F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[gf0012-aust]

You know, I guess it really comes down to the swereness of the "unfair advantage", which I really don't know. Can someone tell me how bad is this advantage. What I mean to say is that, what exactly do they mean by this "unfair advantage", if its just the fact that the enemy doesn't have AWACS than thats just fair to not give AWACS to the red forces, but if its the fact about being outnumbered heavily, than the blue forces sounds like wussies.

What if some other country, other than and more capable than lets say Iran was to end up fighting against the US. How about (no-offence here) lets say Britain, or France or Germany. What do you do than, please don't tell me that its not going happen, there is a possiblity of everything. So what do you do than, cause USAF only trained with the "unfair advantage". And Darth, I thought that you could afford ferraries, what happened to the infinite resources and why are we talking about less resources now. I think it only makes sense to train with atleast the same game, fair play, if not actually being at disadvantage. I mean surely these exerscies would be great moral boosters, but when the shit really hits the fan...

I am trying to work out whether you are being serious or not.

You seem to be totally oblivious as to how militaries train and fight.

Larger militaries like the US engage in a variety of training scenarios. Orange forces typically use enemy tactics, typically use enemy equipment, and atypically, are regarded as superior in capability than the blue forces (who are there to learn)

In addition, training does involve disparate capability, including the use of technology advantage. One wonders how you think people are supposed to operate at a sensor fused level if they have not trained for it. (Similarly, the Chinese Dadu Units do the same).

Its got nothing to do with being fair - its got everything to do with ensuring that you learn how to prosecute with absolute vim and vigour, and how you deliver the utmost but necessary violence upon your enemy to help you win in the shortest most approp manner.

Its not a computer game, its not some noble quest of Rolandian mythology where people play fair.

Modern examples of note. Tsushima. Taranto. Pearl Harbour. Desert Storm

 

[rickshaw]

- Australia is in no security danger considering that America will protect it in times of a conflict.

An interesting claim. On what basis do you make it? Considering that the US has thus far failed to "protect us" in times of our need. Three times we have called upon the US for its aid and twice it has failed completely to help us and on the third its material commitment to our cause was parsinimous at best.

 

[Tasman]

An interesting claim. On what basis do you make it? Considering that the US has thus far failed to "protect us" in times of our need. Three times we have called upon the US for its aid and twice it has failed completely to help us and on the third its material commitment to our cause was parsinimous at best.

What are the three occasions that you are referring to rickshaw?

Cheers

 

[abramsteve]

I would be interested to know too...

Just because we dont have access to one system, it should not be taken as a slap in the face. Anyways like others have pointed out we are yet to actually ask for them.

Remember its an election year, and both sides will do anything to disprove or make the otherside look like a lame duck, especially on issues of national security...

 

[Magoo]

One of the smartest things that has been said on this message board for a long, LONG time!!!

Good job DA. :cool2

Magoo

After re-reading this, I should probably clarify my statement...

Whilst tactics certainly play a very important role in the successful employment of stealth, it really is technology that allows many of these tactics to be employed.

For example, in the early days of stealth, an aircraft such as the SR-71, although stealthier than its contemporaries due to shaping, some of its construction and a crude RAM coating, gained most of its impunity from its ability to transit hostile airspace at Mach 3+ and 80,000ft+. Nothing could track it let alone get a target fix on it.

By contrast, in the case of today's F-22, the advanced technologies built into its shaping, LPI and passive systems and sensors, and its aerodyamic capabilities allows it to not only effectively reduce the size of an adversary's contestable airspace, but to spend less time in hostile airspace, or if necessary to get the hell out of dodge if the threat matrix suddenly changes.

