Gates to cut F-22

[Hacker15e]

Maybe we should stop training their student Naval Aviators in T-45's then

The wind blows in many different ways, depending on what is happening.

I was training Pakistani pilots in the USAF fighter lead-in course (AT-38) in '05 and '06, too.

Remember that these international students come to the US via many different "Security Assistance" programs, that often are not internally consistant with one another.

Just because there are pilots from that country training in the US with the US military does not mean their government is 100% in bed with US government policies abroad.

We just try and not get the Pakistani and Indian pilots mixed together. That would make for an interesting BFM sortie!

 

[fish314]

The wind blows in many different ways, depending on what is happening.

I was training Pakistani pilots in the USAF fighter lead-in course (AT-38) in '05 and '06, too.

Remember that these international students come to the US via many different "Security Assistance" programs, that often are not internally consistant with one another.

Just because there are pilots from that country training in the US with the US military does not mean their government is 100% in bed with US government policies abroad.

We just try and not get the Pakistani and Indian pilots mixed together. That would make for an interesting BFM sortie!

Hahaha.

We've got a bunch of Saudis and some Iraqis, an Afghani, and a couple of Pakistanis and an Indian come through my program in the last couple of years, too. Though with the exception of one of the Saudis, and the Indian, usually they're not very good. Of course, I would suck too, if I had to learn in a foreign language.

 

[MikeD]

Anyone know if there's ever been problems between the token Greek and Turkish IPs they have at ENJJPT?

 

[bunk22]

Hahaha.

We've got a bunch of Saudis and some Iraqis, an Afghani, and a couple of Pakistanis and an Indian come through my program in the last couple of years, too. Though with the exception of one of the Saudis, and the Indian, usually they're not very good. Of course, I would suck too, if I had to learn in a foreign language.

I'm currently the OIC of the NETSAFA det in P-cola.....the prep school for Royal Saudi Navy pilots. The Indian Navy Liason office is across from mine as well. He was a former Sea Harrier pilot. I've got about 17 Saudi's in the program and to be honest, the majority of them are just not any good. I've flown with Italian, Saudi, Indian plus we have Spanish, Dutch, French and German. The Indians are the best I've seen on average but as far as they go, we are not just training pilots, we are training strike pilots. They have to hit the 50NSS to go on to Meridian or Kingsville. They go through 70 hours of flying prior to arriving so their skill level is a bit higher. I got to fly a few times with the old Indian Liason and he was a damn good stick. He was training US pilots at the FITU. No other foreigner has done that. We have a French IP with VT-2 and an Argentine IP with us at VT-6. Both are decent pilots from what I hear.

 

[bunk22]

Besides...that was not the point of my post. I said that there were a half dozen countries that could give the US a black eye in an aerial shooting match. I didn't say BEAT the US...I said get in some solid punches that would really sting.

Hacker, it doesn't matter, the internet is full of experts who have never been there done that. Opinions are one thing, opinions based on experience is another. An F-15E driver has credibility on the subject more so than most on this site, if not all.

 

[jtrain609]

Hacker, it doesn't matter, the internet is full of experts who have never been there done that. Opinions are one thing, opinions based on experience is another. An F-15E driver has credibility on the subject more so than most on this site, if not all.

So...the F-117 driver and KC-135 driver that have voiced opinions in this thread don't mean much then eh? Because this discussion hasn't been just F-15E driver vs. the general public. Now me personally? I like to hear what all three of these guys have to say, not just the F-15E driver, and I think all three of them have some valid insight and opinions on the issue.

 

[Ian_J]

So...the F-117 driver and KC-135 driver that have voiced opinions in this thread don't mean much then eh? Because this discussion hasn't been just F-15E driver vs. the general public. Now me personally? I like to hear what all three of these guys have to say, not just the F-15E driver, and I think all three of them have some valid insight and opinions on the issue.

Maybe he was talking about 20-year-old CFI/Flight Attendants with no military experience?

