skies. The US has not invested half a trillion plus dollars in technology that will be worthless in future conflicts.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
      (...) How much notice do you think the Chinese would give the world if they tried to retake Taiwan by force. (...)
      Well - if the Chinese really decide to do that and the US is going to war over Taiwan, there will be nuclear warheads on their way to Beijing and Washington within minutes of the show starting. You don't need an F-22 for that.

      Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
      Establish an air defence perimeter/fight for and gain air superiority. (...) What's your aeronatical solution to that scenario?
      Let's be realistic: there is no conflict scenario these days that requires a an F-22. It's either a high-intensity conflict that will involve a country that has nuclear capability (China, Russia) and then you don't need an F-22. Or it will be "low-intensity" anti-terroist operations and you don't need an F-22 either.

      Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
      Can you name a single mid to high intensity conflict that has been won without air superiority? I cannot. You control the skies, you can control what happens below the skies. The US has not invested half a trillion plus dollars in technology that will be worthless in future conflicts.
      Hmmmmm - so controlling the skies over Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam has led the U.S. of A. to three glorious victories.... Well - I think I might get in the market of rewriting history books... Oops - almost forgot: "irony on/off".

      I am sorry to say, SYDCBRWOD, but I'm afraid that half a trillion could have been spent much wiser on a couple of other things.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
        Can you name a single mid to high intensity conflict that has been won without air superiority? I cannot. You control the skies, you can control what happens below the skies. The US has not invested half a trillion plus dollars in technology that will be worthless in future conflicts.
        I don't think the Taiwan scenario will be much of a high-intensity conflict, but now that you mention it, I don't think the Faulklands mishap was decided on air superiority.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Curtis Malone View Post
          (...) but now that you mention it, I don't think the Faulklands mishap was decided on air superiority.
          On that I beg to differ... slightly... The air superiority the UK was able to establish definitely helped in getting the Falklands back in the way and timeframe that eventually unfolded. But on the UK side it was fought with Sea Harriers and if that was enough, then an F-22 would most certainly have been over-kill...

          Comment


          • #35
            Well it depends on what equipment your enemy has. India has just ordered 300 Sukhoi T-50's which are fifth generation fighters.

            So if anyone plans to get into an aerial scrap with them in about 10 years time having F-22's will not be overkill.

            Whether India (or anyone else) needs 300 Fifth Generation fighters is another matter entirely. I certainly agree with you that far too much money is wasted on military equipment. I think many Countries could look at a nation like New Zealand which exists just fine with a pretty basic Defence Force.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
              Well - if the Chinese really decide to do that and the US is going to war over Taiwan, there will be nuclear warheads on their way to Beijing and Washington within minutes of the show starting. You don't need an F-22 for that.
              Nuclear weapons have been around since 1945, apart from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, no one has used them yet. I disagree that any conflict will automatically default to nuc's. If that were the case the US and other militaries wouldn't bother with anyhing other than nuclear weapons. The Korean war was essentially between the US and the USSR (Russian pilots flew many of the NorKor Mig 15's for example), both nuclear armed powers and yet none were used. Vietnam - again US versus a nuclear armed China and Russia, no mushroom clouds spotted. The Falklands - the UK was nuclear armed, first and second gulf wars again no sight of nuc's. Pakistan, India and China have been having border conflicts involving 10's of thousand sof troops, again no nuc's.... Need I go on?

              Besides, one of the methods of delivery for Nuc's on the US side is the venerable B52 and B1b's - both of which will probably need escorting or the way cleared before them by....you guessed it... F-22's.

              Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
              Let's be realistic: there is no conflict scenario these days that requires a an F-22.
              No there isn't. But if you'd bothered to read my post it's not about the 'now' its about what may develop in the future. You cannot pull high tech weapon systems and their pilots out of your a$$.

              Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
              It's either a high-intensity conflict that will involve a country that has nuclear capability (China, Russia) and then you don't need an F-22. Or it will be "low-intensity" anti-terroist operations and you don't need an F-22 either.
              So, what was the gulf war? Or what may occur on the Korean peninsular? Newsflash - when you have mechanised warfare on the scale seen in the gulf during GWI and II you have Medium to High intensity conflict. The fore runner to the F-22, the F117 did sterling work taking out the Integrated Air Defence System nodes that made the follow on coalition air war so effective. I have already agreed you don't need the F-22 for Afghanistan, but for most other scenarios they are amont the most capable and survivable aircraft in the skies.

              Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
              Hmmmmm - so controlling the skies over Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam has led the U.S. of A. to three glorious victories.... Well - I think I might get in the market of rewriting history books... Oops - almost forgot: "irony on/off".
              Again, read my post, I specifically stated: "Can you name a single mid to high intensity conflict that has been won without air superiority?" The conflicts you have listed were not 'lost' because the US lacked air superiority - they were lost due to other factors. In very many ways an insurgent war is the most difficult war to win as the solution isn't to bomb the countryside back into the dark ages. But here's the kicker, unless you can guarantee the US government that there will never be another mid to high intensity conflict, you can never turn your back on having an inventory capable of winning such a battle.

              Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
              I am sorry to say, SYDCBRWOD, but I'm afraid that half a trillion could have been spent much wiser on a couple of other things.
              I entirely agree. Think of the medical advances that could have been achieved, the scientific discoveries that could have been made. Unfortunately as I pointed out earlier, a nations defence force is the 'insurance policy' that a country pays to maintain its independence. I have 'wasted' thousands of dollars for the last 25 years on Home and contents insurance. I have never claimed on my insurance so far, just made premium payments - and will probably continue to pay insurance for no return for the rest of my life. Yet that is perfectly acceptable to me because the consequences of not taking out that insurance would be catastrophic for myself and my family. Yet, it seems you cannot grasp that concept in relation to your country...Strange.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Curtis Malone View Post
                I don't think the Taiwan scenario will be much of a high-intensity conflict, but now that you mention it, I don't think the Faulklands mishap was decided on air superiority.
                Cruise missiles, aircraft combat, air to surface weapon strikes, ships engaging each other... what would you call it?

                The Falklands was ALL about air superiority. Admiral Sandy Woodward stated that had the Argentinian's managed to sink one of the carriers, it would have been pack up go home concede defeat. The Argentinian navy wasn't a threat - the only real threat to the task force was from the Argy aircraft - if it hadn't been for the Harriers, gaining and maintaining air superiority would have meant failure.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                  On that I beg to differ... slightly... The air superiority the UK was able to establish definitely helped in getting the Falklands back in the way and timeframe that eventually unfolded. But on the UK side it was fought with Sea Harriers and if that was enough, then an F-22 would most certainly have been over-kill...
                  Of course it would have been. The Argentinians were fielding Mirage III's and A4 Skyhawks. F-22's disn't exist back in 1982.

                  How do you think a Harrier would fare today versus Su30's or Mig 29's? Answer- a flaming heap of twisted metal. The Harrier was a fine if compromised aircraft in its day - today it would be mince meat.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by tsv View Post
                    Well it depends on what equipment your enemy has. India has just ordered 300 Sukhoi T-50's which are fifth generation fighters.

                    So if anyone plans to get into an aerial scrap with them in about 10 years time having F-22's will not be overkill.

                    Whether India (or anyone else) needs 300 Fifth Generation fighters is another matter entirely. I certainly agree with you that far too much money is wasted on military equipment. I think many Countries could look at a nation like New Zealand which exists just fine with a pretty basic Defence Force.
                    It only exists just fine because of its geographic location and the fact that Australia and the US would come to its aid. Poor choice of example. Even the neutral swiss have a defence force with main battle tanks, moder fighter aircraft and artillery.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
                      (...) How do you think a Harrier would fare today versus Su30's or Mig 29's? Answer- a flaming heap of twisted metal. The Harrier was a fine if compromised aircraft in its day - today it would be mince meat.
                      Reading suggestion: Commander 'Sharkey' Ward Sea Harrier over the Falklands

                      The Sea Harrier could easily outfly even F-15s in the 1980s... and it's not like technology has stood still for the Harrier ever since.

                      But actually that was not my point. My opinion is that a direct conflict with a nation able to field a fith-generation fighter will quickly develop into something where there is no need for a fifth-generation fighter. The conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan during the Cold War were NOT conflicts between the super powers. The Russians and the USA carefully avoided direct confrontation exactly to prevent a major escalation.
                      Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2010-10-10, 08:43.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                        Reading suggestion: Commander 'Sharkey' Ward Sea Harrier over the Falklands

                        The Sea Harrier could easily outfly even F-15s in the 1980s... and it's not like technology has stood still for the Harrier ever since.
                        The harrier has in fact gone backwards. The most capable variant, and only Harrier to have a smidge of a chance against an F15 was the FA2 fitted with the Blue Vixen radar and AIM 120, and that has been retired. With any other variant the F15 would stand off outside the sidewinder range and drop the harrier with an AIM 120. In close combat the Harrier would be the more manoureable any decent F15 driver would know that and not get into a furball - he'd use his much superior speed, endurance and weapon load to engage when the situation suits him. (such as waiting until the harrier was at bingo fuel and pinging him up the tailpipes). I have already read Sharkey's book and in certain circumstances the Harrier was and is unbeatable - VIFFing will allow the harrier to out turn any adversary. Pity combat these days is mostly Beyond Visual Range (BVR). Incidentally the F-15 hasn't stood still either, google the "Golden Eagle" with the AESA, and the "Silent Eagle".

