Making them listen

[CARLHAYDEN]

When the Secretary of Unilsateral Disarmament proposed his absurd budget a couple of months ago, I contacted my Congresswoman and pointed out just how bad it was.  The results from The Hill:

House panel presses Gates to buy existing fighter jets, not F-35s 
By Roxana Tiron 

House defense authorizers are pressing Defense Secretary Robert Gates to consider buying existing fighter jets instead of the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to curtail a severe fighter jet shortfall in the Air Force National Guard.

During a House Armed Services Committee markup of the 2010 defense authorization bill on Tuesday, lawmakers raised alarm that aircraft shortfalls could present significant challenges to the Air Force’s ability to protect domestic airspace.


At press time, lawmakers had included an amendment sponsored by Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) and Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) that would force Gates to consider buying F-15, F-16 and F-18 aircraft with Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, high-capacity datalink, enhanced avionics and the ability to deploy advanced weapons.

In military parlance, this is a 4.5-generation fighter aircraft outfitted with advanced capabilities.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the Pentagon wants to move toward instead of the 4.5-generation aircraft, would be a fifth-generation fighter aircraft — the most advanced.

LoBiondo and Giffords’s amendment directs Gates to submit to Armed Services, within 90 days of the authorization bill becoming law, a report on the procurement of 4.5-generation fighter aircraft that must consider that the Air Force has a requirement to maintain no less than 2,200 tactical fighter aircraft from fiscal 2011 through 2035.

LoBiondo said the fighter shortfall would affect the Air National Guard earlier and more severely than it would the Air Force active-duty units.

The lack of aircraft and the advanced age of some of the fighter jets are “devastating” to the Guard, he said. He criticized the Air Force for not producing any plan to fix the fighter shortfall problems, saying it had pegged its hopes on the arrival of the F-35 to solve the problem.

Under the LoBiondo-Giffords amendment, Pentagon officials must consider the procurement cost of those aircraft if they are bought on a yearly basis, and must also give cost estimates for aircraft bought as part of a multiyear contract. If Gates determines that a multiyear contract would yield significant savings and decides that the Pentagon should be buying those aircraft as part of such a contract, he would have to submit the necessary Pentagon certifications for the contract together with the fiscal 2011 budget request.

The amendment also asks the Pentagon to assess whether it would be possible to recapitalize the Air National Guard with F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from 2015 through 2025.

The Guard conducts the majority of domestic airspace protection missions, known as air sovereignty alert operations and homeland defense air missions. Fully armed fighter aircraft are on alert 24 hours a day at 18 sites across the country. The Air National Guard operates 16 of the 18 sites. The remaining two are under active-duty Air Force responsibilities.

The aircraft used in the domestic airspace protection missions —Lockheed’s F-16 and Boeing’s F-15 — are showing signs of aging. The aircraft used by the National Guard traditionally come used from the active-duty Air Force, which means that the equipment already has significant wear and tear.

The commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is charged with the missions of aerospace warning and control for North America. The Air Force provides NORAD with personnel and equipment for these operations, including fighter aircraft.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) earlier this year found that the Air Force gave short shrift to preparing for its domestic mission as it has focused more on overseas military operations following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The National Guard has also deployed heavily overseas.

“Failure to develop detailed plans to address these challenges could jeopardize the Air Force’s ability to protect U.S. airspace in the future,” read the GAO report, released on Jan. 26.

The planes flown by the Air National Guard are the oldest aircraft ever flown in Air Force history. Eleven of the 18 sites could end up without viable aircraft by 2020 if the planes are not replaced over the next few years, according to the GAO. The oldest planes are also more difficult and expensive to maintain.

Meanwhile, 14 of the 18 sites will have to suspend their operations for a period of time between 2010 and 2020, as their aircraft reach the end of their useful service lives. Twelve sites are currently equipped with F-16 fighters, which will reach the end of their service lives between 2015 and 2020.

One option is to replace the F-16s with either F-22s or F-35s, both of which the Air Force is acquiring. However, according to the current F-22 and F-35 fielding schedules, only one of the units —Shaw Air Force Base — will receive the new aircraft soon enough, according to the GAO.