 

[jtrain609]

Could be!

But even still, they're tax payers and this is their money involved, and it being a public forum doesn't their opinion count for something?

Even if it is a different opinion than those out there on the front lines, it's a different perspective and is no less valid.

Finally, there's a reason that it's the civilians that control the funding of the military in this country, as you well know. If we let the generals control their own funding and decide what wars to start, then Lemay would have started WWIII back in the 50's eh?

 

[///AMG]

But even still, they're tax payers and this is their money involved, and it being a public forum doesn't their opinion count for something?

You make it sound as if voicing your opinion on an internet forum will have an effect on this issue.

Even if it is a different opinion than those out there on the front lines, it's a different perspective and is no less valid.

If this debate is about tactics (which it has been for a number of posts), then yes, their perspectives are less valid.

 

[Ian_J]

Could be!

But even still, they're tax payers and this is their money involved, and it being a public forum doesn't their opinion count for something?

Even if it is a different opinion than those out there on the front lines, it's a different perspective and is no less valid.

Finally, there's a reason that it's the civilians that control the funding of the military in this country, as you well know. If we let the generals control their own funding and decide what wars to start, then Lemay would have started WWIII back in the 50's eh?

If someone wanted to know what the best ski equipment is and how best to learn how to ski, should people place more value on your advice or mine? They might listen to both of us, but one of has a lot more credibility.

 

[jtrain609]

It's actually been about a lot of things. All I see, to be frank with you, is ego's getting in the way of a discussion about this while people scream, "My opinion matters more and yours, and instead of discussing the issues you're bringing up, I'll just belittle you to the point that, hopefully, you simply leave the conversation. After that I'll continue to measure the size of my online wanger and think about how awesome I am."

 

[jtrain609]

If someone wanted to know what the best ski equipment is and how best to learn how to ski, should people place more value on your advice or mine? They might listen to both of us, but one of has a lot more credibility.

I don't know a ton about gear, so I might not be the best guy to talk with. I've got MY OPINIONS on what I think works FOR ME, but skiing is a very subjective issue.

Further, by simply snuffing people out, folks aren't discussing anything; they're saying that their opinion trumps, well, everything. That's not a discussion, and given the subject matter it's the exact reason why the military is in civilian control in this country.

I might not know much about the military, but policy is something I can discuss with at least some minimal credibility eh?

 

[alphaone]

There is too much BS in this thread to respond to. I do not know what the right combination of weapons for the U.S. to have is, but I do know it better be massive and better than any other countries by far.
There are three things people should think of when talking about shirking defense spending:

A: History repeats itself

B: The holocaust happened only 60 years ago

C: There has always been another major war

If you love peace (which I do, and which I think most people do) you better have a massive military capability to keep it that way.

This is a big gamble by Gates, I pray that he is right because if he is not it will be me and my brothers and sisters who end up paying with their lives

 

[Ian_J]

I don't know a ton about gear, so I might not be the best guy to talk with. I've got MY OPINIONS on what I think works FOR ME, but skiing is a very subjective issue.

Further, by simply snuffing people out, folks aren't discussing anything; they're saying that their opinion trumps, well, everything. That's not a discussion, and given the subject matter it's the exact reason why the military is in civilian control in this country.

I might not know much about the military, but policy is something I can discuss with at least some minimal credibility eh?

Well sure, but all Bunk said was "An F-15E driver has credibility on the subject more so than most on this site, if not all."

If the subject is fighter planes, strategy, enemy threat, etc... I'm inclined to agree. If the subject is policy, not so much.

I'm NOT saying at all others CAN'T have opinions on the subject. I'm saying your standard 20 year old college educated kid has probably taken some classes, read some books, watched and read some news in order to shape his/her opinions.

The 15-year veteran military pilot has probably taken the same classes, read books, and consumed some news as well. Difference is, they are privy to information and experience the public is not. It might be an entertaining debate for you and me to discuss possible enemy threats, but for the military person it is their job. They can lose personnel and equipment if they don't know their stuff.

