60 New F-22s for USAF

[K. A. Pital]

I just thought about a good idea here. Just use nuclear-tipped interceptors if you're so concerned about F-22s ruining your stuff. I'd love our Army to take that strategy for in-depth defense of areas which lack interceptor planes and only have SAMs to boot.

[Starglider]

I just thought about a good idea here. Just use nuclear-tipped interceptors if you're so concerned about F-22s ruining your stuff. I'd love our Army to take that strategy for in-depth defense of areas which lack interceptor planes and only have SAMs to boot.

That won't help with detecting the F-22s in the first place but I'm sure it will help prevent them outrunning the SAM guidance radar - assuming that you are still taking your 'but comrade, 10MT is a tactical nuke' attitude.

Of course if the enemy switches to low-level penetration the collateral damage may get a bit impractical, even for Russia.

[K. A. Pital]

That won't help with detecting the F-22s in the first place

AEW radars would detect them, even if only as 10 km wide blobs. But if you use nuclear-tipped weapons, the resolution of radar is irrelevant.

I'm sure it will help prevent them outrunning the SAM guidance radar - assuming that you are still taking your 'but comrade, 10MT is a tactical nuke' attitude

Oh, of course. If you won't use high-powered nukes, what's the point of using them? The nuke knockout radius should be greater than the resolution of the radar which detects the plane, that is all.

[Starglider]

Oh, of course. If you won't use high-powered nukes, what's the point of using them? The nuke knockout radius should be greater than the resolution of the radar which detects the plane, that is all.

Well let's see. The AIR-2 Genie nuclear air-to-air rocket had a 1.5 kt warhead and an estimated lethal radius (vs Bear bombers) of about 300m. Simple inverse-square scaling gives the kill radius for a monster 10 Mt SAM as 24 km (let's say 30km as an F-22 is more fragile than a Bear). As it happens a supercruising F-22 moves at about 30km per minute and has a radar range (for detecting the inbound missile, potentially) of 200km plus. Futhermore initiating at F-22 cruise altitude is still going to do considerable damage on the ground (even more if you let it off lower), you'd have to get your missile a long way above the F-22 to avoid significant destruction. Depending on where you launch the missile from I'm pretty sure you're going to have to command guide it from your huge ABM radar, which adds complexity and makes the later an even more serious point of vulnerability. I'm not knowledgeable to give a real answer on this but I don't think this is as straightforward as you're implying. For example if you're firing off your expensive SAMs at fuzzy 10km radar blobs, wouldn't it be rather easy to make Quail-type drones to decoy away your missiles?

[K. A. Pital]

Oh, of course. If you won't use high-powered nukes, what's the point of using them? The nuke knockout radius should be greater than the resolution of the radar which detects the plane, that is all.

Well let's see. The AIR-2 Genie nuclear air-to-air rocket had a 1.5 kt warhead and an estimated lethal radius (vs Bear bombers) of about 300m. Simple inverse-square scaling gives the kill radius for a monster 10 Mt SAM as 24 km (let's say 30km as an F-22 is more fragile than a Bear). As it happens a supercruising F-22 moves at about 30km per minute and has a radar range (for detecting the inbound missile, potentially) of 200km plus. Futhermore initiating at F-22 cruise altitude is still going to do considerable damage on the ground (even more if you let it off lower), you'd have to get your missile a long way above the F-22 to avoid significant destruction. Depending on where you launch the missile from I'm pretty sure you're going to have to command guide it from your huge ABM radar, which adds complexity and makes the later an even more serious point of vulnerability. I'm not knowledgeable to give a real answer on this but I don't think this is as straightforward as you're implying.

The key word here is "potentially". Potentially, it detects an incoming nuclear missile - in an otherwise SAM-saturated environment anyway, since I don't think all those huge S-200, S-300, Tor, Buk and shitloads of other SAM systems scattered over the post-Soviet space (and now making way to the Middle East) somehow phased out of existence, or would not launch. The "huge ABM radar" can be a mobile ABM radar like present in the S-300 systems, or other types of Russian anti-stealth mobile radars if the general location of the intruder is determined. Also, the "huge ABM radar" - say, the stationary fire control radar in Moscow can simultaneously track several hundreds ballistic targets (not to mention that the same radar is used to track dozens of thousands of space orbital objects for "space control").

