Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • tsv
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter Kesternich
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Malone
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter Kesternich
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    Originally posted by Luka View Post
    - My understanding is that the "main" purpose of the F111 was to fly into Russian airspace, following the contours of the ground...Flying just meters above it. Then, to pop up and fire/drop a single nuclear weapon on Moscow (or other russian target) and then floor it and make themselves scarce! "See you later!"
    Australia liked what it saw in the F111, and went and bought some! THE most savvy defence descision we've made to date in my opinion. (We just retired the fleet - a couple of weeks ago - after more than 30 years service!) I'm sure that the F111 gave EVERYONE in our region pause for thought...
    The use of terrain following radar worked well in the 1970's and 1980's as the advantages were:

    1. The surprise factor - ground based Anti-air assets had too little time to get a lock and firing solution.

    2. The soviets lacked radar with a 'look down, shoot down' ability. By that I mean that a Russian fighter aircraft could not orbit an area of likely ingress of a strike package, pick up the F111 as it jinked down valleys. Even if it did pick up the presence of a fast low flying aircraft could not get a radar lock amid the gound clutter.

    Disadvantages are:

    1. Fuel burn is horrendous at low altitude, reducing range.

    2. A TP profile set to maximum attack is a very savage ride - fatiguing for the airframe and the crew.

    3. Now with Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS), the bad guys do not function independently - sure the first radar site may not have a lock for long enough to send up a missile or cue a gun, but it can now in real time pass that info onto another battery downrange and that will be waiting...

    4. The bad guys now have both AWACS and fighter aircraft with radars that can discriminate against the radar clutter at gound level - and ping the F111.

    Back in the 1970's when the pigs became operational, and through the 80's they were untouchable in our region. In the 90's and particularly the naughties, the F111's would have to be escorted by our F/A -18's into defended airspace which largely nullifies their amazing range as they are now tied to the shorter ranged fighters.

    Their time has come in an Australian context. Which is a pity because I too have a soft spot for them. I remember standing on the side of a hill watching a firepower demo on Puckapunyal range back in the early 90's. It was about 8pm, dark as buggery, in late May (so bloody freezing) when an F111 came in from our left at a high subsonic speed, dropped its bombs on the target hill which erupted with multiple explosions - and was gone even before the sound of the aircraft hit us. Just to prove that it was an F111 out and about and that the demo hadn't been rigged with high explosive being placed under the target, the aircraft completed another run doing a dump and burn. We then went from being awed to envious when, as we stood ankle deep in mud on the side of a hill in intermittent sleet in mid winter Victoria we got news from the pilot that they would be back in Amberly 1,200 km away eating dinner in a nice warm Officers Mess around 75 minutes time....

    Official retirement, 3 December: http://www.boeing.com/global/Austral...fdProgram.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Malone
    replied
    Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
    Establish an air defence perimeter/fight for and gain air superiority.

    The air war today is not and will not be fought like the air wars of the recent past. Equipment from the past is well suited to the past. The F-22 and F-35 will be able to take the fight forward.

    What's your aeronatical solution to that scenario?

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    Originally posted by Curtis Malone View Post
    So, again, like seahawk you're suggesting preparing for a conflict similar not to the last one, but the one before last. What good would the F-22 do in your Taiwan scenario exactly?
    Establish an air defence perimeter/fight for and gain air superiority.

    The air war today is not and will not be fought like the air wars of the recent past. Equipment from the past is well suited to the past. The F-22 and F-35 will be able to take the fight forward.

    What's your aeronatical solution to that scenario?

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Malone
    replied
    Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
    Peter, your assessment is based on existing threats. The assets that could be employed against the Taliban could be as simple as an armed trainer (Embraer Super Tucano) or the OV 10X proposal. Meanwhile other powers such as China are developing 4th and 4+gen airframes.

    How long do you think the gestation period is to developand field say the F-22 you are currently slating? Try around 15+ years. How much notice do you think the Chinese would give the world if they tried to retake Taiwan by force. Maybe 15 days of suspicious increased activity and 15 hours worth of combat. How many F-22's could have been developed in 15 days?

    Err... That's right Peter, zero. Game over.

    All through history countries have been caught with their pants down when it comes to defence. Australia had bugger all at the start of the second world war - basically Darwin was defended by a squadron or 2 of obsolete aircraft against Japanese bombers. England was almost defeated due to the Chamberlain government sticking its head in the sand for far too long prior to WWII.

    Even training a competent infantryman takes 8 months at a minimum. The US or any nation cannot just sit back and train and equip for a low intensity conflict lest another country opens up elsewhere with a high intensity conflict. Military equipment does not just grow on trees nor does the experience and training and interoperability of todays combined battlefield work without regular training, development and excercising of skills and equipment.

