3 ms·

> Central to whether the US can maintain its global strategic posture is having sufficient numbers of F-22 Raptor fighters Assumes facts not in evidence: That

by mapgrep 13y ago

> Central to whether the US can maintain its global strategic posture is having sufficient numbers of F-22 Raptor fighters Assumes facts not in evidence: That we will wage, threaten to wage, or deter against fighting a conventional war with either Russia or China, the only two nations on the planet who could theoretically develop the capability to thwart our current air power arsenal (F-15, F-18, etc). I mean: Really? A gunpowder war against Russia or China? There is a large body of evidence, including but not limited to the past 50 years of U.S. military history, that we are more likely to end up in a war against guerillas, insurgents, terrorists, or third world regimes -- the strangely named "low intensity conflicts." For which these very expensive (and very cool, to teen boys) fighters are useless. Not suboptimal; useless. And I haven't even begun to discuss how military power is only one component of "strategic posture." For example, China's enormous economic engine is far more important to its clout on the world stage than its military arsenal. Ask Pakistan or North Korea how much respect and real power a fearsome military buys globally. This whole article is basically propaganda designed to puff up the importance of a weapons program held over from the cold war. It could have been written by Boeing (although even Boeing would have been more subtle). Its assertions are laughable. ("Unless the US deploys a minimum of 500-600 of these aircraft, it will lose the ability to access hostile airspace with acceptable losses in aircraft and aircrew." We access hostile aircraft every day.)

forktheif 13y ago
You didn't actually read the article did you? The vast majority of air defence systems the US has gone against are SA-2 which is late 1950s tech, SA-3, which is early 1960s tech and a few SA-5s and SA-6's, which are late 60s tech. Over the past decade and a half, things have started to change. Russia has started exporting large numbers of modern air defence systems, and modern digital upgrades to older systems. Systems that were designed from the start to be highly resistant to jamming and decoys and to be highly mobile. Air defences have suddenly got a lot more capable in many nations around the world, while western nations are by and large still using the same defence suppression tools they had during the first gulf war. If the US needs to attack a nation like Iran or Syria, it will not be a rerun of 1991. Instead of the US having a 20 year technological advantage over enemy air defence, enemy air defences will have a 20 year technological advantage over the US air force.
- mapgrep 13y ago
  No, if the U.S. needs to attack a nation like Iran or Syria, we will do overwhlemingly better at securing air superiority than we did in 1991. Their pilots are more poorly trained, fewer in number, and less connected to a functional comprehensive air defense system than Iraq in 1991. It's nice that you know the NATO designation of a few old SAM systems, but that's mostly orthogonal to the question of whether we need F-22s. The U.S. system of establishing air superiority is just that: A system, of which air superiority fighters are just one piece. The system is unmatched in the world. And you've been watching too much Top Gun, kiddo.

by mapgrep 13y ago

forktheif 13y ago

You didn't actually read the article did you? The vast majority of air defence systems the US has gone against are SA-2 which is late 1950s tech, SA-3, which is early 1960s tech and a few SA-5s and SA-6's, which are late 60s tech. Over the past decade and a half, things have started to change. Russia has started exporting large numbers of modern air defence systems, and modern digital upgrades to older systems. Systems that were designed from the start to be highly resistant to jamming and decoys and to be highly mobile. Air defences have suddenly got a lot more capable in many nations around the world, while western nations are by and large still using the same defence suppression tools they had during the first gulf war. If the US needs to attack a nation like Iran or Syria, it will not be a rerun of 1991. Instead of the US having a 20 year technological advantage over enemy air defence, enemy air defences will have a 20 year technological advantage over the US air force.

mapgrep 13y ago
No, if the U.S. needs to attack a nation like Iran or Syria, we will do overwhlemingly better at securing air superiority than we did in 1991. Their pilots are more poorly trained, fewer in number, and less connected to a functional comprehensive air defense system than Iraq in 1991. It's nice that you know the NATO designation of a few old SAM systems, but that's mostly orthogonal to the question of whether we need F-22s. The U.S. system of establishing air superiority is just that: A system, of which air superiority fighters are just one piece. The system is unmatched in the world. And you've been watching too much Top Gun, kiddo.