Also, for an F-22, a EMP strike would be probably quite damaging; have you factored in probable EMP from nuclear detonations say at oh-20 or oh-30 km altitude in the plane of advancing F-22s? If they are below the detonation, which is likely if they are staying down for penetration, they would be heavily affected by the EMP.

[Starglider]

Potentially, it detects an incoming nuclear missile - in an otherwise SAM-saturated environment anyway, since I don't think all those huge S-200, S-300, Tor, Buk and shitloads of other SAM systems scattered over the post-Soviet space (and now making way to the Middle East) somehow phased out of existence, or would not launch.

You mean the incoming isn't instantly highlighted in the HUD by a flashing red box with 'Warning: Nuclear Missile' over it, like in Ace Combat?

Also, for an F-22, a EMP strike would be probably quite damaging; have you factored in probable EMP from nuclear detonations say at oh-20 or oh-30 km altitude in the plane of advancing F-22s?

No but have you factored in the amount of damage that's going to do on the ground? An F-22 is at least somewhat hardened against EMP, Soviet high-altitude nuclear tests prior to the partial test ban treaty did significant damage to power and communications infrastructure. That was with valve-based electronics, modern military equipment will probably be fine but civillian infrastructure will be hit hard. That might be worth it to stop a B-1 from turning a city into a radioactive wreck but is it really worth it to splash a few fighters?

[K. A. Pital]

No but have you factored in the amount of damage that's going to do on the ground? An F-22 is at least somewhat hardened against EMP, Soviet high-altitude nuclear tests prior to the partial test ban treaty did significant damage to power and communications infrastructure. That was with valve-based electronics, modern military equipment will probably be fine but civillian infrastructure will be hit hard. That might be worth it to stop a B-1 from turning a city into a radioactive wreck but is it really worth it to splash a few fighters?

Basically if you are using nuclear SAMs, you are already commited to having damage done to your electronics. You can't have nuclear blasts without EMP knocking out lots of your infrastructure.

Then again, it depends. So what if your AEW radar got them several thousand KM away, and you sent a bunch of fighters or bobmers for intercept, which then throw nuclear tipped missiles for area destruction? Besides, Siberia is vast. The traversing enemy will cross an area where no electronic equipment is present, or the electronic equipment is not critical to the war. Then you can utilize nuclear warheads.

Russia's civilian infrastructure is thinly spread (as is our population) across vast distances, and mostly completely mechanic; we aren't computerized, for the most part.

As for "stopping a few fighters" - if there's just several dozen of them in existence, why not do it and make the enemy toothless? He loses the means to penetrate your defenses in the form of conventional SAMs and legacy systems, you lose some equipment below. Not a fair game? How about these fighters being critical to penetrating your air-defense network? You'd still consider them "just fighters"?

[Starglider]

Then again, it depends. So what if your AEW radar got them several thousand KM away, and you sent a bunch of fighters or bobmers for intercept, which then throw nuclear tipped missiles for area destruction? Besides, Siberia is vast. The traversing enemy will cross an area where no electronic equipment is present, or the electronic equipment is not critical to the war. Then you can utilize nuclear warheads.

Is that a realistic scenario though? Why would F-22s be flying around Siberia in the first place? AFAIK there's no plan to use F-22s as bomber escorts and they don't have the range or air-to-ground capability to do anything useful independently. You're only likely to come up against F-22s in an air war over Europe or as interceptors stopping your own bombers from penetrating US airspace. Realistically you'd be firing your nuclear SAMs at B-1s or B-2s - you probably don't need them for the former and I'm not sure if you can track the later even with an ABM radar.

How about these fighters being critical to penetrating your air-defense network? You'd still consider them "just fighters"?

That's the thing though, I don't think F-22s are going to be sent to remote regions of Siberia to do air defence suppression, even if you could fudge the range issue with tanker support those aircraft are needed more urgently elsewhere.

[Beowulf]

Err... 250 a year? Try more like 20 a year.

In that case there's likewise no difference between 20 and 30 a year - both are miserably low numbers.

But there is a difference between 0 and 20 a year. When production per year reaches 0, we aren't ever going to be building more of them. And every year the plant stays open is another year that they can decide to extend production.

I don't think you realize how many air superiority fighters the USAF operates. They only built 408 F-15Cs for the USAF. The massive production rates you seem to expect ended back in the 70s, when aircraft started getting really expensive per unit.

[K. A. Pital]

But there is a difference between 0 and 20 a year.

