The new Gap.

[Feanor]

Palnatoke typically the situation is reversed. Arms races start when one side perceives itself to be at too great of a disadvantage, and starts building up. A sale of F-22s to Japan would be more likely to start then prevent an arms race. However that doesn't matter either way, China will continue building up its military and in the forseeable future it will likely overtake Japan. That's just a fact of life at this point. A nation of 120 million can't compete with one of 1.2 billion.

 

[Swampfox157]

I say we just spend a few years and start building a few hundred modernized Spooks with current avionics. We can then get ourselves stuck in a Southeast Asia COIN campaign and...

OK, back to the 21st century. Should the F-22 production line be restarted? Absolutely. The export JSF airframes will not (should not) be up to USAF/USN/USMC operating capability, but I still feel that we should have a greater "technology buffer" of sorts. Speaking frankly, the JSF's relatively low payload keeps me awake at night. I worry that it carries too little ordnance for the money. The F-22's payload is not as high as, per say, the full A2A potential of an F/A-18, but it represents an improvement over the F-35 in internally-carried air-to-air weapons. Should the F-22 be available for export? I would personally wait until the initial bugs are worked out (I have talked to USAF personnel working on the Raptor, it has some bugs.) and capability enhancements can be made. At that point, the US would have its necessary tech buffer and early-model or pre-update Raptors could be exported to (close) US allies. In my opinion, this would include Japan, Israel, and (doubtful due to the EF2000) the UK. Israel has been the primary recipient of new US tech, and Japan owning 100-odd F-22s to replace its aging F-4s (leaving fairly open the role of anti-ship strike in the JASDF) would serve as an effective buffer for China pulling any wrong moves, at least until US and foreign support could be moved in. In regards to Israel, however, I also consider it doubtful that the country will encounter any threat dangerous enough to warrant the procurement and deployment of an F-22-class fighter. Barring Iranian PAK-FA sales (not especially likely in light of the Russian refusal to sell S-300s as mentioned below), the IAF should be facing MiGs and Sukhois of various generations, and (highly unlikely) Egyptian F-4s and early-block F-16s. The threat is not enough to justify sales of the Raptor to Israel.

 

[Feros Ferio]

Should the F-22 be available for export? I would personally wait until the initial bugs are worked out (I have talked to USAF personnel working on the Raptor, it has some bugs.) and capability enhancements can be made. At that point, the US would have its necessary tech buffer and early-model or pre-update Raptors could be exported to (close) US allies.

I agree with helping ones allies but selling off the most capable fighter ever created seems unnecessary. In terms of Japan's security, the US has Kadena airbase on Okinawa, at which it can station the F 22 (I know it has periodically sent them there, but I don't know if its a permanent situation), which will have the same effect.

For every country that is sold the F22, more opportunities are created for an un-friendly nation or group to get it's hands on it's technology. So I say keep it under wraps as much as possible. Work the bugs out. Improve on it, make a new fighter, and then sell the Raptor. Why spend all the time and money to create such a superior weapon system, and then start giving it away, along with all the advantages that go along with having said system (I know they would be selling it but you get my point hopefully).

If the US simply hands out the best tech it has, out of fear of other countries rising, it will only hasten its own demise. :crazy

 

[Palnatoke]

Palnatoke typically the situation is reversed. Arms races start when one side perceives itself to be at too great of a disadvantage, and starts building up. A sale of F-22s to Japan would be more likely to start then prevent an arms race. However that doesn't matter either way, (...)

If that was the case, all nations would arm themselves against the USA which holds a dominating (conventional) millitary position over all others - we don't see that.
The only area where you see certain nations trying to balance the US is by getting nuclear weapons, that can be used as a threat of terror. That's because Nukes are cheap.


The reason they don't compete conventionally is that they percieve it as impossible or not worth it - it's too expensive to even think of balancing the US millitary.

That's the fundamental position that the US should try to maintain over China. Now China is, unlike Iran, a country with a huge economical potential so it would make good sense for the US to use (arm) it's allies to further bolster it's millitary superiority as viewed from China in order to discourage China from seeing an advantage in building up it's forces above a certain thresshold.

China will continue building up its military and in the forseeable future it will likely overtake Japan. That's just a fact of life at this point. A nation of 120 million can't compete with one of 1.2 billion.