                        Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                        But actually that was not my point. My opinion is that a direct conflict with a nation able to field a fith-generation fighter will quickly develop into something where there is no need for a fifth-generation fighter.
                        Then why do every nuclear armed nation have massive conventional armies as well as the nuc's? Answer because nuc's are not the answer in 95% of situations. Where is your evidence that this is the case? Why do the Russians, the Europeans and Americans spend billions of dollars trying to outdo each outer in the conventional field if you can just whip the covers off a nuc?

                        The conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan during the Cold War were NOT conflicts between the super powers. The Russians and the USA carefully avoided direct confrontation exactly to prevent a major escalation.[/quote]

                        Never mentioned Afghanistan. But Vietnam was a proxy war - SA2 guideline missiles were supplied directly from soviet factories to shoot down American aircraft in vietnam. Also, your assertation that any conflict between the nuclear club will quickly go nuclear is a show stopper is also wrong. Even after a limited nuclear exchange is launched, the weapons and soldiers manning them will still be fighting. I can still recall the NBCD training we given. Armoured vehicles are fitted with filtration and overpressure systems so the mechanised troops can still fight.

                        Final point - what if a non nuclear armed state buys the T50 - the US needs its 5th gen designs to counter this threat. I think the world and the major nuclear powers are very aware that when you let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, we will all be toast. Any victory will be a phyrric victory over a glowing cinder formerly know as earth. Because of that awareness I can very well see a major confrontation of conventional forces on the Korean peninsular or over Taiwan without nuc's being used. The stakes are too high to use the nuclear weapons under any other circumstances than the survival of your nation. A scenario involving an attack on Taiwan being beaten back by the US, Japan and Taiwanese forces without nucs is VERY possible.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by tsv View Post
                          I would ask "Was it a mistake to build the F-14". The US had no credible threat to it's Sovereignty before, during or after the arrival of the F-14.
                          Cuban missile crisis mean nothing to you?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
                            Cuban missile crisis mean nothing to you?
                            Come off it the Soviets/Cubans were never going to use the proposed missile base in Cuba to challenge US sovereingty. That's just a ridiculous suggestion.

                            They were aware that there were nuclear missiles positioned in Europe (under de-facto US control) that could hit the Soviet Union. They had no equivalent land based missiles at the time which could reach the US (except maybe Alaska). Not unreasonably they wanted some to counter-balance the European based nukes. And not surprisingly the Yanks weren't keen on the idea.

                            At no stage in history did the Soviets ever hold any Military superiority over the US which would have given them even the slightest chance of challenging US sovereignty. Their best case scenario was a "draw" in a Nuclear War. In that sense the ending of the Cold War hasn't changed anything much - Russia still could not achieve anything useful in a conventional war with the US but could (probably) still achieve mutual destruction in an atomic war (if that can be considered an achievement).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Airpower remains at the APEX of the military triad. If will never be redundant. Missiles ARE the future of warfare, whether it be launched from ground, sea or from the air. An aircraft delivers that weapon to an area where it can be targeted and reach given the propellant. Missiles can be shot out of the sky or jammed, so a more sophisticated delivery system is needed to be certain of the weapon reaching the target...only an aircraft can do that. The next step is high energy weapons, where, apart from space still cannot be "fired" over the horizon, and will still need an aircraft.
                              The sophistication of the aircraft is all about survivability. The ability to get to and from a target quickly. The ability to fight other aircraft. The ability to fly unseen are ALL about target delivery and survivability...the level of sophistication in the F-14 illustrates this beautifully. As technologies increase to PREVENT this happening, the MORE sophisticated and expensive the aircraft has to be.
                              Spend a billion on aircraft and save 100 billion and thousands of lives in a war!

                              All nuclear weapons do is make sure no one else uses them against you...insurance if you like. Countries will STILL go to war conventionally, knowing that they won't be used. (Can you imagine the outcry and how the offending country will become an instant pariar, shunned by the rest of the world...Nuclear war will never happen whilst calm, intelligent heads are at the helm (can't last forever).
                              Conventional wars are STILL the number one game. SYDCBRWOD - is spot on when he says the military "TRY" to guess the next war, the threats that might come out of that country and the existing technology available. To do anything else would be reprehensible!
                              Some men build their bodies up so that they "don't have to fight"...A large military does the same thing....it "prevents" untold wars...we'll never know how many will we?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
                                It only exists just fine because of its geographic location and the fact that Australia and the US would come to its aid. Poor choice of example. Even the neutral swiss have a defence force with main battle tanks, moder fighter aircraft and artillery.
                                Ah yes, the mighty Swiss, how did I forget them?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X