Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

US Air Superiority in flux?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Rez O. Lewshun

Save the Profession
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Posts
13,422
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force

American air superiority has been so complete for so long that we take it for granted. For more than half a century, we’ve made only rare use of the aerial-combat skills of a man like Cesar Rodriguez, who retired two years ago with more air-to-air kills than any other active-duty fighter pilot. But our technological edge is eroding—Russia, China, India, North Korea, and Pakistan all now fly fighter jets with capabilities equal or superior to those of the F-15, the backbone of American air power since the Carter era. Now we have a choice. We can stock the Air Force with the expensive, cutting-edge F‑22—maintaining our technological superiority at great expense to our Treasury. Or we can go back to a time when the cost of air supremacy was paid in the blood of men like Rodriguez.
 
Could you put a teenage driver into Tony Stewart's car and expect him to win Daytona?

Could you buy snow skis just like Bode Miller and become an olympic skier?

You put an Iranian in an F-14 and you still have a dead Iranian when he faces a US Navy or USAF pilot. Training is the big difference. Now if the Obamessiah cuts the training budget............
 
Could you put a teenage driver into Tony Stewart's car and expect him to win Daytona?

Could you buy snow skis just like Bode Miller and become an olympic skier?

You put an Iranian in an F-14 and you still have a dead Iranian when he faces a US Navy or USAF pilot. Training is the big difference. Now if the Obamessiah cuts the training budget............[/quote]


Just wait....it's coming...
 
here's a thought...

Our pilot community in general has been going through a lot of political correctness within the last fifteen years (at least). I believe this has also helped in the erosion of that ol' stick and rudder quality pilot that used to be a prerequisite to flying fighters. Not to say that there are none left, but those that "rate" have to tolerate those who do not. I saw it in SUPT, I've heard the frustration from IFF IPs. People that didn't belong ended up getting a gazillion mulligans to get what they wanted and that's gotta have an effect. You've heard of the "dumbing down" of the US schools...
Also, we've all heard that the "shwacking" of the eagles by the IAF was a smooth move by the USAF to show the need for the raptor.
IMHO of course.
 
The Air Force leadership is chock full of fighter pilots. They don't care about the aircraft actually fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the tankers, cargo aircraft and helicopters they just want more fighter jets. Its painful for them with the advent of the JADAM that one 40 year old B-52 can loiter over the battlefield for 10 hours and perform as many percison strikes as a whole squadron of F-16's.

The article also overlooks the capability of the AAMRAM, look-down shoot down radar, and superior command and control. Even if our potential enemy came up with Firefox or the Millineum Falcon with our three generation edge in missle and radar technology, even if their aircraft made it off the ground they would probably be shot down from 20 miles away.

We can field great numbers of Super Hornets, F-16's and F-15's. The F-16 may have been designed in the Carter era, but todays Block 60 F-16 is nothing like a Block 1 F-16, no more than a 737-200 is like a 737-800. Also quantity has a quality all its own. Look at World War Two. The Me-262 was jet powered and superior to the P-51, P-47, and P-38 in everyway. Problem is its tough to fight 100 P-51's in one jet.

The fighter pilot mentality that prevades the Air Force and the way the Air Force does things needs to be put to rest. There is only so much money to go around and we need to procure more of the aircraft we need to fight the wars we are in, rather than a war 20 years from now that supposes our potential enemy will make some huge leap in technology.

The Navy does air to air, bombs, does EW, and tanks with one airframe. The Air Force requires five different airframes to do the same missions. I think once again the Air Force will put all it eggs in one basket and try to get the F-22 even though what it really needs are tankers, lift, helicopters and UAV's. Keep puttting fighter guys in charge and this is what you get.
 
Last edited:
They don't care about the aircraft actually fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the tankers, cargo aircraft and helicopters they just want more fighter jets.

They DO care. It's a matter of do we fill our forces to fight todays war or do we get ready for tomorrows?

Its painful for them with the advent of the JADAM that one 40 year old B-52 can loiter over the battlefield for 10 hours and perform as many percison strikes as a whole squadron of F-16's.

Again the Buff is great provided that we have air supremacy. Try to send said Buffs into downtown Pyongyang and see what happens.

The article also overlooks the capability of the AAMRAM, look-down shoot down radar, and superior command and control. Even if our potential enemy came up with Firefox or the Millineum Falcon with our three generation edge in missle and radar technology, even if their aircraft made it off the ground they would probably be shot down from 20 miles away.

There's some nasty ******************** out there...'nough said


We can field great numbers of Super Hornets, F-16's and F-15's. The F-16 may have been designed in the Carter era, but todays Block 60 F-16 is nothing like a Block 1 F-16, no more than a 737-200 is like a 737-800. Also quantity has a quality all its own. Look at World War Two. The Me-262 was jet powered and superior to the P-51, P-47, and P-38 in everyway. Problem is its tough to fight 100 P-51's in one jet.

I agree with this.

The fighter pilot mentality that prevades the Air Force and the way the Air Force does things needs to be put to rest. There is only so much money to go around and we need to procure more of the aircraft we need to fight the wars we are in, rather than a war 20 years from now that supposes our potential enemy will make some huge leap in technology.

Again that's one opinion. I disagree.

The Navy does air to air, bombs, does EW, and tanks with one airframe. The Air Force requires five different airframes to do the same missions. I think once again the Air Force will put all it eggs in one basket and try to get the F-22 even though what it really needs are tankers, lift, helicopters and UAV's. Keep puttting fighter guys in charge and this is what you get.

"Jack of all trades, master of none". You clearly don't understand the capabilities of the Air Force specialized assets.

As to no more Fighter guys in leadership positions, yes let put shoe clerks and cargo pilots in charge of deciding what the Combat Air Force fighter mix should look like.

YGTBSM
 
Last edited:
Navy

I thought the Navy's primary mission was boats. It's a little tough to put a B-52, KC-135 or C-17 on a boat. That's why they do so much with one airframe. That's also why the AF mentality is to have specialized air frames. It is good to have the capability to one thing really well rather than a lot of things OK. Not saying there isn't a good case for "jack of all trades," (I did fly the F-4 after all) just that it isn't always the best solution or capability.
 
F-15, F-15E, F-16, F-22, and the F-35. These aircraft all can basically the same thing. Not to mention there is also the A-10 which is perpetually being eliminated that also has many of the same missions. Now we have B-1, B-2's and B-52's doing CAS because of the JADAM too.

The Navy used to have seperate aircraft for all its missions (A-4, A-7, A-6, EA-6, F-4, F-14, RC-5, RF-8, KA-3D) but now with better avionics and weapons systems they combined it all into one aircraft. Maybe the FA-18 is the master of none of its missions but what kind of a budget drain is the Air Force going to be on the rest of the armed forces when it tries to maintain 9 airframes for CAS, 3 for Air to Air, and 3 to deliver nukes. Everyone like fancy jets but Marines need socks and body armor, the army needs armored vehicles, everyone needs UAV's, and the Navy is back to fighting pirates so a littoral combat ship may be a good idea.

If the Air Force wants new planes how about more tankers and lift especially since we are being denied use of airfields by the Russians. How about some helicopters that can do CSAR in hot and high conditions and insert SOF. In the seven years of the war on terror the Taliban Air Force (there isn't one) and the Iraqi Air Force have not sortied a single aircraft. Do they even have any F-15C's doing anything in Afghanistan? We are engaged in two conflicts right now. Lets try to concentrate on what is actually going on instead of worrying that the Chinese may jump 20 years ahead in missle and radar technology overnight.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top