China has a long way to go, and for a starter China has a choice between spending their money on building military hardware or spending their money on stimulating economical growth f.eks. by tampering with the currency (effectively giving goods away to a reduced price) or huge infrastructure investments like building a high speed train through mountains to a dissolate place known as Tibet.
Since China has a one-party dictatorship, they will choose the growth path in order to appease the population. Yes they will increase their millitary strength, but it will likely not be at a pace that Japan and friends can't match, if they choose. - ofcourse at some point the chineese communistic party will fail, just like the dictators, despots and kings of the middle east are failing as we speak.

So China is not a threat in the short or medium-long run - in the very long run, yes, 1.4 billion "rich" people will represent a fair portion of this worlds skill and knowledge but at that point China is a democracy and democracies don't go to war with each other.

 

[Feanor]

Palnatoke this conversation has gone far beyond military and defense related issues. If you want to have a conversation on concepts like "democratization" and the "democratic peace", both of which you mention as facts, but both of which are in fact shaky Political Science constructs, feel free to start a thread in the Off-Topic forum, and I'll respond there. From a purely defense stand-point, fullfillment of US doctrinal requirements doesn't necessitate the measures you mention. Ergo your proposal is expensive and unnecessary, in fact tautologically so.

 

[Palnatoke]

I agree with helping ones allies but selling off the most capable fighter ever created seems unnecessary. In terms of Japan's security, the US has Kadena airbase on Okinawa, at which it can station the F 22 (I know it has periodically sent them there, but I don't know if its a permanent situation), which will have the same effect.

For every country that is sold the F22, more opportunities are created for an un-friendly nation or group to get it's hands on it's technology. So I say keep it under wraps as much as possible. Work the bugs out. Improve on it, make a new fighter, and then sell the Raptor. Why spend all the time and money to create such a superior weapon system, and then start giving it away, along with all the advantages that go along with having said system (I know they would be selling it but you get my point hopefully).

If the US simply hands out the best tech it has, out of fear of other countries rising, it will only hasten its own demise. :crazy

But you are not giving anything away, you are selling it, and selling it to a closed group of friends, that you can trust.

The tech of the F22 is per definition yesterday's tech, and if the US can get some of the investment back by selling it to Japan, then that's good for the US (and it's trade balance).

The problem, from a US point of view, with a US base in Japan is that then it's US taxpayers that are paying for Japan's defense - maybe this very rich country could pick up the tab it self??

 

[Palnatoke]

Palnatoke this conversation has gone far beyond military and defense related issues. If you want to have a conversation on concepts like "democratization" and the "democratic peace", both of which you mention as facts, but both of which are in fact shaky Political Science constructs, feel free to start a thread in the Off-Topic forum, and I'll respond there. From a purely defense stand-point, fullfillment of US doctrinal requirements doesn't necessitate the measures you mention. Ergo your proposal is expensive and unnecessary, in fact tautologically so.

yeah I wandered a bit off topic - my apologies.

 

[SASWanabe]

OK, back to the 21st century. Should the F-22 production line be restarted? Absolutely. The export JSF airframes will not (should not) be up to USAF/USN/USMC operating capability, but I still feel that we should have a greater "technology buffer" of sorts. Speaking frankly, the JSF's relatively low payload keeps me awake at night. I worry that it carries too little ordnance for the money. The F-22's payload is not as high as, per say, the full A2A potential of an F/A-18, but it represents an improvement over the F-35 in internally-carried air-to-air weapons.

you should have a read of this (courtesy of Abe).

The Western Lines: A response to Air Power Australia

 

[Haavarla]

If that was the case, all nations would arm themselves against the USA which holds a dominating (conventional) millitary position over all others - we don't see that.
The only area where you see certain nations trying to balance the US is by getting nuclear weapons, that can be used as a threat of terror. That's because Nukes are cheap.

Thats because if your "all the nation" does not have the economy to close the gap in arms race, how on earth can they get NC in the first place..?
NC is not cheap, not in the short run, not in the long run..
Are you talking about N-Korea or China here..?
Its called NC deterrent.. not "threat of terror" cause that would leave US a whole lot of threat of terror

 

[Palnatoke]

Thats because if your "all the nation" does not have the economy to close the gap in arms race, how on earth can they get NC in the first place..?
NC is not cheap, not in the short run, not in the long run..
Are you talking about N-Korea or China here..?
Its called NC deterrent.. not "threat of terror" cause that would leave US a whole lot of threat of terror

Well, if you can get your hands on the raw materials (Uranium), it's quite easy to build a nuclear device, well within the reach of many countries, building a F22 is not within the grasp of a lot of countries.

