2 ms·

The argument here is that a small force of F-22s taken to the Asian theater will complement a large F-35 force enough that it will no longer be a problem that F

The argument here is that a small force of F-22s taken to the Asian theater will complement a large F-35 force enough that it will no longer be a problem that F-35 dogfight capability is limited. All F-22-s need to do is to provide cover for WVR engagements, which won't happen frequently or in large numbers. >On that note the SU-37 has a combat range of over 3500KM too bad it never existed except a single technology demonstrator which lacked real engines.

dogma1138 11y ago
That's a silly argument to make tbh, a small amount of F-22 won't make much of a difference, the F-22 has limited range almost half of an F-15. The US doesn't have bases in Asia to be effective in that theater with the F-22 Okinawa is pretty much outside of the combat range of the F-22. Not to mention that again pretty any time the F-22 was been deployed overseas was to bolster local defense rather than to spearhead incursions, the same goes for the F-15 (with the exception of the strike eagle). And again you make unsubstantiated assumptions about how an hypothetical engagement between say the US and China will look like. The assumption that dog fighting is obsolete and that most kills will be within WVR and or using missiles has been disproven time and time again, the US has learned that in Vietnam, the Israeli Air Force has proved it over a period of nearly 40 years, and again by NATO in Yugoslavia. You also need to remember that a limited amount of F-22's won't do much, heck if they deploy their entire F-22 fleet it will still be less than a 1/5th of the amount of aircraft that was involved in bombing Belgrade. A fighter which can't dog fight is useless there is no way of defending it, yes not every fighter has to excel in every role but you can't afford to have it fulfill any of it's roles inadequately. Take the F-16 for example while relatively under powered compared to the F-15 it is still capable of duking it out against the F-15 with just shy of 50% success rate. Infact the success rate of the USN and the USAF F-16 Aggressor squadrons against the F-15 was one of the main reasons for the US lowering the production of the F-15 and equipping most of it's national guard squadrons with the F-16, the cost savings didn't hurt either. The F-16 while slower, has a slightly shorter range and operational ceiling than the F-15 but it is just as agile (arguably more) than the F-15, it's lighter and has quite a considerable thrust-to-weight ratio lead over the F-15. The F-15 still had a role to play in air defense it still had one of the biggest RADAR's out there (Only the F-14 tomcat had bigger) was very fast and would be a better counter to high altitude strategic bombers than the F-16. The F-15E was pretty much developed because the USAF needed a heavy strike fighter that could carry bunker busters against hardened targets to replace the F-111 and the F-16 couldn't carry 5000 lbs. bombs. The F-22 has a role, but it's role is limited this is probably the last of the cold war era fighters, it was developed in the 80's based on residual cold war doctrine because the USAF didn't knew anything else. Oddly enough it seems that 6th gen projects are already running around with both Boeing and Lockheed showcasing their concepts, i have a feeling that while the F-22 won't be replaced it will be complemented very quickly by a 6th gen fighter probably before 2025, the US is looking at the F-22 clones Russian and China are producing and they will not let them catch up. As for the F-35 well need to see if all this doom and gloom is true, if so it will probably be replaced just as quickly, the Navy has extended the F/A-18 life to 2022 and has plans for a future carrier based fighter which are underway so the F-35 might be dead in the water before any major production has been made. So sorry the US can deploy all of their F-22 to Okinawa, still won't help the F-35 if it can't duke it out against the F-16 with an acceptable win ratio. On the SU-37, I've mean the 27 (not that there's much difference the 37 is another re-branding of the 27). Which exists in quite large numbers both in Russia (SU 27, 30, 33, 35) and China (As the J11).
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Oddly enough it seems that 6th gen projects are already running around with both Boeing and Lockheed showcasing their concepts, i have a feeling that while the F-22 won't be replaced it will be complemented very quickly by a 6th gen fighter probably before 2025 What? Less than 10 years from military requirements to entering service for a new fighter? Not going to happen, even with "concepts" without actual military requirements being shopped. F-22 was 24 years from ATF requirements to entering service. F-35 was about as long. In general, procurement cycles for fighters have been getting longer for several aircraft generations. There's no sign that that would suddenly reverse.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Well the air force has put Gen 6 procurement into it's FI2016 budget with a goal of completing fielding by 2030, so yes 2025 adoption for Gen 6 fighter is a reasonable estimate. It's the 1st time in which it appeared, and although it's only in it's CCT stage the overall process from the Air Force seems to be accelerated. http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/fy2016_r1.pdf http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudge...
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Well the air force has put Gen 6 procurement into it's FI2016 budget with a goal of completing fielding by 2030, so yes 2025 adoption for Gen 6 fighter is a reasonable estimate. That seems to take for granted that goals stated in military budgets are themselves reasonable estimates.