As I see it, 250 and 380 aren't that different to have a "0" per year situation. So you're speaking about hypothetical cancellation. Well too bad.

But it's not like the sky will fall or the US will become at risk of total destruction due to even a total cancellation of the F-22, so even your hypothetical scenario still doesn't answer why military program takes precedence before the other economic needs of your nation, aside from fleet obsoletion. But many other nations experience obsoletion and deal with it; so can you.

[CmdrWilkens]

But there is a difference between 0 and 20 a year.

As I see it, 250 and 380 aren't that different to have a "0" per year situation. So you're speaking about hypothetical cancellation. Well too bad.

But it's not like the sky will fall or the US will become at risk of total destruction due to even a total cancellation of the F-22, so even your hypothetical scenario still doesn't answer why military program takes precedence before the other economic needs of your nation, aside from fleet obsoletion. But many other nations experience obsoletion and deal with it; so can you.

The point is that in an economic crisis where the core trigger is a lack of liquidity in the capital market the worst thing the government can do is cut back on spending. Now yes it may be wiser to spend money on infrastructure than on military hardware but both types of contracts provide civilian employment and produce a capital asset for the United States. The former produces a civilian capital item and the later a military capital item. Obviously for the long run the former is more cost effective, at the same time expenditure even on military assets is more likley to have a positive impact on the country than an equivalent size tax cut.

[Kitsune]

We still have a problem with estimating cost with how much development cost...
Every additional plane does reduce the effective development cost per plane though.

The big problem is that all aircraft costs have skyrocketed.
The F-22 (according to Wiki - being lazy) is at $137.5 million
The Eurofighter Typhoon is listed as 68.9 million pounds which equates to $97.8 million.

While they may not be quite as expensive as the F-22, they are pretty close

[Captain Kruger]

I read another article (in Time IIRC) saying that Gates might not even approve 60 more F-22s. The number may stay at 183. Then again these planes are supposed to be able to ass-rape 4 to 5 F-15s single-handedly. So again, the question comes up...do we really need to spend on more of them during these financially disastrous times?

Also, the same article pegged the F-22 at $350 million. I'm not sure where that discrepancy comes from.

[Phantasee]

I read another article (in Time IIRC) saying that Gates might not even approve 60 more F-22s. The number may stay at 183. Then again these planes are supposed to be able to ass-rape 4 to 5 F-15s single-handedly. So again, the question comes up...do we really need to spend on more of them during these financially disastrous times?

Also, the same article pegged the F-22 at $350 million. I'm not sure where that discrepancy comes from.

It has something to do with the total cost ending up similar, whether you buy 250 or 380. The plane's cost is mostly from the R&D, so they spread that cost out over however many planes you buy. If you tell the companies you're buying fewer planes, they'll just jack up the price on the remaining units so they can still cover their costs and make a similar profit to what they expected.

Cutting planes doesn't really save money.

[Beowulf]

I read another article (in Time IIRC) saying that Gates might not even approve 60 more F-22s. The number may stay at 183. Then again these planes are supposed to be able to ass-rape 4 to 5 F-15s single-handedly. So again, the question comes up...do we really need to spend on more of them during these financially disastrous times?

Also, the same article pegged the F-22 at $350 million. I'm not sure where that discrepancy comes from.

Without future orders, Lockheed will be forced to close the production line, most likely permanently. It's been the position that we really need to have significantly larger numbers of them than the 183 that have previously been funded.

The price discrepancy is the same one that puts a B-2 anywhere between $2 billion and $350 million each. That is to say, one is a flyaway cost, and the other includes the cost of development and other sunk costs. The cost from wiki is what it'd cost to add another one to the order in FY2008. FY2009 is slightly more expensive, but has a reduced weapon system unit cost.

[Starglider]

Cutting planes doesn't really save money.

Well it saves the money required to operate and maintain them for the next 40 or so years, but if F-15s are being retired at a 1:1 ratio to F-22 purchases that may be a net loss (if keeping the F-15s operational is more expensive).

[Phantasee]

Cutting planes doesn't really save money.

Well it saves the money required to operate and maintain them for the next 40 or so years, but if F-15s are being retired at a 1:1 ratio to F-22 purchases that may be a net loss (if keeping the F-15s operational is more expensive).

