What Does the USAF Do Now?

[shawn a]

Ha Ha.....
There was an excellent article on the last page of the April 2010 issue of Flight Journal, by Walter Boyne.
Basically, he states that the US is making the same strategic mistake Japan made prior to WWII. In a few words, "the US is choosing to field an extremely small force of capable aircraft flown by highly skilled aircrews".  and he says "even worse, our limited forces are totally dependent upon two fragile factors: stealth and our sophisticated, but very vulnerable, navigation, communication and intelligence satellite systems.
What do I think the USAF should do?
Convince a moronic congress that more should be spent on defense and military preparedness.
Adopt the "Political Correctness" of china. ("call a spade a spade") ((if you are unfamiliar with that phrase, look it up))
Reduce our obsession with "Collateral Damage" when our troops are being shot at. ("Show of Force" passes)
Stop putting all our eggs in one basket with the naive assumption that one aircraft can do all things (F-35)
Col. Boyne also mentions the fact that any serious conflict involves attrition on a large scale. (187 F-22s).
....

[vanaheim]

Can't say I could find an error in Shawn's sentiments. I too am a firm believer that sustained warfare operates under such classical stylism as Clausewitz's rule of strategic consumption. Sustained warfare is attrition and half of any conflict is a preparedness, in commitment and materiel to sustained (conventional) warfare. This shortfall of the USAF flagships for coverage, a hypothesis is elicited that a highly compartmentalised tactical doctrine will be used, that is to say predictable and cannon fodder will play a holding/front line role. It's almost the Soviet doctrine, with stifling interservice rivalry where the VVS/KVMF have this pretty much absent.

And despite the fact I do believe the primary objective of High Survivability/Low Observability technology is abject air supremecy over small nation and rogue state forces, particularly around the Middle East and Balkans. But secondarily there is concern for that rather large and roguish southern (Russian) defence district around the caucasus and the big fat question mark represented by the Ukraine, which still maintains possibly some 15% of the old Soviet strategic capability (esp in mobile, air launched and MRBM nukes) and are absolutely nutbaggers politically and sociologically at the moment. Worse back in the 90s when they were feeding Russian enemies like the Tblisi government black market war materiel. But c'mon they're having exorcisms in the village square for chrissakes.

Now considering US military bases under the flag of NATO are basically encircling the Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions from Romania to Afghanistan, and that's where the Russian/CIS main supply of fuel oil (and gas and general petroleum products) is at, and the UN's NATO members have been essentially harrassing Iran on the hollow claims not unlike the justification for Iraq invasion, blablabla WMD gonna kill the world with nukes in backpacks and Cessnas crap. Then there was that Euro missile defence system of NATO's back in the 90s, the challenge of Turkish and Ukrainian customs operations on the Black Sea in preventing arms trading with known terrorist organisations.

All in all I'd say the concern is mainly strategic with the F-22 representing the tactical spearhead should push come to shove perhaps around Iran and the south-Caucasus, whilst Vipers and a casual modernisation with the F-35 is doing the bulk of the bomb trucking sans self protection and wild weasel like business as usual.

Other than a face off with the Indians or a sabre rattling with China, I can't really see the cost/benefit ratio falling favourably with very many F-22 because in only fairly limited numbers of scenarios they'll actually prove necessary. The Eurofighter is a cheaper prospect with better returns perhaps, because it was designed with defeating Flankers in mind, where the F-22 was designed with abject air superiority in mind, being a step ahead of everything.

That's awe inspiring and conan the barbarian cool and everything, but kind of expensive and some conservation of resources are sometimes handy, particularly in sustained warfare.

F-22 is first and foremost a high survivability warplane however, what you'll probably find is the USAF secretary probably figured this into sustainable operations estimates. Maybe on average F-22 will account for a 20% higher E/A production due to its high missin survivability rates by comparison.

[Webmaster]

Ukraine, which still maintains possibly some 15% of the old Soviet strategic capability (esp in mobile, air launched and MRBM nukes)

Do you mean back when the F-22 was ordered into production?

Because if you mean today, I would like to know what you are talking about. Ukraine entered the NPT as a non-nuclear state. Most strategic weapons were returned to Russia, the rest disposed under START. Weapons-grade uranium was disposed by Russia in exchange for fuel-grade for the nuclear plants. Since we're on aviation here, I am curious to what you think the air launched nukes are and which aircraft would deliver them? The Su-24? It's like the RAF Tornados, hardly a strategic weapon and its "nuclear capability" consisting of a weapon that is no longer in the inventory.

Actually the whole scenario sounds dated to me. Unless you mean a NATO reaction to a Russian intervention in the Ukraine? Of all Caucasus states I think Ukraine is the least of your worry, with exception of arms exports, but don't need F-22s to prevent those.


PACAF has F-22s in Alaska deploying to Guam/Japan, ANG in Hawaii has F-22s, ACC Langley's F-22s deploy to Japan regularly. I think it's pretty clear to which threat the F-22 force is geared.