Hope that explains things - sorry about the one-lined response earlier mods.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Falstaff]

The two aircraft Oz will get from the USA, the Super Hornet and Lightening II, are more than a match for Oz's opponents for at least the next 10 to 20 years. Oz will be operating two of the most capable platforms in the world paralleling the USN.
DA

Dear Darth, again I must say you're the most enthusiastic Hornet-fan I ever met. In fact, you're the only one so far. The thing is that the Australians themselves are not so sure about this:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...1171128816482.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Ok, the Australian Air Power article contains a lot of speculation about future flanker developments, but as I understand it Australian doctrine says that it should always have air superiority in the region, perceived threat or not. And this is important to them.
When I try to look into the future, I cannot see how the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 and a waste of ressources like the Super Hornet could possibly make that sure.
So I truely understand that some of them would like to have the F-22.

 

[DarthAmerica]

You know, I guess it really comes down to the swereness of the "unfair advantage", which I really don't know. Can someone tell me how bad is this advantage. What I mean to say is that, what exactly do they mean by this "unfair advantage", if its just the fact that the enemy doesn't have AWACS than thats just fair to not give AWACS to the red forces, but if its the fact about being outnumbered heavily, than the blue forces sounds like wussies.

What if some other country, other than and more capable than lets say Iran was to end up fighting against the US. How about (no-offence here) lets say Britain, or France or Germany. What do you do than, please don't tell me that its not going happen, there is a possiblity of everything. So what do you do than, cause USAF only trained with the "unfair advantage". And Darth, I thought that you could afford ferraries, what happened to the infinite resources and why are we talking about less resources now. I think it only makes sense to train with atleast the same game, fair play, if not actually being at disadvantage. I mean surely these exerscies would be great moral boosters, but when the shit really hits the fan...

We can afford "Ferraris" which is why we fly F-22, B-2 and F/A-18E/F's ect . But that doesn't mean our means are unlimited. If we had to fight the EU-3 then we would adjust our training to reflect that threat. Right now, the threat is Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea. Potentially even Pakistan! It's a matter of priority and the EU-3 is pretty low on the list of potential threats right next to ET's. F-22s need to train like they would fight. High, fast and stealthy. Otherwise the pilots and ground crews won't go into combat as prepared as they could be. Wars just plain aren't fair. They are what they are. F-22s aren't stand alone platforms. They fight as a part of a system. That system must be well practiced in order to function properly.


DA

 

[Falstaff]

That's what the release actally said:

But the overall expected result for the F-22s' involvement at Red Flag is to foster and maintain an "unfair advantage" over the enemies of the United States, said Maj. Jack Miller, a Langley AFB spokesman. "Our joint forces don't want a fair fight: we want every fight we enter to be patently unfair -- to the other guy."

Despite the F-22s' "unfair advantage," Colonel Smith said flying against the Red Force aggressors of the 414th Combat Training Squadron is not an easy task. Aggressor pilots are made up of F-16 and F-15 pilots specially trained to replicate tactics and techniques of potential adversaries according to the 414th CTS/Red Flag fact sheet.

"These scenarios are not made to be easy," Colonel Smith said. "These (Red Forces) pilots are well trained and good at their job."

In addition, Red Forces aren't limited to aggressor pilots. There is no shortage of ground threats at Red Flag. These include electronically simulated surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery, and communications jamming, according to 414th CTS officials.

(full text on defense-aerospace.com)

As I understand it, it says nothing about training with an unfair advantage other than the superiority of the F-22. (BTW, how could you fight "fair" against a F-22? Switch off one engine? Disable some Sensors?)
It says that the training is conducted to make sure the US and it's allies have an unfair advantage against their enemies.

I'd like to refer to what some of the pro's here repeat from time to time: Every exercise has it's rules of engagements and scenarios. Sometimes, blue or red forces train with certain restrictions. So, often the outcomes of exercises must be handled with care.

But it can definitely be said that Red Flag is one of the most valuable, best organised and analysed exercises in the world.

 

[DarthAmerica]

After re-reading this, I should probably clarify my statement...

Whilst tactics certainly play a very important role in the successful employment of stealth, it really is technology that allows many of these tactics to be employed.

Cheers

Magoo

Indeed. And to clarify my earlier statement let me say this. Technology allows for many tactical advantages including stealthiness. However, improper use of tactics or negligence can and often does negate advantages.

