F22 rendered useless by it's own side

Sigh,

>>
The F-22's utility
This brings us back full circle. USAF General Ronald E Keys is concerned that the surveillance suite of the US$350 million F-22 may not be able to operate around Baghdad. Although nominally a fighter aircraft, the F-22 also can act as a signals intelligence interceptor, which would be its role in Iraq. Keys notes, however, that the electronic spectrum around Baghdad is polluted by the myriad jamming devices that coalition forces primarily employed to thwart remote detonations of the improvised explosive devices that have inflicted 70% of all US fatalities in that war.
>>

If it's illegal for a U.S. citizen to own an automatic rifle, it should be an instant death penalty offense for an Iraqi to do so. This is Dodge Frickin' City here folks. The only way to put an end to this is to hold them ALL equally responsible for the violence by making it clear that NOBODY has a right to bear arms but U.S.. Period.

If it's _legal_ for our Administration to use Son Of Carnivore and the Patriot Act to monitor U.S. citizen's telecomms, it should be legal to SHUT DOWN the Iraqi cell networks and make possession of RF transmission devices also a bullet-in-ear death penalty condition. Even so, in terms of Jammers, what they are talking about is the equivalent of Shortstop mortar fuze spoofers for cell and remote firing mechanisms and I _doubt seriously_ if they have enough ERPS or area of effect to do diddly bleeping squat to the F-22's 'sigint collection suite'. Because they aren't doing diddly squat to the Iraqi's telecomms. And because, if it's all like previous generations, the ALR-94 is in fact operating in the 4-5 to 20GHZ FIRE CONTROL bands /well beyond/ the radio and cell networks operating at 750MHz to 2GHz range. Certainly comparing these devices (later in the article) to Carrier Deck environments filled with MEGAWATTS of ATC, INS alignment, ACLS, and radio test is ludicrous.

Thus the existence of the F-22 in comparison with the lockdown of the monkey cage that is Iraq is irrelevant. Take away their bleep and they will stop flinging it at you. That's purely a ground force decision.

>>
An alternative to the F-22 is the MQ-9 Predator. These carry both sensors and bombs and missiles, allowing the remote operator to "see" where the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is flying, avoid hazards, and deliver ordnance on "target". The differences - and the choices - are plain. One super-fast, super-expensive ($350 million each) manned airplane cannot, at this point, do a better job of collecting information about and reacting to insurgent movements than an $8.3 million UAV can.
>>

The problem here being that we REALLY need to fly a mininum of 200 sorties per day. For a MINIMUM of 10-12 and preferrably 15 hours per sortie. Not just in Iraq. But in AfG. Which means that if you have a 25% ramp reserve in case something goes TU, you are talking about 500 airframes in just the active 'insurgency' theaters alone. You buy 500 MQ-9s at 10-15 million dollars each and now you have an 8th Air Force force structure (220-270 knots) so that the next time you need to fight a REAL war someplace that ACTUALLY SHOOTS BACK, you are totally screwed for doing so.

Here too, the F-22 means diddly bleep all because all's they ever asked for /even in the beginning/ was 750 airframes. Compared to the 2,000+ worthless pilot-ferrari F-16s that litter our airfields and the 1,763 F-35 that will replace them. If you buy 500 Raptors with which to blow down the door, each one carrying 8 _independently targeted_ bombs compared to the TWO FOR ONE TARGET which originally justified the F-16 inventory purchase, you're talking 90-110 billion dollars. You buy 2,000 F-35s 'of any and all flavors' and your talking 276 billion dollars.

Value flows from the munition-as-aimpoint count UP. Not from the pilot unions /down/.

OTOH, you put a JET ENGINE IN A DELTAWINGED ROBOTIC AIRFRAME and you get the same loiter capabilities as the MQ-9 with the same speed as the F-16, at height. Which means that buying the Air Force required for winning in Iraq (and traditionally about 70% of all other, similar, wars) **Does Not** cost you your FDOW capability. Indeed, if you assume that an updated X-45A with a mere 4 GBU-39 onboard were to run 15-20 million each, buying 1,500 of them would only cost about 30 billion bucks. Double that for R&D _and add the costs of a full fledged Raptor force_ and you are still below the baseline acquisition costs (no total life cycle support) of the F-35A. While it is more than likely that every X-45 could be made to land on a carrier and thus give you a TRUE 'swing force' whose ultimate utility lies in its _basing mode_ ability to launch from anywhere. Fly 1,100nm. And hold on station for a couple hours.