The tug-of-war will likely intensify between the Air Force and a number of factions in Congress over whether the Air Force should buy cutting-edge — but expensive — fighter jets, such as the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or continue buying and modernizing older aircraft, such as F-15s, F-16s or F-18s.

-----

I'm pushing for the F-22, which is superior to the F-35 for air superiority (interceptor) missions.
 

 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Both the Air Force and the Navy are consideably bloated for what we currently expect them to do.  While we do need to keep them capable enough to deal with the unlikely possibility of a conflict with Russia and/or China, additional F-15, -16, -18's aren't particularly needed unless we intend to keep funding an Air Force larger than what we currently have a use for.  I could see buying some more F-22's, but buying more F-teens now would be like buying more biplane fighters in the 1930's.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Both the Air Force and the Navy are consideably bloated for what we currently expect them to do.  While we do need to keep them capable enough to deal with the unlikely possibility of a conflict with Russia and/or China, additional F-15, -16, -18's aren't particularly needed unless we intend to keep funding an Air Force larger than what we currently have a use for.  I could see buying some more F-22's, but buying more F-teens now would be like buying more biplane fighters in the 1930's.

Ernest, the article was a little long, and slightly misrepresented the situation.

In short, the Secretary of Unilateral Disarmament wanted to stop all production of the F-22.  Those who are familiar with the situation are aware that the F-22 is vastly superior to the F-15 and only want to keep enough F-17 and 18 production up until F-35s (the A series) are actually being delivered.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is a big mistake. I say go for the F-22. The cost savings is miniscule compared to our real budget dillema and its not like Obama is going to do anything to curb that anyway.

[CARLHAYDEN]

This is a big mistake. I say go for the F-22. The cost savings is miniscule compared to our real budget dillema and its not like Obama is going to do anything to curb that anyway.

The real point (which the author of the article didn't explain) is that until F-35s are actually delivered, we will need F-16s and 18s.

The F-35 NOT a suitable replacement for the F-22, and the F-22 production should continue!

[AkSaber]

Hmmm, maybe we should un-retire the F-14. Not a particularly bad idea if you ask me.

The F-35 is still over 2 years away from entering full production, isn't it? That means the 4th generation fighters are going to be pulling the load for a while longer. I guess that's why the military made the 4th and a half generation fighters like the Super Hornet and the F-15SE Silent Eagle. They can bridge the gap between the 4th and 5th generation jets.

From what I understand, the F-35 is going to be a multirole fighter, like the F-16. They aren't the best air combat craft, but aren't useless. That's why I like the F-22. It's like the F-15, strictly an air superiority fighter.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hmmm, maybe we should un-retire the F-14. Not a particularly bad idea if you ask me.

The F-35 is still over 2 years away from entering full production, isn't it? That means the 4th generation fighters are going to be pulling the load for a while longer. I guess that's why the military made the 4th and a half generation fighters like the Super Hornet and the F-15SE Silent Eagle. They can bridge the gap between the 4th and 5th generation jets.

From what I understand, the F-35 is going to be a multirole fighter, like the F-16. They aren't the best air combat craft, but aren't useless. That's why I like the F-22. It's like the F-15, strictly an air superiority fighter.

Its my understanding that the F-14 (Tomcat - Navy) is already retired.  With which I have no problem.

We absolutely must have the F-22 as the F-35 is dramatically inferior (in several respects) for air superiority. 

Now, it takes years after delivery has started to replace the existing strike fighters, which is why limited production of F-16 and 18 needs to continue.

Now, I kind of scissored Giffords between the Air Force experts in the district (there are a lot of retired Air Force personnel in the district) and her husband (a pilot/astronaut).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll agree that the F-22 is a better plane than the F-35, but is it a better plane than two F-35's?  Probably not, and for the flyaway cost of a single F-22, we can get two F-35's.  It's been our EW platforms, the E-3 and E-8, that have been the key to our tremendous advantage in air combat more than individual fighters.  The E-3 and E-8 which are based on the Boeing 707 are both getting a little long in the tooth tho.  What we really need is for the Air Force to go ahead and get serious about the E-10 program or some other successor.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'll agree that the F-22 is a better plane than the F-35, but is it a better plane than two F-35's?  Probably not, and for the flyaway cost of a single F-22, we can get two F-35's.  It's been our EW platforms, the E-3 and E-8, that have been the key to our tremendous advantage in air combat more than individual fighters.  The E-3 and E-8 which are based on the Boeing 707 are both getting a little long in the tooth tho.  What we really need is for the Air Force to go ahead and get serious about the E-10 program or some other successor.