Take the loss of the F-117 during OAF for instance. The enemy never found a way to effectively counter the F-117's technological advantages. Rather the USAF complacency, arrogance and poor allied OPSEC compromised that particular F-117 to a desperate but highly adaptive and skilled enemy. SIMPLE COMMON SENSE could have prevented that loss and we are lucky the pilot survived.



DA

 

[Tasman]

Dear Darth, again I must say you're the most enthusiastic Hornet-fan I ever met. In fact, you're the only one so far. The thing is that the Australians themselves are not so sure about this:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...1171128816482.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Ok, the Australian Air Power article contains a lot of speculation about future flanker developments, but as I understand it Australian doctrine says that it should always have air superiority in the region, perceived threat or not. And this is important to them.
When I try to look into the future, I cannot see how the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 and a waste of ressources like the Super Hornet could possibly make that sure.
So I truely understand that some of them would like to have the F-22.

Airpower Australia has been on the F-22 case for years so there is nothing new here and both articles conveniently ignore the reality that the F-22 will not be sold to Australia, at least in the foreseeable future.

If and when Flankers are deployed in more than token numbers by Indonesia then I agree that the RAAF will need to re-evaluate its options for dealing with them. If the F-22 is not available then perhaps advanced versions of the EF Typhoon should be considered to cover the air superiority role. At present, though, the RAAF seems confident that the F-35 in the long term and the SH in the short term will provide the capability it needs.

Cheers

 

[Falstaff]

Yes, the Typhoon has (was designed to have) pretty much growth potential. As I read in FlugRevue (biggest German aerospace magazine) the EJ200 can be upgraded to 100-105kN pretty easily and as we all know development like TC and AESA are underway. I think it would definitely meet Australian requirements in case they wanted it.

What now comes to my mind is, could it be that Australia quietly gives up its air superiority doctrine?
Soon Australia won't be able to compete with either China or India in terms of air power due to economical reasons anyway- these nations are becoming wealthier and will spend more and more money on their defense budget. Australia is a relatively small nation.
The F-35 as single fighter for the RAAF seems to be a very economic-driven decision. As we say it in Germany: as few as possible, as much as needed.

 

[Tasman]

Take the loss of the F-117 during OAF for instance. The enemy never found a way to effectively counter the F-117's technological advantages. Rather the USAF complacency, arrogance and poor allied OPSEC compromised that particular F-117 to a desperate but highly adaptive and skilled enemy. SIMPLE COMMON SENSE could have prevented that loss and we are lucky the pilot survived.

DA

This is an excellent example of just why a military force needs to train in a way that develops and tests tactics that use its assets to its best advantage. By putting one force in an exercise in a situation where the other has the latest technological advantages it may discover tactics to counter that advantage that an inferior enemy might employ in a real war situation.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

What now comes to my mind is, could it be that Australia quietly gives up its air superiority doctrine?
Soon Australia won't be able to compete with either China or India in terms of air power due to economical reasons anyway- these nations are becoming wealthier and will spend more and more money on their defense budget. Australia is a relatively small nation.

I don't think either of the major political parties in Australia would be inclined to throw away Australia's air superiority in the immediate region. By that I mean air superiority over Indonesia and the countries of SE Asia.

As far as India and China are concerned I don't see any evidence that Australia has attempted to quantitatively match their military strength in any area since WW2. At the same time I imagine that the RAAF would be keen to continue to operate combat aircraft that are qualitatively able to participate with coalition forces against any potential adversary. I believe it has followed this doctrine ever since RAAF fighter pilots were unfortunately equipped with British Meteors rather than American F86 Sabres to combat MIG-15s in the Korean War. In a scenario involving China, or perhaps North Korea, I believe that the RAAF would rely on the USAF to establish air dominance and its F-35 and FA-18F aircraft would work nicely alongside similar USAF and USN aircraft in a coalition force.