Which is something neither the F-16, F-22, F-35 nor MQ-9 will ever do. And which the MQ-9 will never /survive/ doing. Over a hostile IADS.

>>
And the future? Humans went from one-on-one fighting to massing armies of people. The next step was massing machines to kill people and then to kill masses of people with indiscriminate weapons. What we could use now are weapons that self-destruct before they are used, like the F-22 if it is effectively mothballed, followed by weapons that self-destruct in the computer design stage before they are built. That would save lives and money. Eventually, the reverse process could take us all the way back to not even thinking about weapons.
>>
Start by disarming the barbarians sir.
Then we can talk about the safety of the free world from the big bad U.S. bullies.
The sad fact being that folks outside the pablumized existence of America know full well that violence works. That conquest is a legitimate means of taking what you want from your neighbor so that BOTH you and he don't suffer. Even as razed earth and anarchy is a useful way of denying it to him when you are not strong enough to prevent him doing unto you first.

ARGUMENT:
There are three basic laws of firepower-
1. Shoot Shoot Shoot.
This is a law more of presence than indiscriminate use of force. Because you can always CHOOSE not to shoot. But for any given SSPK round likelihood of killing one bad guy or ten innocents, the more you /can/ shoot, at alternatives, the more rapidly you roll the enemy up on an 'Ainnh, I'll get him tomorrow' basis. But only if you are there to see X mole pop it's ugly head up so that you can DECIDE to whack it.
2. Maneuver to Target NOT Engage.
Which is the standoff rule equivalent of saying don't put your ass in a sling, high value to low value, directly engaging your opponent. At one time, this was a problem because we had a force structure ruled by idiots interested in fighting the Hap Arnold airwar of levelling cities. Now it is not. Because we have cheap, small, long range, munitions. And the sensor acuity and bandwidth to target them using TTNT and other high-speed network technologies.
3. NEVER associate your fires with your targeting. Because the weight will drive value and value will drive cost and suddenly you can't saturate the battlespace with APERTURES necessary to secure the peace. Even as the exposure of the recon assets must never equate with the loss of the processing databases used to enable them.

All of the above set of rules in turn come down to ONE basic law of combat. A law which Sun Tzu figured out 2,500 years ago. Where the nature of strength is decided by the conditions of the battlefield and the value of force lies in pitting strength ONLY against weakness. Where you cannot intimidate an unknown enemy into refusing to take the field. And you cannot define the field where you will find him. You _must_ force your enemy to define /your/ weakness via the necessary force-as-logistics required to defeat it. This is a doctrine based on _COE_. Or a complete and utter Contempt Of Engagement with a barbarian force that has no honor of uniform. No intent to avoid civillian casualties. No discipline of morality in the things he /won't/ do as a killer.
Put a 1,000 armored robotic vehicles on the street. We have the technology. Put 10,000 telephone pole, light pole or mosque mounted CCDs and acoustic sniper detection gear up high above them. We have the technology. And over all, place 50-100 UCAVs in an interlaced patterns looking for victims amongst our own forces. We have the technology.
Backing them all with a 200 man Mike Force on 5 minute alert for aerial envelopement tactics. If the enemy shoots at a robot with an AK, nail his sorry butt to a cross with a .50 onboard. If, because of the armor, he has to _up the ante_ with heavy mortar, LAW or IED, drop a Viper Strike or GBU-39 square on his turbanned head from the UCAV.
Record it all for CNN rebro via the telephone pole sensors. And make it a preestablished death penalty offense to physically damage or electronically interfere with ANY of the above.
Using the Mike Force to isolate and 'flush clean' buildings wherever 'sniper fire or ELINT' indicates you need to create a cordon.
If you treat the Iraqis like the animals they have reduced themselves to being, putting them in a constant condition of lockdown and particularly curfew, holding their driving, communications and even /food, power and water/ rights in the balance of their tamed behavior. They will quickly learn to moderate their actions based on the likelihood that they will commit suicide killing a robot while Americans back home ENJOY watching the play by play smackdown like a military equivalent to 'Cops'.