Of course. But one thing a lot of people have trouble with is the difference between capital cost (the cost of purchasing something) and operating cost (the cost of keeping it running). The only way anyone would buy those new compact fluorescent bulbs is if they were shown (effectively) how their operating cost would go down, so much that the capital cost is worth it, even though these new CF bulbs are much more expensive than incandescents.

I suppose we have a similar situation with the housing markets, people saw the capital cost was low, especially when people weren't required to make down payments (or very small ones), and they didn't think of the operating cost of a home, including utilities, mortgage payments (especially mortgage payments), all that jazz.

Which is why it's often preferable to shell out a little extra money in the beginning (and buy a quality car, for example) to save more money in the long run (because you didn't buy a Pontiac, for example ).

[CmdrWilkens]

Cutting planes doesn't really save money.

Well it saves the money required to operate and maintain them for the next 40 or so years, but if F-15s are being retired at a 1:1 ratio to F-22 purchases that may be a net loss (if keeping the F-15s operational is more expensive).

Which would be where adding 60 more may be helpful since it would make replacement parts less expensive and thus maintenance on the new F-22 fleet cheaper while still reducing the F-15 load proportionally (and giving us a bunch of extra spare parts by scrounging which would reduce the maintenance costs on remaining F-15 units as well)

[Chardok]

like I told JSF - with the threats Australia faces, they'd be just peachy with some F-84Gs.

[Sea Skimmer]

like I told JSF - with the threats Australia faces, they'd be just peachy with some F-84Gs.

You realize Indonesia flies F-16s, Su-27s and Su-30s right? They aren’t that numerous, but they’d sure trash the entire F-84 production run. More importantly Indonesia is also expected to soon place an order for a new jet fighter, most likely a Chinese J-10 or JF-17 model which would be cheap enough for it to afford in decent numbers.

The main reasons Australia wanted the F-22 though, is simply that it is NOT THAT EXPENSIVE! The actual flyaway cost for the plane is not more then about 25-30% greater then an F-15 or Typhoon and yet it is a radically more effective in any role except lugging shear tonnage of bombs to drop on soft targets. One of the thing its very good at is defending against cruise missiles, a role only a fighter can do satisfactory as ground defences get real expensive real quick thanks to limited coverage against targets flying 50 feet AGL. Ballistic missiles are much easier to deal with since you see them coming so far away.

Users and producers of cruise missiles are spawning all over the world, and for many nations, they are likely to become the primary offensive air weapon over the next 40 years. The price of even a cheap jet fighter will buy 40 of them easily, and they’ll be able to strike at a much longer distance (if Indonesia could get Kh-555 it could attack Sydney from Java) and they don’t require nearly as many specialized personal and training. The only downside is mission planning is very difficult, but if you have years to collect intelligence and only aim to strike fixed targets, like Australian airfields and ports, this isn’t an overwhelming issue.

[K. A. Pital]

You're only likely to come up against F-22s in an air war over Europe or as interceptors stopping your own bombers from penetrating US airspace.

In that case there's even less qualms about using nuclear missiles to take them out, frying stuff below as well.

...you probably don't need them for the former and I'm not sure if you can track the later even with an ABM radar.

You can detect the latter. Tracking is another issue - if your ABM radar's resolution is 10 to 30 km (that's the common resolution for Russian ABM radars at distances between 3000 and 6000 km), you just need to use a weapon which will kill everything in this radius. The B-2 isn't exactly a very fast flier, so it's chances are even worse than those of an F-22 if an area-effect nuclear weapon is being used against it.

That's the thing though, I don't think F-22s are going to be sent to remote regions of Siberia

Fights over northern seas or Central Asia could feature F-22s, and there's nothing to fear "knocking out" there either. There's plenty of places where you can use nuclear-tipped SAMs, in reality, if people weren't so concerned about nuclear everything, I'm sure those weapons would have more spread. All that aside, using simpler anti-stealth techniques could be enough if the stealth craft is very scarce and outnumbered.

[Beowulf]

Ok, so you've decided to use nuclear SAMs in an air war in Europe. Half an hour later, Minuteman missiles finish their flight and Moscow (and St. Petersburg, and Omsk) are turned into smoking cinders.

Scenario 2: your bombers are pentrating US airspace. You don't have the low frequency radars on your planes which are more likely to detect stealth aircraft. Therefore, you can't even get to the point of launching your nuclear AAMs.