Yes, the F-22 is, in the air superiority role, a better plane that two F-35s!

The truth of the matter is that th F-35 is really an attack aircraft.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, the F-22 is, in the air superiority role, a better plane that two F-35s!

The truth of the matter is that the F-35 is really an attack aircraft.

The F-22's better stealth is a nice bonus, and we need some F-22's to be able to take out an enemy's AWACS equivalent, if they have one, with minimal loss.  But that is a specialist mission for which we already have enough F-22's to do.  Once we've done that, and established air-supremacy, we need attack aircraft, and the F-22 is not well suited for the ground attack mission, and far more expensive than needed for that role.  (Heck, if we wanted to expand our ground-attack capabilities, we'd consider building a new generation of A-10's instead of just modernizing the systems on the ones we already have.)

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yes, the F-22 is, in the air superiority role, a better plane that two F-35s!

The truth of the matter is that the F-35 is really an attack aircraft.

The F-22's better stealth is a nice bonus, and we need some F-22's to be able to take out an enemy's AWACS equivalent, if they have one, with minimal loss.  But that is a specialist mission for which we already have enough F-22's to do.  Once we've done that, and established air-supremacy, we need attack aircraft, and the F-22 is not well suited for the ground attack mission, and far more expensive than needed for that role.  (Heck, if we wanted to expand our ground-attack capabilities, we'd consider building a new generation of A-10's instead of just modernizing the systems on the ones we already have.)

First, we have a small number of F-22s, and we do NOT have enough to do the job!

Second, the maneuverability of the F-22 is far better than any other fighter, which is critical in air combat.

[dead0man]

We need more F22s, period.

As for pounding the ground once air superiority is established, we have B52s for that.  Very cheap (relatively speaking of course).

This is where we need to pour the R&D though.

[Bono]

We need more F22s, period.

As for pounding the ground once air superiority is established, we have B52s for that.  Very cheap (relatively speaking of course).

This is where we need to pour the R&D though.

It's only cheap if you don't count the cost of civilian lives lost in carpet bombing.

Also, aren't you in the air force? Of course you're always going to want more more more.

[Stranger in a strange land]

We need more F22s, period.

As for pounding the ground once air superiority is established, we have B52s for that.  Very cheap (relatively speaking of course).

This is where we need to pour the R&D though.

That, along with space and cyberspace, are the way of the future.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First, we have a small number of F-22s, and we do NOT have enough to do the job!

Second, the maneuverability of the F-22 is far better than any other fighter, which is critical in air combat.

The primary task the F-22 is needed for is to take an enemy's AEW&C assets down.  Of potential adversaries, the largest AEW&C fleet it will face are the 29 Beriev A-50 Shmels (aka Mainstays) that the Russians have and which are left over from Soviet days.  We have more than enough F-22's to accomplish that mission.  If the Russians or Chinese looked to be building up a sizable force of new AEW&C planes, we might need more F-22's, but we'd have plenty of time to restart the F-22 production line in that unlikely eventuality.

Once enemy air forces have been stripped of their AEW&C assets, the F-35 backed up with our own AEW&C assets is more than enough to do the job.

Maneuverability is nice if one gets into a gunfight, but how likely is a gunfighting scenario these days?  Once one gets to missile vs. plane, manned planes are g-limited in their maneuverability by their pilots.

If cost were no object, then yes I'd like for us to get more F-22's, but cost is an object.  More F-22's are at the current time are an unnecessary luxury.

[Coburn In 2012]

This is a big mistake. I say go for the F-22. The cost savings is miniscule compared to our real budget dillema and its not like Obama is going to do anything to curb that anyway.

LOL true.

Basically what obama is doing is setting us up to completely weaken our military.  The end game is for the UN to be the new world policeman and to have US forces totally under its command as slick willie tried when he got us into Somalia.  Just what we need Brave american troops taking orders from Pakistanis and Belgians.