    Defence forces are not 'instant - dehydrated just-add-water' constructs. They are a nations insurance policy against being suddenly colonized by some other nation. During peacetime they are easy meat to have their budgets cut, defence spending plans whittled away as the public see the defence forces as having no real role. Then when a threat looms, the public and politicians scream to be protected without any true appreciation of the situation they have allowed develop. You as a German should have more reason than most to understand this idea - the Whermacht's Panzer Divisions (Sukhoi T50's) cut through the polish horse mounted cavalry (Super Tucano's) during WWII like a hot kniife through butter, and the result was as predictable as the consequences for the Polish Cav.
    So, again, like seahawk you're suggesting preparing for a conflict similar not to the last one, but the one before last. What good would the F-22 do in your Taiwan scenario exactly?

    Leave a comment:


  • SYDCBRWOD
    replied
    Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
    Just because a piece of equipment is being built doesn't mean it is a) useful or b) really needed. I think the F-22 is a good example.
    Peter, your assessment is based on existing threats. The assets that could be employed against the Taliban could be as simple as an armed trainer (Embraer Super Tucano) or the OV 10X proposal. Meanwhile other powers such as China are developing 4th and 4+gen airframes.

    How long do you think the gestation period is to developand field say the F-22 you are currently slating? Try around 15+ years. How much notice do you think the Chinese would give the world if they tried to retake Taiwan by force. Maybe 15 days of suspicious increased activity and 15 hours worth of combat. How many F-22's could have been developed in 15 days?

    Err... That's right Peter, zero. Game over.

    All through history countries have been caught with their pants down when it comes to defence. Australia had bugger all at the start of the second world war - basically Darwin was defended by a squadron or 2 of obsolete aircraft against Japanese bombers. England was almost defeated due to the Chamberlain government sticking its head in the sand for far too long prior to WWII.

    Even training a competent infantryman takes 8 months at a minimum. The US or any nation cannot just sit back and train and equip for a low intensity conflict lest another country opens up elsewhere with a high intensity conflict. Military equipment does not just grow on trees nor does the experience and training and interoperability of todays combined battlefield work without regular training, development and excercising of skills and equipment.

    Defence forces are not 'instant - dehydrated just-add-water' constructs. They are a nations insurance policy against being suddenly colonized by some other nation. During peacetime they are easy meat to have their budgets cut, defence spending plans whittled away as the public see the defence forces as having no real role. Then when a threat looms, the public and politicians scream to be protected without any true appreciation of the situation they have allowed develop. You as a German should have more reason than most to understand this idea - the Whermacht's Panzer Divisions (Sukhoi T50's) cut through the polish horse mounted cavalry (Super Tucano's) during WWII like a hot kniife through butter, and the result was as predictable as the consequences for the Polish Cav.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter Kesternich
    replied
    Originally posted by DAIRD View Post
    So it was a mistake to sell it to the Imperial Iran Airforce in the 1970's.
    Well, that would depend on your point of view. From an economical standpoint it's never a mistake to sell something and make some money. Politically, noone could have known that the ally Iran of the 60s and 70s would turn into a major adversary by the 1980s. But then again would the US rather have Iran be in possesion of a fleet where it is easy to get spare parts? *lol... Under these circumstances it's better that Iran has the F-14s which become less and less a threat every day.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAIRD
    replied
    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. And it wasn't exported in significant numbers.

    So just a drain on tax payers $ IMO, dollars which many US citizens would probably like to have back in their pockets right about now
    So it was a mistake to sell it to the Imperial Iran Airforce in the 1970's.

    Leave a comment:


  • tsv
    replied
    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. And it wasn't exported in significant numbers.

    So just a drain on tax payers $ IMO, dollars which many US citizens would probably like to have back in their pockets right about now

    Leave a comment:


  • DAIRD
    replied
    Well, that's what they finally made out of it: a deep penetration bomber covered with F-designation. I suppose, they made it to confuse the Russians. Best of all decisions McNamara made, was to unify the military aircraft designations in 1962...
    F-14's were build to intercept large Soviet-bombers before they could launch a nuclear-head-missile and perish a complete carrier group.
    A last word to your: "My understanding is that the "main" purpose of the F111 was to fly into Russian airspace, following the contours of the ground...Flying just meters above it. Then, to pop up and fire/drop a single nuclear weapon on Moscow (or other russian target) and then floor it and make themselves scarce! "See you later!"
    Thats theory. Running down the carpet by by terrain-following-radar to bomb a target with nuclear weapons definitely means doomsday is knocking on your door. The F-111s had the same chance to survive as a snowman in hell has. Its a one-way ticket, not more. Also French Airforce using the large Mirage IV: this aircraft was only dedicated for nuclear - bombing just behind the French borders, never expected to survive or even coming back. We exercised a lot of different scenarios (with or without nuclear threat) during Cold War in the 1980s (in the 1970s I was to young for it). Result: we all would be dead now (since 25 years in my case).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X