My point is exactly that if a given country thinks that the investment to balance a given enemy, conventionally, is too big, then that country would find other ways to secure it self.
Be that through alliences, build a credible deterrent (f.ex. nukes) etc.
(I would argue that the main idea behind the NMD, is of this sort; this is so expensive; so don't even try, hence, we win!)

Warning: OFF TOPIC

Its called NC deterrent.. not "threat of terror" cause that would leave US a whole lot of threat of terror

"deterrent" is a loan from latin:
deterrentem; prp. deterrere
That'll be
de-terrere (away)-(frighten)

Terror; Loan from old French, that loaned it from Latin;
Terrorem: (Great) Fear.

I leave it up to you to decide on the eqvivalence of;

Threat of "great fear"

and

Frighten (someone) away .

 

[H Nelson]

SecDef Gates not prematurely ended production of the F/A22 Raptor at 183 instead of letting it continue to 380(and potentially 500-600

The Air Force has a funny way of neglecting sustainment, then asking for something new. The F-22 is a solid airframe for the 21st century; but guess what, so's the F-15! Or at least it could have been...

The Air Force is cutting 2300 officers this year. They can't afford them. It's a shame that they would even think of procuring new aircraft when they can't even sustain a trained force to operate and support them.

I was going to link to my proof, but I guess I don't have enough posts... just google it.

 

[Haavarla]

The Air Force has a funny way of neglecting sustainment, then asking for something new. The F-22 is a solid airframe for the 21st century; but guess what, so's the F-15! Or at least it could have been...

The Air Force is cutting 2300 officers this year. They can't afford them. It's a shame that they would even think of procuring new aircraft when they can't even sustain a trained force to operate and support them.

I was going to link to my proof, but I guess I don't have enough posts... just google it.

With the ongoing 'Golden eagle' upgrade(new AESA) in effect, the F-15C will be a seriously A2A asset.
What we can debate is how many units will get this upgrade, and if it is enough for USAF..?

As for the USAF cut backs.. they are not the only air forces:

"Russian Air Force Cuts 50,000 Officers
The Russian Air Force plans to eliminate all its divisions and regiments and form airbases in their place. It will also reduce its officer staff by 50,000 Interfax reports. In the next three years, 55 airbases will be set up based on squadrons. The rank of ensign will be eliminated and a number of service and management functions will be converted to civilian status. The first changes will go into effect on December 1.
According to plans, the Russian Air Force in 2012 will consist of a strategic-tactical command, a strategic air command armed with nuclear weapons, a military-transport air command and four air defense and antimissile commands. In addition, the corps and divisions of the air defense will be reorganized into air-and-space defense brigades and the antiaircraft missile brigades will be reorganized into antiaircraft missile regiments.

Support structures will be organized as well. In place of nine vehicular brigades, 20 battalions on constant alert with fewer personnel will be formed. They will be used to transport supplies to the forces. Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced reforms in the Russian military in October, which are frequently called the most radical in post-Soviet history in the press. Besides reducing the officer staff, the reforms are aimed at bring the Russian military up to “world standards.”

Russian Air Force Cuts 50,000 Officers - Kommersant Moscow

 

[Feanor]

That's hardly a valid example. The Russian air force is cutting excess personell from cadre units for the most part. It's actually part of an increase in budget and op-tempo.

 

[Haavarla]

That's hardly a valid example. The Russian air force is cutting excess personell from cadre units for the most part. It's actually part of an increase in budget and op-tempo.

With all due respect, there is more than just personell cut backs in the VVS.
VVS has been on paper at least operated or mainteined many 'regiments' of different aircraft.
Many of them perhaps in a semi-reserve fasion.
Also the main reason for personall cut back is the shrinking numbers of air bases.

Today its quite easy to count the inventory in the VVS.
The new squadrons size inventory does not count that many aircraft, as before the restructure started in 2008.

Yes VVS is getting new units, but at the same time they have slimmed down their operational inventory..

