While I'm not going to speculate on what the right number of planes is I do agree that more attention has to be paid to assymetrical warfare. (I always felt the term "low intensity warfare" is something of an oxymoron, but that's for another thread) Certainly, I'm eager to see the U.S. have the latest, greatest and highest tech weapons. This is a good thing, IMHO. However, I remember reports that when it came to actual war fighting exercises in recent years that the British forces consistently came out on top because of their superb trainning and leadership, even though their equipment was miles behind the U.S. forces. Despite the traditional mainstream military distrust, and in some cases outright disdain, for Special Forces, it seems to me that the tool to combat assymetrical warfare is the Special Forces. As was proven in Vietnam, where the Air Commandos with their creaking and groaning WW-II vintage bombers were far more effective at interdicting the Ho Chi Minh Trail than the latest high tech/high speed bombers. Being the lone remaining superpower means we're going to have to be equally capable in the traditional and non-traditional arenas and finding the right balance is always going to be an expensive and frustrating exercise.
The AF has a requirement for a specific number of fighter wings to be able to fight a conventional two-front war. IIRC, that number was ten fighter wings. That's the number driving the requirement for 381 raptors. They're definitely gonna have to keep plenty of F-15s around. Trouble is, they're aging. The AF has already had to restrict flight time, speed and maneuvering parameters on the older eagles because some of them have had their stabilators shatter under ACM G-loading!
That is definitely a possible outcome! I don't think the article I read mentioned specific outcomes. I don't believe there have been any fatalities, though.
"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." - Lieutenant General Lewis "Chesty" Puller (USMC)
Err, no? We're better than the Euros and the Chinese, but the Russians are still building their prototypes. We shouldn't even be picking fights with these mudhutting dirtball nations in the first place! We only went to war with Iraq because they were supposed to have some nukes.
The US HAD an edge when the F-15 and F-14 were new. The Su-27 and its spinoffs achieved parity with those planes ages ago. The F-22 is the only 5th gen jet fighter in the world right now, and the only thing that gives us a tecnological edge over the Flankers. Of course we'll always have better-trained pilots than anybody in the world (except the Brits and the Isrealis, of course).
It seems that the aircraft that sees the enemy first, and fires first would have the distinct advantage. Does the Su-27 have a better capability for this than the F-15?
Equal to, I believe. But I think policy may actually be the better decider here - even though everyone has had BVR capability for decades, US policy still states (I'm pretty sure) that the pilot must get visual confirmation that he's actually shooting down the right plane before he fires (thus cancelling out any BVR advantage), and the old Soviet ground-controlled way of fighting requires permission from a ground controller before firing (thus cancelling out ANY advantage!). Both planes end up in a knife fight anyway, where it comes down to close-range missiles, guns, quality of the aircraft, and (mostly) pilot training.
All of that seems to have been just as true in the Vietnam era when the brass made the decision to only equip the F-4 with machine guns in the belief that dog fighting was a thing of the past really seem stupid. Am I being overly critical, or is it just hindsight?
RAF are doing that with the Typhoons..just a lump of lead in the space for the gun now. Oops looks like they changed there mind again..was just checking and found this.
