Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Justification For F-22?  
User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 486 posts, RR: 8
Posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5589 times:

In the news yesterday, it was revealed that China has developed a long range anti-ship missile capable of destroying an aircraft carrier from 900+ miles away.....well before an aircraft carrier can strike targets effectively (ARTICLE ATTACHED).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...feng-21d-chinese-mis_n_672166.html

My thought is that this provides new justification for stealth based fighter jets with the ability to penetrate deep into enemy territory from sizable distances using land based facilities as opposed to aircraft carriers. While this doesn't impact most of the operating area of the US military, China, like the US has the ability to sell arms to other nations possibly putting aircraft carriers in Jeopardy around the world (I know that's an extreme statement).

I think this is a real consideration given that our primary means of projecting power globally has been the aircraft carrier since the 1940's. Does this provide justification for more high-tech non-carrier based weapons systems like the F-22?

What do you guys think?


American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3217 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

time to stop wasting money on carriers... (an old topic).. however there are probably enough land based aircraft to cover... plus those pesky subs.. no need to buy more and possibly a reason to buy fewer F-35's

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 793 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5503 times:

Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Thread starter):
Does this provide justification for more high-tech non-carrier based weapons systems like the F-22?

While I believe there will never be a manned aircraft again that has the ability to beat an F-22 in this case the F-22 would have to fly to China, drop weapons and fly back which would be beyond its range from current US pacific bases. Tanker support would likely have to fly too close to China to be useful. If anything this kind of report makes a case for more long range bombers with stealth characteristics that actually have the reach to conduct that type of mission.

In both cases though why not wait ten years as the USAF is doing and introduce a true UCAV that has all the benefits and none of the downside of today's UAVs and early UCAVs.


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5464 times:

Any anit-ship missile can strike a target, if it can get to it. Aircraft carriers never operate alone and are supported by many other ships and aircraft. Also this is not some sea-skimming missile like an exocet or harpoon that gives little to no notice before it pops over the horizon, this is a 35 foot long 32,000 lb ballistic missile. Any launches will show up on our detection satellites and can be shot down by either the ABM YAL-1A (which if anything happened with China would certainly be up there) or missiles from the carriers fleet, including the ABMDS, which will be fielded to all Ticonderoga class cruisers by the end of the year.

I love how all these articles come out about carrier killing missiles from Iran and China, but they miss out of the fact that that carriers never operate alone. That's why carriers only carry point defense systems.

[Edited 2010-08-07 19:18:23]

User currently offlineDl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5382 times:

This has pretty much been the point of the F-22. Sure we may not need it for our current conflict but the point of the F-22 is to be the superior fighter (and somewhat bomber) to future proof our military. We may not be fighting a large nation right now where stealth is needed but that could easily change overnight.

User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5379 times:

If anything hopefully this will renew the F/A-XX replacement for the Super Hornet, something like an all-out ass-kicker on par to the F-22.

User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 486 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5364 times:

Quoting Dl767captain (Reply 4):
This has pretty much been the point of the F-22. Sure we may not need it for our current conflict but the point of the F-22 is to be the superior fighter (and somewhat bomber) to future proof our military. We may not be fighting a large nation right now where stealth is needed but that could easily change overnight.




I definitely agree that carrier battle groups are well protected and that there are defensive weapons to limit the likelihood of a successful missile strike. What scares me about these is that they can be used when carriers are at there most vulnerable, perhaps while docked in Japan? In this situation, they don't have the defense of a battlegroup and mainland China is not all that far away from Japan (within the 900 mi. striking range).

More than the threat of a single weapon, this should be a wake-up call to those who believe that all future conflicts will be comprised of street to street Afghanistan style combat. Russia and China are both modernizing their military and neither have proven to be friends of the US on any topic of substance.



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15502 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5356 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 1):
time to stop wasting money on carriers... (an old topic).. however there are probably enough land based aircraft to cover... plus those pesky subs.. no need to buy more and possibly a reason to buy fewer F-35's

I think that carriers have a place in the modern military as useful tools to be able to put out a fire pretty much anywhere on the globe. I don't know whether trying to just maintain a fleet of roughly the current size or going with more smaller carriers would be a better idea. But in an all out war, they would be pretty easy targets.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
If anything hopefully this will renew the F/A-XX replacement for the Super Hornet, something like an all-out ass-kicker on par to the F-22.

How about an FN-22 and the A-12...you know, like they should have had ten years ago?

Quoting Dl767captain (Reply 4):
Sure we may not need it for our current conflict but the point of the F-22 is to be the superior fighter (and somewhat bomber) to future proof our military.

Didn't you hear? Gates has determined that all of our future wars will be fought against insurgents in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.  



