About Me

Name: Duck Archer
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

F-22 Needed! (Part 3 of 4: Time's The Enemy)

Posted by Duck Archer on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:27:50 AM

In Parts 1 & 2, we outlined the need for stealth to replace all-metal aircraft, and why the state of aviation science & engineering mandates purpose-built airplanes instead of a one-size-fits-all airplane. 
Now, in Part 3, we take a look at two primary 'time is the enemy' needs for the F-22 (& F-35).

3. The burning need:  time marches on.

a.  How many times can one re-tread old tires, when the steel belt is coming apart?

Fatigue Builds:

Metal fatigue will make our current aircraft completely incapable in another ten years.  Most would still be capable of flying, but not under combat loads.  Remember, longirons are failing, and old all-metal planes are already breaking up in mid-air.  Those that aren't breaking up are still requiring ever more hours in detailed maintenance and upgrade facilities -- reducing availability across the board.  Worse, retrofits only postpone the inevitable ...

Procurement Lags:

As to new aircraft:  remember we need time to get procured equipment fielded, into battle plans, and into exercises so we really know how to use them – not just theoretically (or even in computer simulations of theory). 

b.  How much longer will we believe the fiction 'peace has broken out all over'? 

International Environment never stands still:

In a decade, could we win with current aircraft supplemented by F-22s?  I doubt it.  But I pose that the cost would be horrendous if we did win.  China in a decade will not be a pretty adversary.  Our current fighters will strain mightily by then;  'in a decade' is when China, Russia, and Islam all pose foreseeable threats far greater than today’s world poses:

 - China WILL seriously threaten our interests in Taiwan, not to mention Korea, Japan, Philippines, Singapore, et al.  China will threaten with quantity of modern aircraft and (more ominously) relatively inexpensive high-tech air defenses that will seriously hurt us.  Already, China possesses anti-carrier weapons that will keep our aircraft carriers at arm’s length.  With 1970s-era airplanes, plus a handful of stealth at far-away Guam, Air Force would have nothing to offer, to replace ‘persistent’ air presence China is increasingly forcing the navy to position ever more distant (in event of war).   

 - Russia’s re-emergence will have re-armed that country, which may not be all that friendly.  Worst case:  xenophobic ultra-nationalists (a Russian historical tendency), whether with a resurgence of 1900s atheistic communism or not.  Best case:  western-friendly leader like Gorbachev or Catherine the Great, who would actually trust and welcome a western alliance --- an alliance that maybe we could make actually useful to Russia and it’s long vulnerable southern borders.  As if Russia's gradual transition from President to Dictator isn't worrisome all on its own, recent international events in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Georgia, and Ukraine (among others) indicate Russia's western-friendly leaders are about as scarce as USA's conservatives have been in the last several years.

 - Islamic countries’ oil income could indeed well-fund militant Islamic resurgence like we’ve not seen in 600 years.  I propose this is an Islamic funding decision made more likely if we slide along with old all-metal fighters that they can counter with metal-seeking and heat-seeking hand-held SAMs.  That oil is also a potentially lethal chokehold on Japan, and would severely hinder us (the USA) and our European allies.  We have the ability to drill and solve that problem, except for environmentalists --- but that’s another dissertation.  We also have the spacefaring technical ability to dramatically reduce oil needs in non-vehicular uses, which would entirely remove the petroleum stranglehold by reducing the petroleum quantity needs mostly just to vehicles --- but this too is another dissertation.

c.  Why now??

Some say our current fighter aircraft fleet can serve us well for another decade.  Good!!

We will need that hypothetical decade, to acquire stealth aircraft in sufficient quantity for any big fight we hope to fight from navy carriers as well as from allies’ land bases.  A decade from now is when the current monopolar world doubtless will have changed again…

Again, most F-22 presentations concentrate on high-end threats.  Don’t forget the low-end!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

F-22 Needed! (Part 2 of 4: Engineering The Balance)

Posted by Duck Archer on Friday, January 02, 2009 7:25:30 PM
 
In Part One, we outlined the need for stealth to replace all-metal aircraft. 
Now, in Part Two, we take a look at specific needs for the F-22.
 
2. Why F-35 is not a substitute for F-22 – or vice-versa
 
a.  F-22 is ‘air superiority’. 

 - True, any airplane can ‘drop bombs’, but so can balloonists from their gondola, and aviators from World War One airships (aka Zeppelins). Want wings & heavier-than-air craft? Why not buy a bunch of biplanes? No, the same reasons that those three extreme examples are wholly unsuited to high-precision bombing today, also apply (with a little less force) to the F-22: it currently has no real ground-attack ability nor training -- nor anti-ground munitions-using doctrine or experience. When the enemy starts shooting, we live in a reality world, not a wishes world.