But really what other plane would obama want?  Any old transport capable of dropping leaflettes asking the terrorists to forgive us would be quite suited to him I am sure.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, we have a small number of F-22s, and we do NOT have enough to do the job!

Second, the maneuverability of the F-22 is far better than any other fighter, which is critical in air combat.

The primary task the F-22 is needed for is to take an enemy's AEW&C assets down.  Of potential adversaries, the largest AEW&C fleet it will face are the 29 Beriev A-50 Shmels (aka Mainstays) that the Russians have and which are left over from Soviet days.  We have more than enough F-22's to accomplish that mission.  If the Russians or Chinese looked to be building up a sizable force of new AEW&C planes, we might need more F-22's, but we'd have plenty of time to restart the F-22 production line in that unlikely eventuality.

Once enemy air forces have been stripped of their AEW&C assets, the F-35 backed up with our own AEW&C assets is more than enough to do the job.

Maneuverability is nice if one gets into a gunfight, but how likely is a gunfighting scenario these days?  Once one gets to missile vs. plane, manned planes are g-limited in their maneuverability by their pilots.

If cost were no object, then yes I'd like for us to get more F-22's, but cost is an object.  More F-22's are at the current time are an unnecessary luxury.

Unfortunately I cannot reveal some of the information on the F-22, but suffice to say you presumption concerning the limitations of the F-22 are erroneous.  The F-22 cannot be efficiently flown simply by the pilot as is the case with the F-15.  Also, the maneuverability of the F-22 is sufficient for it to "break" lock of missiles in many cases (unlike the F-16 or F-35).

In addition to interception of strategic bombers, the F-22 is designed to make sure of air superiority over the battle field.  Given the relative paucity of American ground forces, it is essential that American forces have air superiority, and the F-35 is neither designed for nor capable of achieving that mission in the face of a number of fighters whose design (if not manufacture) originated in Russia.

Next, the lead time to restart production of the F-22s (if production is stopped) is far, far greater than you can imagine!

Finally, air superiority. which the F-22 gives us, is NOT a luxury, but rather a necessity!  While you may not know people in the armed forces, I have friends and relatives in the various services, and do not want their lives jeopardized by false economies!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Article too long to post here, so here's the link:

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1827570420090618

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Carl, for the probable operational lifespan of the F-22, the only two countries that might have  both the desire to and the capability of improving their air forces to the point that we would not be able to secure air supremacy with the existing fleet of F-22's serving as the sharp point to the mass of F-35/improved F-teens that will make up the core of our air force for the next couple of decades are China and Russia.  (India and the EU might have the capability, but probably not the desire.)

Russia would need to start up a program to build a new AEW&C aircraft to do so.  The A-50 is long in the tooth, and not as capable as the E-3.  Even starting to build them would require a lead time of many years.

China at present is trying to improve its AEW&C force, but it lacks the capability to build the necessary air frames on its own.

Even if China and Russia were to start today to go full speed ahead on building up their air forces, it would be a minimum of a decade of intense and obvious effort for them to come close to reaching parity, even if we don't react to such a large scale arms buildup, which we most assuredly would not.  A more gradual program to build a comparable air force might escape a reaction, but would push the date of concern to 2030 at the earliest.

I doubt that even in a worst case scenario resuming F-22 production at its current rate of production would take more than four or five years if the tooling is kept intact, which it most assuredly should be.

As for breaking missile lock, that's a fleeting advantage because the F-22 does things the missile designers didn't account for.  Once that is taken account of, the F-22's maneuverability advantage becomes far less important.

If we do get into a shooting war with either the Russians or the Chinese, we have more important things to worry about, such as our lack of fallout shelters.  I seriously doubt that a war between us and either Russia or China will remain non-nuclear.

--

Last but not least, what are you suggesting be cut from the Air Force budget to fund those F-22's you are calling for?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl, for the probable operational lifespan of the F-22, the only two countries that might have  both the desire to and the capability of improving their air forces to the point that we would not be able to secure air supremacy with the existing fleet of F-22's serving as the sharp point to the mass of F-35/improved F-teens that will make up the core of our air force for the next couple of decades are China and Russia.  (India and the EU might have the capability, but probably not the desire.)

Russia would need to start up a program to build a new AEW&C aircraft to do so.  The A-50 is long in the tooth, and not as capable as the E-3.  Even starting to build them would require a lead time of many years.