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5048 times:

Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 6):
More than the threat of a single weapon, this should be a wake-up call to those who believe that all future conflicts will be comprised of street to street Afghanistan style combat. Russia and China are both modernizing their military and neither have proven to be friends of the US on any topic of substance.

That's what I don't understand, they act as though all our future wars will be fought in the streets, but we had to adapt our current military to our present situation because we didn't see this as the future of war many years ago, you need to plan for both situations at the same time and that's something that aircraft like the F-22 allow for.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6743 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5046 times:

Remind us again what's the range of the F-22, the political and national priorities that the US must sacrifice to obtain land bases to launch F-22's and tankers, how is this any different that other threats that carriers have faced before, or how does this change the fact that a larger percentage of the worlds nations are reachable by sea?

If as mentioned this missile can hit ports in Japan for example, is that not the same as the current ICBM's, did anyone ever doubt that during the cold war missiles and torpedo's deployed against the US carriers were nuclear tipped, the US never abandoned carriers then why now? If the new killer missile is conventional it can be defended against, is that not what a lot of the star wars technology was all about, intercepting missiles in the boost phase? The capabilities of the missile impressive as they claim does not out-weigh the reason why the US has carriers, but if it becomes the reason why carriers would stay away from the Chinese coast, how long before they are sold to all and sundry who want one, in which case the US could save a lot of money and disband the Navy now, how long will it be before the Chinese improve the technology to be able to target a cruiser or a large destroyer?

The conspiracy theorist in me is now looking for the trillion dollar projects that will be announced to give the US carriers a defense against this new threat, it is only coincedence that the defesne is identified at the same time when financial threats show up against increased defense spending.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15502 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4980 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
The conspiracy theorist in me is now looking for the trillion dollar projects that will be announced to give the US carriers a defense against this new threat

Are you saying that we shouldn't bother with a countermeasure?

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
it is only coincedence that the defesne is identified at the same time when financial threats show up against increased defense spending.

Of course it isn't a coincidence.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinearniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4938 times:

I am by no means an expert on the matter but aren't the Aegis destroyers that accompany the carrier battle groups equipped with missiles that could even take out a satellite , if the need would exist, let alone a 35 ft missile launched 900 miles away giving them many minutes to respond.

I believe only 1 or 2 years ago they did some kind of demonstration proving this capability with standard weapons from an AEGIS cruiser, right around the time the Chinese where doing the same with experimental rockets shooting at satellites.



[edit post]
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4905 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
Didn't you hear? Gates has determined that all of our future wars will be fought against insurgents in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

Great, and we can't even figure out how to win those. (Or at least we don't have the stomach to do what is necessary.)

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
did anyone ever doubt that during the cold war missiles and torpedo's deployed against the US carriers were nuclear tipped, the US never abandoned carriers then why now?

But there is a distinctive difference between conventional and nuclear munitions.

Quoting arniepie (Reply 11):
I am by no means an expert on the matter but aren't the Aegis destroyers that accompany the carrier battle groups equipped with missiles that could even take out a satellite , if the need would exist, let alone a 35 ft missile launched 900 miles away giving them many minutes to respond.

But the Chinese would launch tens if not hundreds of these missiles, in salvos, and then therein lies the problem; I'm not sure how many targets one Aegis can realistically assess and suppress. AESA radars on the Super Hornets and Growlers, and the F-35C's in the future, might be able to defeat these missiles quite well, however - but as of now that's all classified and even that assumes that those that be even know.


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4878 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):

But the Chinese would launch tens if not hundreds of these missiles, in salvos, and then therein lies the problem; I'm not sure how many targets one Aegis can realistically assess and suppress. AESA radars on the Super Hornets and Growlers, and the F-35C's in the future, might be able to defeat these missiles quite well, however - but as of now that's all classified and even that assumes that those that be even know.

The Aegis system was originally designed to combat multiple inbounds from SLCM's and ALCM's from the Russians, the actual figure is not known but the system can plot more than 100 separate targets and is constantly being updated.

Even before a carrier would get into range for such a missile all the known sites would be taken out by submarine launched cruise missiles and stealth bombers. The other, mobile units, would be taken out as spotted by satellites, aircraft, HUMINT, and when they are launched. Once launched they would be taken out by the airborne laser 747, which can loiter many hundreds of miles away, and ship based ABM systems, such as the Standard missile and ship-borne laser systems which are in testing.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6743 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4798 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
Are you saying that we shouldn't bother with a countermeasure?

Definately not, I just question the doom and gloom crowd, this probably has more to do with the pending cuts, disaster that the current shipbuilding program is in, folks may be looking for additional scapegoats to justify pushing congress to change the number of carriers, the Navy is already looking at creative ways to maintain number while refuelling so....