This is partly the same situation as the USAF.

 

[Feanor]

Consider that the previous operational inventory was a nominal one. In terms of real combat ready operational inventory these cuts are part of a set of changes that will make it increase.

 

[Haavarla]

Hopefully thats the case after all the re-structure is done.
Never the less, there are missing several squadrons like Su-27, Mig-31, Mig-29, Su-24 if one compair all the earlier Air regiments vs today operational squadrons beeing operated from the remaining airbases in Russia.

My point is people complaining about all the cuts in US personell and having a dwindeling numbers of aircraft is not something which is only reserved USAF.
Take a look at RAF status etc..

These cut backs in USAF does not defend any justice to re-open any F-22 lines.
Like Palnatoke state.

It would be strange if not PLAAF havent got a similar re-structure program within their airforce, as they are operating numerous sq or air regiments of many older outdated aircraft..
I would like to see any service record or how many flight hour of their pilots are get in a year?

 

[Palnatoke]

With the risc of being accused of wandering off topic again, I will try to inject some reality in to the balance of power discussion:

China, Russia or whom ever do not and will not represent a conventional millitary threat to the US, NATO etc.

That's because if an economy is large enough to challenge say NATO, then one just don't deal with them by conventional means - end of story.

The millitary scope of "our" conventional millitary that we have spendt considerable ressources on, is to be able to gangbang Ghadafi, Saddam H. or the like, with minimal own looses.
We could in theory gangbang Iran, but she's allready too big and an all out war would cause too much disruption of "buisness", so we don't do that.

I think Georgia is an instructive example, The west cared, but not nearly enough to do anything. Had the west really, really cared, it could have made a trade embargo on russia - ofcourse not the oil, that would have been felt at the local gas station (unacceptable) and would have done too much damage to economy (mostly the russian, that we otherwise like to trade with) but maybe we could have banned export of german luxury cars or banned travel to the casino in Monarco for a named bunch of very rich russians, Such actions would be painfully felt of any elite in any country - but thinking about it again, that would have caused job losses in Monarco, Munich and Wolfsburg and that was ofcourse not the intention....

The one thing that would never never happen and if it happen would constitute a completely reckless and insanly dangerous action would have been to beat up the russians somewhere, that would just be cracy.

So why do we have more millitary than needed to beat up, say, Ghadafi?
Because a B2 bomber is a very simply way of demonstarting the difference between a 2nd world country like China and a 1st world country like the USA - it's all about the length of the penis, and if your penis is large enough, maybe the other boys will stop comparing their (smaller) penises to yours.

 

[Haavarla]

Palnatoke;216901]With the risc of being accused of wandering off topic again, I will try to inject some reality in to the balance of power discussion:

China, Russia or whom ever do not and will not represent a conventional millitary threat to the US, NATO etc.
That's because if an economy is large enough to challenge say NATO, then one just don't deal with them by conventional means - end of story.

What are you talking about.
Are not Countries like China and Russia alowed to have defence without beeing nailed as a threat to NATO
China is or soon to be an economical super power, there are things that will follow in that wake, like defence programs.

The millitary scope of "our" conventional millitary that we have spendt considerable ressources on, is to be able to gangbang Ghadafi, Saddam H. or the like, with minimal own looses.
We could in theory gangbang Iran, but she's allready too big and an all out war would cause too much disruption of "buisness", so we don't do that.

You are very political focused... Not the right thread, go the general discussion and have a ball there.

I think Georgia is an instructive example, The west cared, but not nearly enough to do anything. Had the west really, really cared, it could have made a trade embargo on russia - ofcourse not the oil, that would have been felt at the local gas station (unacceptable) and would have done too much damage to economy (mostly the russian, that we otherwise like to trade with) but maybe we could have banned export of german luxury cars or banned travel to the casino in Monarco for a named bunch of very rich russians, Such actions would be painfully felt of any elite in any country - but thinking about it again, that would have caused job losses in Monarco, Munich and Wolfsburg and that was ofcourse not the intention....

Omg..
Just as you know it, Large porportion of western europe is 'depended' on Russian gas export.
Just imagine what would happen if even the smallest embargo would go into effect against Russia..
And why should NATO do anything in Georgia?
Its not our ballgame or back yarden for that matter.