China at present is trying to improve its AEW&C force, but it lacks the capability to build the necessary air frames on its own.

Even if China and Russia were to start today to go full speed ahead on building up their air forces, it would be a minimum of a decade of intense and obvious effort for them to come close to reaching parity, even if we don't react to such a large scale arms buildup, which we most assuredly would not.  A more gradual program to build a comparable air force might escape a reaction, but would push the date of concern to 2030 at the earliest.

I doubt that even in a worst case scenario resuming F-22 production at its current rate of production would take more than four or five years if the tooling is kept intact, which it most assuredly should be.

As for breaking missile lock, that's a fleeting advantage because the F-22 does things the missile designers didn't account for.  Once that is taken account of, the F-22's maneuverability advantage becomes far less important.

If we do get into a shooting war with either the Russians or the Chinese, we have more important things to worry about, such as our lack of fallout shelters.  I seriously doubt that a war between us and either Russia or China will remain non-nuclear.

--

Last but not least, what are you suggesting be cut from the Air Force budget to fund those F-22's you are calling for?

First, there are a number of nations the Russians and Chinese will be delighted to sell jets to (as well as providing "instructors").  Do I need to list them for you?

Second, did you bother to read the article I cited?  The United States only has 187 F-22s. and when you calculated likely accidents per year, maintenance, etc. the number available to be deployed to any threatre of operations is absurdly low.

Third, do you have any idea of the number of advanced interceptors the Russians and Chinese currently operate and are building?  Your assertions that the United States has sufficent number of F-22s to handle the threat from those two nation states is simply founded on unfounded beliefs.

Finally, as to your assertion that:

"As for breaking missile lock, that's a fleeting advantage because the F-22 does things the missile designers didn't account for.  Once that is taken account of, the F-22's maneuverability advantage becomes far less important."

You have got to be kidding!!!

Read your statement again, and you will note that not only is it very ungrammatical, but also very stupid, as well as being false.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If all we had were 187 F-22's and no other planes, you'd be right that we'd need more F-22's.  But we do have and will have those other planes.  The Russians and the Chinese do have a fair number of fighters, but their AEW&C assets are light enough to keep them from reaching anything even close to parity in ability until 2030 at the earliest absent a massive new armaments program on their part.  (And even then, you'd have to assume our allies stay out of the conflict.)

As for the general's statement, why do I expect he has a bright future ahead of him working for Lockheed-Martin after he retires from the USAF?

As for those other regimes you are concerned about, without adequate training, doctrine, and mass, they aren't a real threat for our air forces, and they won't have that, especially the mass.  How many countries have the financial wherewithal to field a force of 500 or more fighters, and if so why aren't they doing so now?  The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and ourselves are the only countries that maintain such large air forces at present.  The Russians and the Chinese won't be simply giving planes away.

I can see someone arguing that we need more F-22's to stay ahead of the Russians or the Chinese.  I disagree, but at least it is a rational argument.  Arguing that we need more to deal with Iran, Syria, North Korea, or even a post-revolutionary Qaida Arabia is not.  If we were to go to war with the EU we might need more F-22's, but I think we can safely discount that happening in the next couple of decades.

As for the missile lock, it will take improvements in tracking software and/or missile maneuverability to counteract the F-22's higher maneuverability, but I stand by my statement.  Just like the U-2 was invulnerable until high-altitude SAM's were developed by the Soviets, I have no doubt that the Russians and the Chinese are working on improved missiles to deal with the F-22's maneuverability; missiles that would have been wasteful extravagances if there were no F-22's to fire them at.

Lastly, I note you ignored a couple of my points from my last post.  One, that if we do get into a war with either the Russians or the Chinese, we'll need to be far more concerned about the potential for it to go nuclear than whether we have an extra 50 or so F-22's.  Two, my query concerning how we pay for those extra F-22's you want?

(BTW, I presume you don't care for trailing prepositions or for contractions since otherwise I fail to see what grammatical quibble you are referring to.)