Cheers

 

[abramsteve]

ahhh, but everything is relative. Whilst India and China may have larger and more capable airforces than out own, they can not project that superiority in to our immediate region, thus we retain regional superiority.

The Super Hornet, whilst is may not be superior in every way to the Typhoon, has one major advantage, comonality. It is to be a mere stop gap fighter, therefore we dont want to waste recources on a completley different and unfamiliar aircraft, which would require a completley different training and logistical set up...

Im not even going to attempt to get into the argument over the qualities or lack there off (depending on your point of view), of the F-35.... I'll leave that for others

 

[Falstaff]

I don't think either of the major political parties in Australia would be inclined to throw away Australia's air superiority in the immediate region. By that I mean air superiority over Indonesia and the countries of SE Asia.

As far as India and China are concerned I don't see any evidence that Australia has attempted to quantitatively match their military strength in any area since WW2. At the same time I imagine that the RAAF would be keen to continue to operate combat aircraft that are qualitatively able to participate with coalition forces against any potential adversary. I believe it has followed this doctrine ever since RAAF fighter pilots were unfortunately equipped with British Meteors rather than American F86 Sabres to combat MIG-15s in the Korean War. In a scenario involving China, or perhaps North Korea, I believe that the RAAF would rely on the USAF to establish air dominance and its F-35 and FA-18F aircraft would work nicely alongside similar USAF and USN aircraft in a coalition force.

Ok, I see. To be honest, I don't really know about Australian doctrine, just noticed that it is mentioned from time to time by some guys here. But what you say makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Falstaff]

ahhh, but everything is relative. Whilst India and China may have larger and more capable airforces than out own, they can not project that superiority in to our immediate region, thus we retain regional superiority.

Well, they might be able to do that in the future?

(BTW: As soon as my exams are finished (which would be at the end of march) I intend to do a in-depth research and write an analysis just in order to proof to DA that the Typhoon kicks ass and the Super Hornet doesn't )

 

[Tasman]

Whilst India and China may have larger and more capable airforces than out own, they can not project that superiority in to our immediate region, thus we retain regional superiority.

You are right here abramsteve. If we define the region as SE Asia, Indonesia and Australasia, plus the islands that make up Oceania then I agree that Australia should retain regional air superiority in the foreseeable future. :australia


In fact I think the only power capable of establishing regional air dominance over Australia is the USA, through the USN, USMC and the USAF. The USN could probably do it by itself and I can't see how the Kiwis could prevent the USMC from seizing bases close to Australia's East Coast from which they and the USAF could operate tactical fighters in support of the USAF's long range bombers! Maybe the Kiwi's would even help them! I have some Kiwi friends who would love to beat Australia at something other than cricket and rugby. nfloorl:

Cheers

 

[abramsteve]

Well, they might be able to do that in the future?

(BTW: As soon as my exams are finished (which would be at the end of march) I intend to do a in-depth research and write an analysis just in order to proof to DA that the Typhoon kicks ass and the Super Hornet doesn't )

Yes thats true (the part about the future, not the Typhoon v SH)

But the easily forseeable future shows that we should retain air superiorty in our region at least, if not in ability to project that power. Id be confident we can keep our skys our own.

The kiwis tut tut tut now thats a different matternfloorl: The cricket wins only because we're foxing in the lead up to the world cup! Why waste energy on them lol!

 

[Falstaff]

If we define the region as SE Asia, Indonesia and Australasia, plus the islands that make up Oceania then I agree that Australia should retain regional air superiority in the foreseeable future. :australia

I'm curious: See, here in central Europe we're quite far from reaching for air superiority over neighbouring countries (that's probably because we're all one big family up here) and so I'm not exactly well informed about what's going on downunder... Are Malaysia or Indonesia hostile countries? Is there/ has there been any threat close to Australia? Do you feel threatened so you have to retain air superiority?

 

[Falstaff]

The cricket wins only because we're foxing in the lead up to the world cup! Why waste energy on them lol!

Why waste energy on playing cricket anyway? nfloorl:

Sorry, off topic