CONCLUSION:
These people have lived a life of social adolescence based on 'justifiable religious vendetta' since the 14th century. They will never learn better until they realize that they are ALL responsible to each other. That /everything/ they do is a privelege that can be taken away. By their conquerors. Arab and Persian dictators allow for this anarchy of local hatreds to ensure their position as wealthy men. We cannot afford to.
If you can't see the pretense of 'innocent faith' in an assassin culture driven by religious dogma. If you can't bear to make dogmatic deprogramming a function of law and order prestated consequences rather than 'combat in the moment'. Then pull out of Iraq. Because, inspite of the evidence of 9/11, you're not hungry or angry enough to win.
But whatever you do, don't blame this nation's lack of 'win the war by hating the enemy more than the means needed to defeat him' **resolve** on the high tech warfighter programs we have in place to deal with the 'really dangerous' people out there. People in Asia. People who would just as soon not have to deal with a Stealth + Supercruise + 700nm Radius + 8 Bombs Today capability to lay waste to their (at best) 1980s airpower metric. People who know that to match the U.S. means investing 100 billion dollars and 20 years catching up.
Because those 'peoples' version of anarchy begins with inserting doubt based on 'relating' two entirely different issues and then daring you to be smart enough to pick up that fact as the precursor to understanding why their logic is purely predatory.

KPl.

OTOH, you put a JET ENGINE IN A DELTAWINGED ROBOTIC AIRFRAME and you get the same loiter capabilities as the MQ-9 with the same speed as the F-16, at height. Which means that buying the Air Force required for winning in Iraq (and traditionally about 70% of all other, similar, wars) **Does Not** cost you your FDOW capability. Indeed, if you assume that an updated X-45A with a mere 4 GBU-39 onboard were to run 15-20 million each, buying 1,500 of them would only cost about 30 billion bucks. Double that for R&D _and add the costs of a full fledged Raptor force_ and you are still below the baseline acquisition costs (no total life cycle support) of the F-35A. While it is more than likely that every X-45 could be made to land on a carrier and thus give you a TRUE 'swing force' whose ultimate utility lies in its _basing mode_ ability to launch from anywhere. Fly 1,100nm. And hold on station for a couple hours.

Which is something neither the F-16, F-22, F-35 nor MQ-9 will ever do. And which the MQ-9 will never /survive/ doing. Over a hostile IADS.

This is EXACTLY the strategy the Air force brass in most countries need to swallow.

Manned fighters WILL become obsolete (Eventually ch1466,.. eventually), in the mean time up to say 2030/40 a continuosly evolving hybrid of manned/unmanned platforms are needed. Why this long? some of you are asking, Moore's Law. To be precise its more a question of a software "Moore's Law", we may develop the processor power in the next few years, but software development is a much more tricky art.

Its all well and good for the brass to boast how they managed to pop a couple of insurgents with a Hellfire equipped MQ-9 in say AfG, try doing that in a REAL war with high level EW effort being directed at your still "manned, the pilots just in a different continent" UCAV fleet. Untill aircraft systems can become trully stand alone AND make all the complex "shades of grey" decisions a human can and need to make in battle, we wil be stuck with some manned platforms.

And that is a good thing, because once we sterillise war by not needing to take part in it we loose the capacity and stomach to understand why we needed to go to war in the first place.

UCAV's have a brave new world future but we shouldn't use the excuse reasoning that it saves our boys lives.

LEE.

Originally posted by ch1466
If you treat the Iraqis like the animals they have reduced themselves to being, putting them in a constant condition of lockdown and particularly curfew, holding their driving, communications and even /food, power and water/ rights in the balance of their tamed behavior. They will quickly learn to moderate their actions based on the likelihood that they will commit suicide killing a robot while Americans back home ENJOY watching the play by play smackdown like a military equivalent to 'Cops'.

Sun Tzu also speaks of "knowing your enemy", that is different to knowing their tactics. You clearly don't know the Iraqi's and most certainly the driving force of their actions, Islam.

However i agree with you that using robots is a much better option, the US should start spending money there now!. However thinking the Iraqi's will bow down to confinement is ridicules. Hence my remarks above.

My apologies for going off topic OP.

Originally posted by Pendu

Originally posted by ch1466
If you treat the Iraqis like the animals they have reduced themselves to......

Sun Tzu also speaks of "knowing your enemy", that is different to knowing their tactics. You clearly don't know the Iraqi's and most certainly the driving force of their actions, Islam.