The one thing that would never never happen and if it happen would constitute a completely reckless and insanly dangerous action would have been to beat up the russians somewhere, that would just be cracy.

So why do we have more millitary than needed to beat up, say, Ghadafi?
Because a B2 bomber is a very simply way of demonstarting the difference between a 2nd world country like China and a 1st world country like the USA - it's all about the length of the penis, and if your penis is large enough, maybe the other boys will stop comparing their (smaller) penises to yours.

1st wourld and 2nd world country..
I'm not sure what this is all about..
We are debating 'Gap' in airforces around the world, or the lack of it.
Compairing B-2 against Libya is not the same thing here.
Care to explain in a more favored manner?

 

[Palnatoke]

Plz Haavarla

Read what I wrote, I am saying that this "gap" is fictive, it is, when talking about major nations, only symbollic. We are not going to war under any circumstances, with Russia, China, France, Brasil etc. hence we don't in real terms need the millitary to go to war with them - that should be logic?

Why do we then have the millitary to go to war with them?, and I am saying that's because of "penis envy" we are measuring each other up. We could choose to (and to a certain extend do) measure each other on amount of gold medals at the olympics, how good we are at football, green-tech etc. but tradition and something in our reptile brain makes us think that soldiers marching in a parade is a very good measure of our "potency".

What are you talking about.
Are not Countries like China and Russia alowed to have defence without beeing nailed as a threat to NATO

Carefully, re-read my post.

China is or soon to be an economical super power, there are things that will follow in that wake, like defence programs.

Well, that depends on how smart the chineese are - so far they have been quite smart.

You are very political focused... Not the right thread, go the general discussion and have a ball there.

Well, yes, not taking account of the politics of this gap renders it kinda a pseudo discussion.

Just as you know it, Large porportion of western europe is 'depended' on Russian gas export.

And

Just imagine what would happen if even the smallest embargo would go into effect against Russia..

Yes, the reality is that we are deeply inter-dependent. It's not just gas or oil - it's just about everything. Imagine what will happen to your "pension savings" if we really had a fall out with Russia....
(Just as you know, Russia is more dependent on exporting gas to europe, than europe is dependent on importing it.)

1st wourld and 2nd world country..
I'm not sure what this is all about..

Meassuring penises, who's big and powerfull and who's not.

We are debating 'Gap' in airforces around the world, or the lack of it.
Compairing B-2 against Libya is not the same thing here.
Care to explain in a more favored manner?

I was comparing a B2 with China, if you read my post at all.

But let me be specific.
The point of the F22 is that american defense industry have shown that they are a generation ahead of everyone else.
Doesn't matter whether you have a 100, 200, 500 or 1000 of F22s. It's a piece of flying high tech that the rest of the pack can't make and hence US "wins" or they are the "superpower", "loudest howling wolf" ect.
Doesn't make sense to speak of a "numerical gap", just as little as it made sense to speak of numbers of nuclear warheads 30 years ago - they had enough to reck the world multiple times, but they kept on making them to make sure that they had "most".

 

[Haavarla]

Palnatoke;216906]
Yes, the reality is that we are deeply inter-dependent. It's not just gas or oil - it's just about everything. Imagine what will happen to your "pension savings" if we really had a fall out with Russia....
(Just as you know, Russia is more dependent on exporting gas to europe, than europe is dependent on importing it.)

I wouldn't know about that, care to back it up with something more substacial like a source?
Where should the natural gass come from elsewhere if not Russia?

But let me be specific.
The point of the F22 is that american defense industry have shown that they are a generation ahead of everyone else.
Doesn't matter whether you have a 100, 200, 500 or 1000 of F22s. It's a piece of flying high tech that the rest of the pack can't make and hence US "wins" or they are the "superpower", "loudest howling wolf" ect.
Doesn't make sense to speak of a "numerical gap", just as little as it made sense to speak of numbers of nuclear warheads 30 years ago - they had enough to reck the world multiple times, but they kept on making them to make sure that they had "most".

Well fine, 30 years ago was 30 years ago. Now we have a new Start agreement or NC reduction treaty between Russia and US. Good thing the world is moving forward.

Back to topic then, do you agree that the F-35 procurment is good enough for USAF and that the F-22 prod should not be reopened?
Are you sattisfied with the current inventory in the USAF?
If not what would you see done differently on the subject.