 - F-22, from avionics to airframe, is designed for controlling vast volumes of air.  It's designed to successfully fight multiple targets from stand-off positions.  

 - The movie "Top Gun" showed how, in limited ways, such a supreme air-superiority fighter can also fight -- and usually survive -- in dogfights.  But "Top Gun" was too focussed on story, instead of flying, to really show all the significant (& lethal) caveats of pushing an air superiority plane into close combat.
 
b.  F-35 is ‘ground-attack’ with 'dogfight' anti-air capability. 

 - Again, we must consider all alternatives before we've accuartely framed the discussion.  In this different role, balloonists, airship aircrews, & biplane pilots can shoot machine guns at fast airplanes, and fire anti-air missiles ... And we have the same problem again, in reverse, as the F-22 trying to fit into a bombing role. The F-35 is structured for 'multirole' missions, with the munitions, avionics, and electronics that fit the ground-focus role, with a little air-focus capability.

 - Ground-attack attributes don’t equate well to air-superiority. If they did, A-10s would already have assumed a true anti-air role against more than the occasional helicopters. Again, ‘design limits’ is why the F-15s are air-superiority, while only the modified version (F-15E) is ground-attack capable.  Design Limits are also why the F-16 can bomb and dogfight, but relies on the F-15 (except the E model) for broad-area air control in which to attack free of distraction from significant enemy counterattack. 

 - F-35s are not designed to succeed in an area-defense air superiority role.  To control volumes of airspace, we'd need several F-35s with their short-range radars & missiles, for every F-22 it'd take.  Now, suddenly, we have just seen INCREASED the procurement & training cost, upon realizing the quantity required to replace F-22s with many times the number of F-35s that are necessary to do the equivalent job ... and to do the job less-well.  I repeat:  to do an equivalent job, not the same job.  F-35 cannot replace the F-22, at least not economically in either bucks nor lives.
 
c.  “F-22 Strike”? 

 - There don’t seem to be any real engineering plans for a Strike-F-22.  Nor do we know of any funding for same.  But I predict a ‘Strike F-22’ will eventually come along, whether currently conceived or not; I see no change in the same forces that long ago pushed that ground-attack mod onto a heavily-modified F-15 package (fortunately, to great success). 
 
 - Also fortunately, for our military successes in the last two decades, we had the '81-'86 Reagan Buildup specifying funds for vital equipment & training, including for a robust fleet of Strike Eagles (F-15Es). But like the F-15 compared to the F-16, such plans for an 'F-22 Strike' would only allow an expensive version of the F-35 -- even if more capable for the cost.   F-15E is NOT the same plane as the F-15C and F-15D; it's bigger and totally re-worked, even if outward appearances are a close match.  Reality is that most of what makes a plane different isn't the appearance, but the innards:  construction materials, electronics suites, pilot-friendly data displays, etc.  F-15E looks like a very large F-15D.  But that's where resemblance ends.  Beyond 'the book's cover', the ‘strike’ mod is NOT the same plane as the original 'air-superiority' edition.

 - One last note on a strike mod.  Anybody realistically see a congress or an administration increasing defense spending any time in the next several years?  I thought not.  Until that increase comes, the F-22 & F-35 are complimentary, not duplicative … forcing a square peg into a round hole will break the peg or the hole, or both.  Forcing a plane into a role it's not designed for will break the plane & pilot, or doom the war plan to defeat.  It's a reality world, not a wishes world.
 
  
d.  F-22 & F-35 are complimentary.

 - F-35 equates to the F-16, while the F-22 equates to the F-15.  F-35 is an essential F-22-complimentary ‘multi-role aircraft’ … certainly, F-35 is needed not just because it’s less expensive.

 - The two marvelous planes are complimentary by intent.  This combat construct of complimentarity echoes in the physical design of each plane.  But experience also shows 'one size fits all' just doesn't work with airplanes, despite 'multirole fighter' being the design dream for decades.  So, in a reality world, not a dream world,  F-22 & F-35 are not equivalents, due to the limits of aeronautical science & engineering, and due to intelligent operations concepts that settled on only two different designs for a warfighting package that can control the air in nearly any conflict. 

 - Specialized airplanes are the way to have a balanced air fleet. “One size fits all” airplanes are a good way to lose lots of pilots & planes – expensive ones – in nearly any role they’re tasked to fly & fight.
 
 Bottom line:
When considering the need for the F-22:  most presentations concentrate on high-end threats. 
Don’t forget the realities of science & engineering!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Ahh, now retired, free to advocate CO2 reductions"

Posted by Duck Archer on Monday, August 25, 2008 4:22:32 PM

As a retiree from 20 years in the U.S. armed forces, I am finally free to do certain political things.  Here's one.