However i agree with you that using robots is a much better option, the US should start spending money there now!.......

I dont' know there is something about taking a human out of the equation of war that really doesn't make it war anymore. For me if I see that day where AI have control of a person life or death and there isn't a person behind the button or trigger is the day I go get a gun. I've never owned one but have fired them and personally no robot is going to tell me what to do. shudder

I know its weird coming from some one who loves military craft but something about how conflicts have been handled and why they have been started for the past 20ish years seems wrong and taking the one element out of it that has the brain of its own to make desions and has feelings seems like saying sure we can invade this country its only going to cost us robots and no one at home can complain cause no one is "dying".

I like UCAV's (a bit more on topic) but in all my posts I've always avocated the need for the "pilot" every action of the plane. Minus take off and landing. there still is human judgement but you do lose the seriousness of the situation of 2 men one will die in that example.

It all seems like pretty deep stuff for me with lots of personal openions but if people don't think about these things in this way we will soon be saying that we have rendered the human usless in a sence. Possibly,Maybe?

At least with the 22 its still man/woman with there weapon be it the plane or the missile that fight.

Sorry for the rant EH.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

While i agree that Osams Bin Ladin isnt flying around in a Russian Mig and hence we need to go back to basic warfare. I dont think that we can consider the F-22 useless or obslete. There are ever present threats in North Korea, Russia, China, Japan and even India. While you might say some of these countries are our friends, they could back stab us to preserve their own intrest/butt. You hear that these countries are becoming stronger with ever increasing technology. i would rather have our goverment ready than caught with our pants down AGAIN!!!! Look at the cold war.. im sure if Russia knew we didnt have ICBM'S and other weapons they would have bombed us..

Originally posted by skunkworks82
While i agree that Osams Bin Ladin isnt flying around in a Russian Mig and hence we need to go back to basic warfare. I dont think that we can consider the F-22 useless or obslete.

The reason terrorists can't mount old browning machine guns to the cessna and attack troops is due to total air control which in something the 22 will help create. In the current fight though you need more of a high endurance UCAV or bombe rin order to be called upon when needed.

There are ever present threats in North Korea, Russia, China, Japan and even India. While you might say some of these countries are our friends, they could back stab us to preserve their own intrest/butt.

And the US would do the same which is the reason they had to go back into Afghanistan
after they had created the problem of funding people and then deeming there actions afterwards to be "backstabbing". I'm not defending any of GB's Axis of "evil" as I do have my own concerns but the US politics do create alot of its own problems.

You hear that these countries are becoming stronger with ever increasing technology. i would rather have our goverment ready than caught with our pants down AGAIN!!!! Look at the cold war.. im sure if Russia knew we didnt have ICBM'S and other weapons they would have bombed us..

Yah getting caught in the john with your pants around your ankles isn't fun but whats the price are you promoting another arms race? I'm sure alot of people would say a coudl things. 1 there are still way to many nukes on this planet as there is. 2 the promoting of building a army to fight a war that isn't even there wasn't part of US politics till the cold war. The Danger of a standing army that does nothing is that people feel they have to "use" it for lack of a better word. It also create the militray industrial complex or at the very least helps feed it. Defense is key and in my openion Canada doesn't do a good enough job of it, Austrailia and the UK fairs better but the US overkills it and has created a visious cycle for its self.

Again all my own openions with bits of truth in them just like yours Skunkworks 82 hopefully I didn't offend anyone.

Is it just me or is ch1466 gotten much more vocal about calling Iraqi's pigs? Man clean it up I don't care what your openion is your basically spoutting hate. Think I'm being mean or unrealistic ? Your a great guy probably with alot of information thats great in these threads but I have come to expect a striaght to the facts approach with you even though there is usally more I would that apply I still value them don't do something stupid like this.