dogma1138 11y ago

That's a silly argument to make tbh, a small amount of F-22 won't make much of a difference, the F-22 has limited range almost half of an F-15. The US doesn't have bases in Asia to be effective in that theater with the F-22 Okinawa is pretty much outside of the combat range of the F-22. Not to mention that again pretty any time the F-22 was been deployed overseas was to bolster local defense rather than to spearhead incursions, the same goes for the F-15 (with the exception of the strike eagle). And again you make unsubstantiated assumptions about how an hypothetical engagement between say the US and China will look like. The assumption that dog fighting is obsolete and that most kills will be within WVR and or using missiles has been disproven time and time again, the US has learned that in Vietnam, the Israeli Air Force has proved it over a period of nearly 40 years, and again by NATO in Yugoslavia. You also need to remember that a limited amount of F-22's won't do much, heck if they deploy their entire F-22 fleet it will still be less than a 1/5th of the amount of aircraft that was involved in bombing Belgrade. A fighter which can't dog fight is useless there is no way of defending it, yes not every fighter has to excel in every role but you can't afford to have it fulfill any of it's roles inadequately. Take the F-16 for example while relatively under powered compared to the F-15 it is still capable of duking it out against the F-15 with just shy of 50% success rate. Infact the success rate of the USN and the USAF F-16 Aggressor squadrons against the F-15 was one of the main reasons for the US lowering the production of the F-15 and equipping most of it's national guard squadrons with the F-16, the cost savings didn't hurt either. The F-16 while slower, has a slightly shorter range and operational ceiling than the F-15 but it is just as agile (arguably more) than the F-15, it's lighter and has quite a considerable thrust-to-weight ratio lead over the F-15. The F-15 still had a role to play in air defense it still had one of the biggest RADAR's out there (Only the F-14 tomcat had bigger) was very fast and would be a better counter to high altitude strategic bombers than the F-16. The F-15E was pretty much developed because the USAF needed a heavy strike fighter that could carry bunker busters against hardened targets to replace the F-111 and the F-16 couldn't carry 5000 lbs. bombs. The F-22 has a role, but it's role is limited this is probably the last of the cold war era fighters, it was developed in the 80's based on residual cold war doctrine because the USAF didn't knew anything else. Oddly enough it seems that 6th gen projects are already running around with both Boeing and Lockheed showcasing their concepts, i have a feeling that while the F-22 won't be replaced it will be complemented very quickly by a 6th gen fighter probably before 2025, the US is looking at the F-22 clones Russian and China are producing and they will not let them catch up. As for the F-35 well need to see if all this doom and gloom is true, if so it will probably be replaced just as quickly, the Navy has extended the F/A-18 life to 2022 and has plans for a future carrier based fighter which are underway so the F-35 might be dead in the water before any major production has been made. So sorry the US can deploy all of their F-22 to Okinawa, still won't help the F-35 if it can't duke it out against the F-16 with an acceptable win ratio. On the SU-37, I've mean the 27 (not that there's much difference the 37 is another re-branding of the 27). Which exists in quite large numbers both in Russia (SU 27, 30, 33, 35) and China (As the J11).

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Oddly enough it seems that 6th gen projects are already running around with both Boeing and Lockheed showcasing their concepts, i have a feeling that while the F-22 won't be replaced it will be complemented very quickly by a 6th gen fighter probably before 2025 What? Less than 10 years from military requirements to entering service for a new fighter? Not going to happen, even with "concepts" without actual military requirements being shopped. F-22 was 24 years from ATF requirements to entering service. F-35 was about as long. In general, procurement cycles for fighters have been getting longer for several aircraft generations. There's no sign that that would suddenly reverse.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Well the air force has put Gen 6 procurement into it's FI2016 budget with a goal of completing fielding by 2030, so yes 2025 adoption for Gen 6 fighter is a reasonable estimate. It's the 1st time in which it appeared, and although it's only in it's CCT stage the overall process from the Air Force seems to be accelerated. http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/fy2016_r1.pdf http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudge...
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Well the air force has put Gen 6 procurement into it's FI2016 budget with a goal of completing fielding by 2030, so yes 2025 adoption for Gen 6 fighter is a reasonable estimate. That seems to take for granted that goals stated in military budgets are themselves reasonable estimates.