Question.
Is the need for stealth in strike missions being overplayed? Notice I said for strike missions, not air superiority but for strike? The question needs to be asked because Syria is a mini-anti access exercise. You have a country with at least moderately effective anti-air capabilities, decent anti-ship capabilities and in order to roll back their defenses its assumed that we're going to launch a robust Tomahawk strike on the designated targets.
Air is not needed. And even if we were to put up a no-fly zone we'd still do it the same way. Air defenses would be pounded mercilessly. We bomb fixed sites, hunt down every other site with UAVs and when located we'd Tomahawk them too.
If we were to use strike aircraft in these packages it would be to launch bombs that had sufficient glide angle as to keep the aircraft out of range of the targets and hopefully we'd have F-22's flying top cover.
If I'm even remotely correct in this scenario then do we really need as much stealth as we're being sold or did we miss the boat by focusing on the bow instead of the arrow?
Just a question.
Syria isn't a real air defense of worth.
ReplyDeleteI disagree Eric, we have been hearing how tough Syrian A2D by US military for months, well then if it is so tough, shouldn't we see F22s???
ReplyDeleteIt sucked two years ago, but with the Russians techs and missiles in theater for the past year, the Syrian AD systems are now hardened. Wonder if an nK advisers are around?
ReplyDeletei wouldn't be surprised if some Russian techs weren't floating around.
DeleteA mixed fleet of advanced F-18s and Rafales for the Navy and F-22s and Typhoons for the USAF and transfer half the remaining A-10s to the Army and half to the USMC add in some Super Tucanos and cancel the F-35. Add some arresting gear and a ski jump to the amphib carriers and the Marines can fly Rafales of them. This will be half the cost of the JSF program.
ReplyDeleteRafales and Typhoons? Not the same weaponry, not the same engines.
ReplyDeleteThe UNavy don't need expensive Rafales to do the same job as the Super Hornets Block2 and not even the same electronic attack as the Growlers.
For the Marines the Gripens with USA engines and weapons. Thet are smaller then the Rafales and with few modifications they can take off an land from small carriers with an arrest cable. For the USAF Silent Eagles and F-16 Super Vipers, both wit the same engines and a lot of new A-10 Super Dupers.
For the F-35 eternal delays The USAF is upgrading it's existing airplanes to remain as a very powerful combo for the next 25 years. I hope they will upgrade their F-15 up to Silent Eagles version.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=4s6i17soUjg&feature=youtube_gdata_pl
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UldoGIMRsSY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Stealth limits the number of SAM sites you have to hit on Day 0.
ReplyDeleteDestroying air defences isnt hard, for all Russias talk of super long ranged missiles, a jet at 60,000 feet is always going to have the advantage, but its very time consuming to destroy all of those mobile sites.
A week destroying SAM sites is a week the other side can spend dispersing his forces.
In other words Stealth fighters are not the weapon of choise for minute one and USA still planning to waist Trillions in the F-35 not even ready for combat after so many years?
ReplyDeleteYou make me laugh with Gripen and Typhon on carriers : Both of them can't even think about without being deeply modified ( Same businees as th F35C ).
ReplyDeleteSaab never learn this practice, EADS, or the british component of EADS has not do that since at least 20 years thanks to US To England doggy alliance.
Only US, France, Russia and perhaps China know about navalizing Aircraft...