Canada_EH i fully respect your opnions.. They reflect someone with maturity. I understand we blew-up ourselves in the face by giving afgans the resources to take care of Russia for us. I dont like them being hyprocites and taking our help one time, and then turning around and calling us evil. We do need better fighters to help the growing arms race AGAIN. The F-22 will help us in the long run. The Mig will be a great advesary, and we need good planes that can match/superceed them. I do also take into context that we are over-doing the spending. See below



Look under
Military Personnel Programs (M-1)
You can choose to download eather format
PDF Format Excel Format

in the movie The Core
the scientists said "Its better we build it before they do"

Originally posted by skunkworks82

in the movie The Core
the scientists said "Its better we build it before they do"

I'm pretty sure esinhower (spelling) was pretty clear in his last address to the nation whe he stepped out of office and pretty much scared me when i heard it in the documentry the Fog of War. I can post a link to the movie I think its on alluc.org . Anyways my problem wasn't afghanistan really and really most of the world unerstood but is with the iraq invasion etc. I wont get into to much detail etc as most people and I know your self Skunkworks would know just as much as I its just seems to me the openions of creating a large standing army with lots of "fighter moffia" USAF generals and military advirsers are creating more conflict then we need to.

Also in referance to an earlier post stating that the 22 was already obsolite due to its initial design and test phaze.

It maybe a 10 year old design but its been adapted as it goes and if you don't stop researching and creating paper planes (Russia PAKFA) then you dont get the worlds most advanced fighter which is the F-22. Its the only one in production and its the only 5th gen fighter. Obsolite in theory sure but in practicse no its just fine.

Some people in our goverment have said "we can't use certain equipment now" It doesnt mean its useless or obslete. Our current battle, it (F-22) is not suited for our current conflict. That doesnt mean one year or a week later we might not need the F-22. There is nothing wrong with upgrading our forces so our military (our friends and family) our safer. Its our spending that is over doing it

I think the issue we are debating here is situational developments, Vs. a shift in fundemental strategy as it applies to warfare. The point I was making earilier is that we are at a point where the basic strategy is shifting. The F-22 was design for a type of war we no longer fight.

Tim

Originally posted by Ghost01
The F-22 was design for a type of war we no longer fight.

Tim

At the moment. I think we could be a air war in the future that calls for a plane like the 22 but at the present the current theatres don't really work with what the US uses at all really with any of their hardware is all having to adapt. You'd think we'd learn after korea and vietnam that enemies like that don't fight our war so why are we still fighting like that.

Dunno?, but seems to me the US fighter is evolving into unmanned aircraft.
Kinda makes sense if true. F22 for all the dough may become a back-up while the unmanned crafts do the serious work, for now -- less the F117 & B2.

Gosh I'm no expert on this subject but reasoning is, well, reasoning.

Dallas

Originally posted by Canada_EH
I dont' know there is something about taking a human out of the equation of war that really doesn't make it war anymore. For me if I see that day where AI have control of a person life or death and there isn't a person behind the button or trigger is the day I go get a gun. I've never owned one but have fired them and personally no robot is going to tell me what to do. shudder

I know its weird coming from some one who loves military craft but something about how conflicts have been handled and why they have been started for the past 20ish years seems wrong and taking the one element out of it that has the brain of its own to make desions and has feelings seems like saying sure we can invade this country its only going to cost us robots and no one at home can complain cause no one is "dying".

I like UCAV's (a bit more on topic) but in all my posts I've always avocated the need for the "pilot" every action of the plane. Minus take off and landing. there still is human judgement but you do lose the seriousness of the situation of 2 men one will die in that example.

It all seems like pretty deep stuff for me with lots of personal openions but if people don't think about these things in this way we will soon be saying that we have rendered the human usless in a sence. Possibly,Maybe?

At least with the 22 its still man/woman with there weapon be it the plane or the missile that fight.

Sorry for the rant EH.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

I kind of get what you mean, i guess the best approach is for man and machine to work in tandam. Having enough AI to perform the job of protecting humans as well as the opposite, killing them.

But you raised some good points.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Unless the F-22 is a flying bus or a kite, its not useless. for the moment we are facing gorilla warfare. Hence we need different equipment. The reason we have different aircraft is because, we have different missions. The F-22 will be used in the future. Its not a matter of IF they use it, its WHEN. While congress or the public tend to say "why do we need that?" , we are not aware of all the details of why the military built it. Id rather have the F-22 flying around, than a outdated 60's design. yes i know its to replace the F-15 but to have both side by side sure will tip the scales to our side

Something that influnced my critical thinking is the movie the Fog of War. I think its a pretty good link to watch with a critical mind and know how some of the thinking goes on in our country. Here's a link to the online video if you have any free time I highly recommend it if you havent seen it.

video.google.co.uk...