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
But there is a distinctive difference between conventional and nuclear munitions

Hence my statement below

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
If the new killer missile is conventional it can be defended against, is that not what a lot of the star wars technology was all about, intercepting missiles in the boost phase?
Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 13):
The Aegis system was originally designed to combat multiple inbounds from SLCM's and ALCM's from the Russians, the actual figure is not known but the system can plot more than 100 separate targets and is constantly being updated

The main issue with the Aegis System is the number of shots carried, the Tico's carry more than the Burke's and the Burke are now becoming the primary ships defending the carriers, so it is quickly becoming a new numbers game, couple with the fact that ASW assets are diminshed, another hole will need filling once more diesel subs are sold. The a/c on the carriers need longer legs to stay out in "blue waters" and conduct combat operations, that neglect may come back to haunt.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4579 times:

Quoting arniepie (Reply 11):
I am by no means an expert on the matter but aren't the Aegis destroyers that accompany the carrier battle groups equipped with missiles that could even take out a satellite
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
AESA radars on the Super Hornets and Growlers, and the F-35C's in the future, might be able to defeat these missiles quite well, however - but as of now that's all classified and even that assumes that those that be even know.

If the US deploys the YAL-1A/B, that would be a great advantage to defending the CVNBG. Also, I see no reason why the YAL-1A laser systems cannot be mounted on board a ship. The electrical power requirements and space needed may require recommission the Iowa class BBs, and possible the two remaining South Dakota class BBs, but it could work. AEGIS class CGs (Ticos) and DDGs (Burke class DDGs) can track these incoming RVs now.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6743 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4560 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
The electrical power requirements and space needed may require recommission the Iowa class BBs, and possible the two remaining South Dakota class BBs, but it could work. AEGIS class CGs (Ticos) and DDGs (Burke class DDGs) can track these incoming RVs now.

Makes you wonder where those aliens went who built these ships and where they took that knowledge, that we are still talking about putting back in service ships that were built decades ago 

Is it easier / cheaper to get electrical power from a nuclear powered vessel versus conventional power, there was talk of the new cruisers being nuclear powered, guess the cost bug is biting there also?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3217 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4507 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
If the US deploys the YAL-1A/B,


this bird will finish it's tests and be stored... no more built, never to be deployed... it's a dead parrot!
Putting the laser on board a ship you'd be shooting through thick (water vapor) air so the effectiveness is drastically reduced.. The YAL-1B did have the advantage of being above the weather and in thinner air.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4495 times:

Whatever the future holds, LockMart already has plans in place to preserve the F-22's tooling.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...e-f-22-tooling-for-future-use.html

.....while the USAF decides what big upgrades would come next for its Raptors.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ajor-upgrade-for-f-22-raptors.html


I think that is a whole lot more than can be said of potential adversaries.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinewingman From St. Vincent and the Grenadines, joined May 1999, 2103 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4462 times:

We already have the best countermeasure there is...about $1 trillion dollars in Chinese held Treasury bonds. SInk a carrier and those bonds go "puff!", like so much smoke. That's something the Russkies never had and it changes the very nature of the geopolitical pissing contest that the US and China are engaging in. I have a very tough time imagining a situation where the Chinese would try to take out a carrier, a cruiser or sub would be "smarter" in sending a signal.

User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 486 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4306 times:

]

Quoting wingman (Reply 19):
We already have the best countermeasure there is...about $1 trillion dollars in Chinese held Treasury bonds.

That is a great point....to be safe....lets hurry up and tack on another trillion!



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

The sinking of a CVN would result in our throwing everything we have at them short of nukes, and they do not want that at this time.


Airliners.net Moderator Team
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic New Justification For F-22?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Congress Wants 3 New C-37s For Themselves posted Wed Aug 5 2009 17:43:19 by KC135TopBoom
New Career For Buzz Aldrin? posted Fri Jun 26 2009 01:09:36 by Scooter01
New Life For The Buffalo? posted Tue Jun 9 2009 03:31:48 by Connies4ever
New Helicopters For US Army Delivered posted Thu Jul 26 2007 06:44:39 by Zeke
New Aircraft For The Army Golden Knights? posted Wed Feb 28 2007 05:28:31 by Scottieprecord
UK To Cancel New Carriers For The Royal Navy? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 21:21:22 by Lumberton
Article: "New Dawn For Russian Bombers" posted Mon Jul 3 2006 21:25:52 by Lumberton
Aurora - New Fuel For The Fire posted Wed Jun 14 2006 23:58:28 by RichardPrice
New Helicopters For Portugal Army. posted Wed May 24 2006 09:13:59 by CV990
New Life For Portuguese Air Force SA330 Puma posted Fri Aug 12 2005 15:23:51 by CV990

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format