[CARLHAYDEN]

If all we had were 187 F-22's and no other planes, you'd be right that we'd need more F-22's.  But we do have and will have those other planes.  The Russians and the Chinese do have a fair number of fighters, but their AEW&C assets are light enough to keep them from reaching anything even close to parity in ability until 2030 at the earliest absent a massive new armaments program on their part.  (And even then, you'd have to assume our allies stay out of the conflict.)

As for the general's statement, why do I expect he has a bright future ahead of him working for Lockheed-Martin after he retires from the USAF?

As for those other regimes you are concerned about, without adequate training, doctrine, and mass, they aren't a real threat for our air forces, and they won't have that, especially the mass.  How many countries have the financial wherewithal to field a force of 500 or more fighters, and if so why aren't they doing so now?  The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and ourselves are the only countries that maintain such large air forces at present.  The Russians and the Chinese won't be simply giving planes away.

I can see someone arguing that we need more F-22's to stay ahead of the Russians or the Chinese.  I disagree, but at least it is a rational argument.  Arguing that we need more to deal with Iran, Syria, North Korea, or even a post-revolutionary Qaida Arabia is not.  If we were to go to war with the EU we might need more F-22's, but I think we can safely discount that happening in the next couple of decades.

As for the missile lock, it will take improvements in tracking software and/or missile maneuverability to counteract the F-22's higher maneuverability, but I stand by my statement.  Just like the U-2 was invulnerable until high-altitude SAM's were developed by the Soviets, I have no doubt that the Russians and the Chinese are working on improved missiles to deal with the F-22's maneuverability; missiles that would have been wasteful extravagances if there were no F-22's to fire them at.

Lastly, I note you ignored a couple of my points from my last post.  One, that if we do get into a war with either the Russians or the Chinese, we'll need to be far more concerned about the potential for it to go nuclear than whether we have an extra 50 or so F-22's.  Two, my query concerning how we pay for those extra F-22's you want?

(BTW, I presume you don't care for trailing prepositions or for contractions since otherwise I fail to see what grammatical quibble you are referring to.)

Ernest,

First, the "other" air superiority aircraft (F-16) are dramatically inferior to the F-22, and are also being phased out.  So, just what "other" aircraft are you counting on to maintain air superiority?

Second, its nice of you to acknowledge that the Russians and Chinese have a "fair number"  of fighters, but your belief AEW&C assets are the Alpha and Omega of air combat is absurd.  While such asserts can be critical, they are not everything!

Third, again as I noted, a number of countries are buying military systems, including fighter aircraft, so the Russians and Chinese are NOT "giving planes away"!

Fourth, no, we are unlikey to go to war with the EU, and please put that red herring out in the trash.

Fifth, please reread your statement that I quoted.  It is not only ungrammatical, but false and stupid.  Standing by it means only that you are obduratedly stupid!

Sixth, you may have "no doubt" that the Russians and Chinese are working on improved missles, but working on them and having them is something very different.  Physicists have been working on the unified field theory for half a century, with little progress.

Seventh, you erroneously assume that only the Russians and Chinese will have capable fighters (major premise), and that in any conflict with those countries a nuclear exchange is likely (minor premise).  So, why bother having any combat aircraft at all?   God, you are incredibly dense.

Eight, there are many ways to pay for essential national defense.  That you don't know of any expenditures by the federal government which are less worthwhile than national defense says a lot about you!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's some more information:

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-59156.aspx

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First, the "other" air superiority aircraft (F-16) are dramatically inferior to the F-22, and are also being phased out.  So, just what "other" aircraft are you counting on to maintain air superiority?

Your belief that only dedicated air-superiority fighters can accomplish the mission is interesting, but it also considerably cuts down the size of the presumed opposition air-superiority forces considerably if applied consistently.  They can do the job better, but there comes a point at which better is not worth the extra cost. (BTW, did you mean to type F-15 instead of F-16?)

Second, its nice of you to acknowledge that the Russians and Chinese have a "fair number"  of fighters, but your belief AEW&C assets are the Alpha and Omega of air combat is absurd.  While such asserts can be critical, they are not everything!

I never said they were everything, just that they are critical and that the assets the Russians and Chinese have are inadequate to enable them to face the US on anything like even terms.

Third, again as I noted, a number of countries are buying military systems, including fighter aircraft, so the Russians and Chinese are NOT "giving planes away"!