Again, it's a good discussion and anyone with an opinion should participate. All I'm saying is that my human nature makes me see Hacker's, Fish's, and MikeD's posts as more credible than people totally removed from military aviation.

 

[Hacker15e]

All I see, to be frank with you, is ego's getting in the way of a discussion about this while people scream, "My opinion matters more and yours, and instead of discussing the issues you're bringing up, I'll just belittle you to the point that, hopefully, you simply leave the conversation. After that I'll continue to measure the size of my online wanger and think about how awesome I am."

Train, have you seen me do this?

Apologies if so, because that's a weak way to conduct an online discussion.

You guys are right that being a military aviator doesn't make me any more omnscient about some of these topics than the rest of you. In fact, I know very little outside my own area of expertise. I can't tell you a thing about Fish's side of the profession, to be honest.

But, since the topic is about the F-22, and I have some personal experience both with the Raptor and some of the scenarios in which the Raptor would be used, I think I've got some ability to intelligently comment on the subject.

It's not just about policy, friends. That's the point here -- there is more to the discussion than purely what policy toward this aircraft is best.

Several statements about policy have been made on here that are based on completely arbitrary statements -- arbitrary statements about what various friendly and threat aircraft are really capable of. When policy opinions are made on top of false assumptions, then they aren't worth the electrons they're printed with. That's been the most significant point of contention I've had with posts made in this thread.

This is where I think experience matters. Comments about what the Raptor can do, what Eagles and Vipers and Flankers can do, and how many of them can do it seem to be based on what's read in the media -- which does not have a complete picture of those capabilities.

Bottom line(s) are this:

- Many "rest of world" systems are on par with what the US military currently has
- Raptor represents a significant leap forward in capabiity
- New-built versions of legacy fighters are not the right answer
- There will be a loss of US military capability by limiting the number of Raptors and Lightnings built -- it's not possible to "do more with less" -- hell, it's not going to be even possible to do "the same with less".

You guys are right -- there is a reason that the military answers to civilian leadership. On the other hand, that civilian leadership has a responsibility to listen to the experts.

 

[jtrain609]

Well sure, but all Bunk said was "An F-15E driver has credibility on the subject more so than most on this site, if not all."

If the subject is fighter planes, strategy, enemy threat, etc... I'm inclined to agree. If the subject is policy, not so much.

I'm NOT saying at all others CAN'T have opinions on the subject. I'm saying your standard 20 year old college educated kid has probably taken some classes, read some books, watched and read some news in order to shape his/her opinions.

The 15-year veteran military pilot has probably taken the same classes, read books, and consumed some news as well. Difference is, they are privy to information and experience the public is not. It might be an entertaining debate for you and me to discuss possible enemy threats, but for the military person it is their job. They can lose personnel and equipment if they don't know their stuff.

Again, it's a good discussion and anyone with an opinion should participate. All I'm saying is that my human nature makes me see Hacker's, Fish's, and MikeD's posts as more credible than people totally removed from military aviation.

Thanks for the more full explanation, that makes things much clearer!

But if you'll look back a few posts, my original intent was to say "Hey, don't Fish's and MikeD's opinions on this weigh just as heavily as Hacker's?"

Or in other words, let's not discount them because we don't agree with them. Fish doesn't even have a way to defend himself, so I'd think he's very heavily vested in making sure this whole system works, because if it doesn't then he's toast.

Or in other words, I don't put one of these guys opinions above another's just because of the equipment they operate. They're all on the hook when things go to the pot, not just the strike eagle driver.

Does that make sense?

 

[Ian_J]

Does that make sense?

Absolutely. Wanna hug it out or have a full on man kiss?

Oh, and in case anyone was worried I haven't heard anything about them cutting the next-gen CH-47 program so breathe easy.

 

[jtrain609]

Train, have you seen me do this?

Apologies if so, because that's a weak way to conduct an online discussion.

You guys are right that being a military aviator doesn't make me any more omnscient about some of these topics than the rest of you. In fact, I know very little outside my own area of expertise. I can't tell you a thing about Fish's side of the profession, to be honest.

But, since the topic is about the F-22, and I have some personal experience both with the Raptor and some of the scenarios in which the Raptor would be used, I think I've got some ability to intelligently comment on the subject.

It's not just about policy, friends. That's the point here -- there is more to the discussion than purely what policy toward this aircraft is best.

Several statements about policy have been made on here that are based on completely arbitrary statements -- arbitrary statements about what various friendly and threat aircraft are really capable of. When policy opinions are made on top of false assumptions, then they aren't worth the electrons they're printed with. That's been the most significant point of contention I've had with posts made in this thread.

This is where I think experience matters. Comments about what the Raptor can do, what Eagles and Vipers and Flankers can do, and how many of them can do it seem to be based on what's read in the media -- which does not have a complete picture of those capabilities.

Bottom line(s) are this:

- Many "rest of world" systems are on par with what the US military currently has
- Raptor represents a significant leap forward in capabiity
- New-built versions of legacy fighters are not the right answer
- There will be a loss of US military capability by limiting the number of Raptors and Lightnings built -- it's not possible to "do more with less" -- hell, it's not going to be even possible to do "the same with less".

You guys are right -- there is a reason that the military answers to civilian leadership. On the other hand, that civilian leadership has a responsibility to listen to the experts.

Naw Hacker, I haven't seen other doing that; I've seen others doing it for you. You've presented some great stuff here.

In regards to the loss of U.S. military capability, doesn't the F-35 fill a big part of that void? Or said another way, is the F-22 the ONLY way to fill that void? I know the F-35 isn't operational yet, but it will be soon, and once it's up and running why do we need the F-22 AND the F-35 in huge numbers?

I seem to remember this discussion going back much further than most of us, in that it's in many ways more about having aircraft specially tailored to one specific role vs. being able to perform multiple missions. I get the impression some people have the opinion that in diversifying an aircraft, you lose capability, and I'm not sure that's so true.

 

[jtrain609]

Absolutely. Wanna hug it out or have a full on man kiss?

Oh, and in case anyone was worried I haven't heard anything about them cutting the next-gen CH-47 program so breathe easy.

Dude, come on! Do you think I'm gay or something? Full on man kiss!

 

[bunk22]

Could be!

But even still, they're tax payers and this is their money involved, and it being a public forum doesn't their opinion count for something?

Even if it is a different opinion than those out there on the front lines, it's a different perspective and is no less valid.

Finally, there's a reason that it's the civilians that control the funding of the military in this country, as you well know. If we let the generals control their own funding and decide what wars to start, then Lemay would have started WWIII back in the 50's eh?

Do I hear whining? When it comes to the military and performance of aircraft, those with credibility are those who have been there done that. So many experts on the net who have done exactly jack squat. The KC-135 or C-130 driver have valid opinions on many subjects but when it comes to the pointy nose stuff, the pointy nose drivers have the most valid information, hands down. So when it comes to performance info, be it aircraft, missile systems, etc, those in the know are the only ones who count.

Further, by simply snuffing people out, folks aren't discussing anything; they're saying that their opinion trumps, well, everything. That's not a discussion, and given the subject matter it's the exact reason why the military is in civilian control in this country.

I might not know much about the military, but policy is something I can discuss with at least some minimal credibility eh?

Policy is one thing, the capability of aircraft is another and that's what I'm referring too. So military pilots credibility outweigh your opinion on specifics in that small regime, regardless of who controls what....which has zero to do with this conversation in that regard only (specific performance). So don't get all wrapped up that I don't count, I'm not equal whinny BS. Want to talk policy, history, etc, then sure, all are equal in one way or another.