Scenario 3: F-22s are penetrating Russian airspace. You use nuclear SAMs. See the first scenario. Alternatively, it's already gone nuclear, in which case you no longer have the long range search radars.

[K. A. Pital]

Ok, so you've decided to use nuclear SAMs in an air war in Europe. Half an hour later, Minuteman missiles finish their flight and Moscow (and St. Petersburg, and Omsk) are turned into smoking cinders.

If there's a war with Russia involving 400 Su-35BMs versus 800 US fighters, that's most certainly a nuclear war. Hello. Otherwise, why use nuclear missiles? And who said nuclear SAMs are prohibited, by the way - you bunked out of the ABM treaty, so we can do it and pull up a big "FUCK YOU" sign in the process as well.

Scenario 2: your bombers are pentrating US airspace. You don't have the low frequency radars on your planes which are more likely to detect stealth aircraft. Therefore, you can't even get to the point of launching your nuclear AAMs.

We don't have low frequency radars because...

Scenario 3: F-22s are penetrating Russian airspace. You use nuclear SAMs. See the first scenario. Alternatively, it's already gone nuclear, in which case you no longer have the long range search radars.

Because yeah - if F-22s are penetrating Russian airspace, you have no problem with launching nukes anyway. And then, nuclear SAMs are fair game. I didn't hear anyone prohibit nuclear-tipped SAM or ABM, the ABM treaty aside since you bunked that off anyway.

[Chardok]

like I told JSF - with the threats Australia faces, they'd be just peachy with some F-84Gs.

You realize Indonesia flies F-16s, Su-27s and Su-30s right? They aren’t that numerous, but they’d sure trash the entire F-84 production run. More importantly Indonesia is also expected to soon place an order for a new jet fighter, most likely a Chinese J-10 or JF-17 model which would be cheap enough for it to afford in decent numbers.

To be fair, my comment was more of a joke Re: australia not facing a real imminent threat from anywhere. If no on the F-84, I say we bring back and re-wire the F-104. That was a pretty fighter - it just screamed "Go ahead and shoot at me - I'll STAB you."

[Beowulf]

Ok, so you've decided to use nuclear SAMs in an air war in Europe. Half an hour later, Minuteman missiles finish their flight and Moscow (and St. Petersburg, and Omsk) are turned into smoking cinders.

If there's a war with Russia involving 400 Su-35BMs versus 800 US fighters, that's most certainly a nuclear war. Hello. Otherwise, why use nuclear missiles? And who said nuclear SAMs are prohibited, by the way - you bunked out of the ABM treaty, so we can do it and pull up a big "FUCK YOU" sign in the process as well.

I'm not saying nuclear SAMs are prohibited. I'm saying that the instant you use one, what could previously have been a non-nuclear war instantly turn into a nuclear war, and instead of the possibility of losing the war, your nation will be destroyed. Once it's nuclear, it's almost certainly not going to be 400 Su-35s vs 800 US fighters, but rather will be our ICBMs, SLBMs, B-1, B-2, B-52s, and hundreds of fighters versus your IADS.

Nuclear SAMs are only useful in a nuclear war, and a nuclear war will almost assuredly result in the destruction of Russia. Therefore, nuclear SAMs are kinda useless.

Scenario 2: your bombers are pentrating US airspace. You don't have the low frequency radars on your planes which are more likely to detect stealth aircraft. Therefore, you can't even get to the point of launching your nuclear AAMs.

We don't have low frequency radars because....

You can't fit a usable one on an aircraft? You can fit relatively high frequency ones on a aircraft, but those are the same ones that stealth techniques are most effective against.

Scenario 3: F-22s are penetrating Russian airspace. You use nuclear SAMs. See the first scenario. Alternatively, it's already gone nuclear, in which case you no longer have the long range search radars.

Because yeah - if F-22s are penetrating Russian airspace, you have no problem with launching nukes anyway. And then, nuclear SAMs are fair game. I didn't hear anyone prohibit nuclear-tipped SAM or ABM, the ABM treaty aside since you bunked that off anyway.

If F-22s are penetrating Russian airspace, and the war hasn't already gone nuclear, then launching nukes is still a bad idea. You cannot win a nuclear war. If the war has gone nuclear, then using nuclear SAMs is irrelevant, because Russia will be gone.

This is of course, not going into the reaction times involved in nuclear SAMs given the need for affirmative control of nuclear weapons. This may result in the SAM site getting blown away before it has the chance to launch.