But none are buying them in the quantity that would be needed to be a threat to our air power.  Pakistan and India have been the most prolific acquirers of Sino-Russian planes.  India is unlikely to become an adversary, and the Pakistani acquisitions have not been of the highest caliber for the most part.

Fourth, no, we are unlikey to go to war with the EU, and please put that red herring out in the trash.

I also doubt we'll go to a conventional war with the Russians or the Chinese.  I only keep mentioning the EU so as to keep things on the basis of capability.

Fifth, please reread your statement that I quoted.  It is not only ungrammatical, but false and stupid.  Standing by it means only that you are obduratedly stupid!

As I said before, I don't see the grammar flaw, so I asked you to please point it out.  You also haven't shown why it would be false.  Between the use of sensor devices with a broader field of view, more maneuverable missiles, and/or a larger warhead to increase the kill radius, the maneuverability advantage of the F-22 can be negated.  Doing such things involves tradeoffs such as missile cost, weight, and/or range that would make fielding such a missile unwise if there were no plane with the F-22's capabilities.

Sixth, you may have "no doubt" that the Russians and Chinese are working on improved missles, but working on them and having them is something very different.  Physicists have been working on the unified field theory for half a century, with little progress.

The fixes I'm thinking of don't require the development of new theories.  They involve incremental improvement upon existing equipment that can handle keeping a missile on course to intercept a plane of lower maneuverability, and adding the heretofore unneeded ability to deal with higher maneuverability.

Seventh, you erroneously assume that only the Russians and Chinese will have capable fighters (major premise), and that in any conflict with those countries a nuclear exchange is likely (minor premise).  So, why bother having any combat aircraft at all?   God, you are incredibly dense.

No I assume that only the Russians and Chinese will have them in the quantity needed to be a threat.  If 90 or so F-22's backed up with our other air combat assets (I'm assuming that we commit at most half of our F-22's to deal with a air war against a minor power) is insufficient to deal with even an improved Iranian Air Force or the like, then we don't need 250 F-22's to handle the Russians or Chinese, we need 1000 or more considering the relative capabilities of the Russians and Chinese to those lesser air forces.

We have our combat aircraft to deal with non-nuclear powers and to give us a sufficient conventional capability to deal with the types of conflicts short of total war that may crop up with nuclear powers.

Eight, there are many ways to pay for essential national defense.  That you don't know of any expenditures by the federal government which are less worthwhile than national defense says a lot about you!

Agreed, there are many ways to pay for weapons, whether they be essential or not.  So pick one.  What other expenditure would you cut, or what tax would you impose?  Defense bought with cost as no concern is as foolish as medical care bought with cost as no concern.  In an ideal world, we'd have enough to buy everything we want instantly and with no trade-offs, but we don't live in an ideal world.  (If we did, we wouldn't need an air force at all, just an air guard to handle search and rescue operations and to ferry relief supplies where they are needed in an emergency.)

The only scenario in which the added costs of procuring additional F-22's would make sense would be if either Russia or China were to engage in a sustained program of armament upgrades considerably above what they currently are doing and expected to do.  Its doubtful either nation would choose to do so unless our relations with them became considerably frostier than they are.  They don't need to engage in such a program unless they intend to confront us in an armed conflict, and such a program would be expensive for them.

I don't see a gamble with our strategic safety in ending F-22 production at 187 for now, provided we maintain the capability to restart production.  The gamble is whether we would need to restart production.  Stopping and then restarting production later would be more expensive than simply continuing production.  However, I see a very low probability to the likelihood we would need to resume production before we would be ready to start fielding a 6th generation or 5.5th generation fighter.

BTW, if your primary concern is to keep the production lines open a few more years as insurance in case we need to acquire more F-22's than it looks like we need right now, there is a much cheaper way to do that than US procurement of more F-22's.  I imagine the Israelis, South Koreans, and Japanese would all be interested in acquiring a squadron of F-22's for themselves.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's some more information:

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-59156.aspx

The F-22 probably would be the best platform for that mission, but if other fighters can do it effectively, why go to the added expense of building additional F-22's for that role? (If they are looking at doing it from F-teens, that would seem to be the case.)  Still, it would give the F-22's something to do besides ground support once air supremacy has been established, so making the system deployable from the F-22 would be a good idea.