Like my President, and the presidential hopefuls, I now campaign to reduce carbon footprints. Please read on to know why.

Maybe you will also achieve a proper awareness, as I now enjoy.

Unlike most of my fellow Global Warming High Priests, I will use my military training and lead by example -- lead from the front. Thus I leverage time-tested battlefield leadership principles. Only in this way, can our movement (Gaia Be Praised!) overcome stubborn unbelievers, pitiful nationalism, bothersome logic, inconvenient truths, reformation superstitions, patriarchal dictators, ignorant mirror-imaging, foolish Image Of God thinking, and contrary evidence.

1.  Executive Summary.
 
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is our current favorite-villain greenhouse gas.  Fortunately (Gaia Be Praised!) it doesn't stink as much as methane. I'd have hated to be a Global Warmist back then when methane was the villain.
 
Each human breath converts oxygen to carbon dioxide. Deeper breathing means even more CO2.  Indeed, we fight quantity as well as frequency.
 
Simple Solution. I vow to breathe less, and lead others to the same righteous lifestyle. It requires just one simple lifestyle change.
 
2.  The Problem.
 
Exercise is the CO2 factory. Exercising requires the body to burn more energy and race to a higher metabolic state. Worse, the exercise-lean body operates at a higher metabolic rate. All this metabolizing requires more oxygen, more breathing. Hence the body is duped into making more CO2 even between exercise sessions. All this activity heats up Mother Gaia! A smokestack-era 'exercise mentality' requires more breathing, and bigger, deeper breathing at that.
 
On active duty, I was compelled to exercise; often, rather a lot. As a retiree, however, I can use parts of my military training as anti-examples.
 
3.  How To Do It!
 
Now I, not Uncle Sam, own my body. As a retiree, a normal civilian, I can be master of my own mind. As a normal civilian, I can now decide do my part.

I will change my mindset. I will cease exercising. I will live as a sloth, hardly breathing either with quantity or depth. I will even devise methods to reduce the times that I must breathe deeply to get up onto my feet. With these simple changes of heart, mind, and works, I will reduce my personal carbon footprint to 1975 levels -- the quantity from the small lungs of a pre-pubescent eleven-year-old!

4.  Like Rolling Downhill.
Advertising is always the issue. How, indeed, do we get heard in an advertising-saturated society, where even 'news' is blared 24/7 alongside real & meaningful news of the latest development in a cute blonde co-ed's murder investigation? The answer is 'antipode': speak softly, and convey a big solution. I will quietly proclaim this exercise-shunning path to planetary salvation; quietly, so as to not excite myself nor anybody else.  (Remember, 'lead from the front'.) Quiet is calm. My metabolism relaxes further than by sloth alone. My very quiet example will catch attention simply because of its uniqueness. I will literally show others, quietly, meekly, The Way to a planet freer of greenhouse gasses. All will see how I reduced my personal carbon footprint to 1965 levels -- to the quantity of a one-year-old! Soon, with millions of shallow breathing converts, even our own bodies will convert and fight for us: our peacefully quiet sloth will commence to even make it hard to exercise and breathe deeply. It's a win-win situation: down with resource-abusing competition, up with glorious 'let-it-be' cooperation, comrades!

We need not worry about the Law of Unintended Consequences. As we all commence to dramatically reduce exercising and all the needless exertions required by the wasteful condition of being physically active, we will all breathe less. Even our enemies will find themselves reduced to the state of useful idiots as they unconsciously begin to breathe less: we will allow them freedom from overly exerting as they conquer us blissful pacifists contemplating our TVs. We will be in a glorious cycle, with our bodies working in harmony with our minds, and even our enemies ignorantly following along, Gaia Be Praised! This cycle will result in people of the whole world wholly converting to a sedentary lifestyle. It will usher in an age of Aquarius: a true planet-wide salvation!

In no time, we will all achieve pork-out. Soon, our slow & shallow breathing will help reduce CO2 so far that even allow Mother Earth will chill out! As we enter a state incapable of growing our own food, Mother Earth will slip into the cozy slumber of our next Ice Age. We will simply wait out the chill, living off the fat of our own bodies. Nature (Gaia Be Praised!) will recover balance, as all species will be free to recover from extinction. With advertising & example both as easy as rolling down a hill (without breathing), we will achieve harmony in the Universe!

5.  Conclusion.
It's glorious, now retired from the military, finding myself finally able to be politically active about post-modern Gaia-loving inactivity!

Chill Out and Save Mother Earth!!! (Shush! Quietly!)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »