Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
I can't lie, I like awesome military technology like the F-22. It's freakin' rad, especially when you see it in person. But I do think we should probably reconsider our investment in it, even if Congress manages to ignore the latest round of questioning of the program:
"The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show...
""It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats.
"But other defense officials -- reflecting sharp divisions inside the Pentagon about the wisdom of ending one of the largest arms programs in U.S. history -- emphasize the plane's unsurpassed flying abilities, express renewed optimism that the troubles will abate and say the plane is worth the unexpected costs."
Well, I'll be honest: I don't think the plane is worth the unexpected costs. I think that's just sentimental loyalty to a sexy airframe without regard to its actual strategic impact. If you believe that our next war will be a high-tech one against a near-peer adversary like China or Russia, you have to question why exactly that near-peer adversary would even bother letting awesome jet fighters even get off the ground as Andy Krepinevich notes in his latest piece:
"The Chinese approach would entail destroying or disrupting the U.S. military's communications networks and launching preemptive attacks, to the point where such attacks, or even the threat of such attacks, would raise the costs of U.S. action to prohibitive levels. The Chinese call the military capabilities that support this strategy "assassin's mace." The underlying mantra is that assassin's mace weapons and techniques will enable "the inferior" (China) to defeat "the superior" (the United States).
"Chinese efforts are focused on developing and fielding what U.S. military analysts refer to as "anti-access/area-denial" (A2/AD) capabilities. Generally speaking, Chinese anti-access forces seek to deny U.S. forces the ability to operate from forward bases, such as Kadena Air Base, on Okinawa, and Andersen Air Force Base, on Guam. The Chinese are, for example, fielding large numbers of conventionally armed ballistic missiles capable of striking these bases with a high degree of accuracy. Although recent advances in directed-energy technology -- such as solid-state lasers -- may enable the United States to field significantly more effective missile defense systems in the next decade, present defenses against ballistic missile attacks are limited. These defenses can be overwhelmed when confronted with missile barrages. The intended message to the United States and its East Asian allies and partners is clear: China has the means to put at risk the forward bases from which most U.S. strike aircraft must operate."
We really need to rethink our entire concept of airpower. I don't think it lies in F-22s, but in the persistent presence and low-observability offered by the next generation of unmanned and relatively inexpensive drones, operating from longer ranges with a wider variety of weaponry and strike capabilities. That's the real future, not our efforts to build a new generation of fighters that do the same thing but better and with a pointier nose.
Nothing is "rad," Ibn Muqawama, not even the F-22.
It isn't just the F-22s, a huge portion of the defense contracting system needs to change. The companies that make these seem to have gotten a very strong hold on the Congressmen (and women) who approve the military budget, and so these ludicrous cost overruns and delays are inevitable. If it weren't for the fact that I consider war with China to an unfortunate and stupid inevitability I'd personally recommend scrapping the F-22s altogether, but even with that threat I'm beginning to believe that we need something else. Perhaps this would actually be a better place for drones than bombing.
I concur - it is rad.
This is reason enough to retain the program, especially since a key function of frontline fighters is to look rad.
Yes, everything you say is true, and it would work--up to the day when we actually did convert to an all-Warthog USAF. Then you may be sure that China and Russia will roll out their versions of a next-gen fighter bomber.
The inferior (China, Russia, whoever) will always contest the superior (the US) by striking at its weaknesses, unless he's stupid like Saddam Hussein. Follow the Gian Gentile route, and when an irregular contest arises, the military can adapt, as it did finally adapt in Iraq. Adopt the John Nagl route, and when a conventional contest arises--as it inevitably will--we're f**ked.
Qiao Liang: 'the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden'
Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Like many others, Krepinevich is over hyping the threats -- and prescribed US reaction -- posed by China's nascent A2/A2 capabilities. Krepinevich posits that just because China may one day have theater ballistic missiles (traditional and anti-ship) in its arsenal, the age of the aircraft carrier and fighter jets are past -- or as he says to overhype his case, are "wasting assets."
This simply overlooks our own capabilities and the history of war. Japan, our erstwhile foe in the Far East, waged an all out war against our carriers with some success. Dozens were hit in battle -- and then expeditiously repaired by their crews to return to battle. This did not prevent carriers from being amazing strategic muscle movers in the Pacific. More recently, both the ENTERPRISE and FORRESTAL experienced major fires in the 1960s (the FORRESAL fire involved then Lieutenant Commander John McCain) resulting in damage equivalent to several cruise missiles. They were repaired and returned to Yankee Station to resume their mission. Aircraft carriers are widely credited as having had major strategic impact on the course of the Cold War – despite their proven vulnerability. The ENTERPRISE was still around to be the nation's first responder to 9/11. The point is that carriers, like F-22s or any other weapons system are not, and never have been invulnerable. Krepinevich seems to think that any degree of vulnerability implies strategic irrelevance -- please show me a weapon system that meets his mark.
This is to say nothing of our capability to defend against A2/AD threats. AEGIS cruisers and destroyers were designed as the premier air defense platforms -- and now have the ability to intercept ballistic missiles. We don’t just sit (or float) around
Bottom line is that if we fight a near peer competitor, people are going to die. There is no weapon system that is going to render us invulnerable from a worthy adversary. We are going to have to work within the confines of vulnerable capabilities to gain the strategic edge. -- just as we did during the Cold War with our nuclear arsenal -- which Krepinevich dubbed a "wasting asset."
The F-22 is as equally worthless in our contemporary security environment as the V-22 Osprey. Did you happen to notice that the Marines' largest air assault since Vietnam (int Southern Afghanistan) was primarilly supported by an Army combat aviation brigade consisting of Blackhawks and Chinooks? Where's the Osprey in the Corps' moment of glory? My guess is that they are still flying daylight VIP and supply routes in Iraq as opposed to combat assaults.
stop getting erections over planes and guns. in the circles that some of you roll in, it may be cool and produce a few good circle-jerks.... but these things are not as rad as you and others seem to think they are.
I'm so tired of hearing the term "assassin's mace". What kind of assassin uses a mace? It's not exactly the most concealable weapon, and everyone sees you swinging it over your head. Entering a room with a mace pretty much announces what you're there to do, doesn't it?
Drones are a long, long, long term investment. We're decades away from the point where UAVs would be able to take over the full spectrum of missions now performed by manned aircraft.
And for that matter, if the Chinese are going to be so good at exploiting the weaknesses of our weapon systems, what says that they won't just render our UAVs useless by severing the data links to their pilots by shooting down our satellites or disrupting radio frequencies? Unless we plan to operate our UAVs on tethers or communicate with them only when they're within line of sight, then that's another point of vulnerability that can be exploited by a technologically-advanced adversary, one that could shut us down far more comprehensively than if the Chinese just plastered Guam and Kadena with Ballistic Missiles. Why does nobody ever point this out? Until we invent artificially intelligent computers (which will never happen) then UAVs will not be able to fight autonomously in the same way that manned aircraft do.
Well, China's A2/AD capabilities aren't that extreme. Think about how they've tightened up their forces along the Strait of Taiwan -- the U.S. would not dare send another carrier through there like it did in 1996. Similarly, most of their maritime exercises are dedicated to overcoming traditional fleet defenses -- and their subs have shown a consistent ability to infiltrate battlegroups without being detected.
The F-22 represents for now a great flagship product that is way too valuable to actually risk in combat. Who would want to be responsible for losing 2-3 of them in combat? It's something we have to plan for in a near-peer conflict. 2-3 downed F-22s would represent an immediate loss of over $1 billion, along with the pilots. That is an absurd resource sink in so few aircraft, much more money than a Perry-class Frigate. And given the advances in multistatic and phased radar arrays, it's not even a given the F-22's stealth characteristics will even be relevant for much longer.
The F-22 is a really expensive waste of money and resources.
My favorite line in the article: "A spokeswoman for Lockheed added that the F-22 has "unmatched capabilities, sustainability and affordability."
Unmatched...affordability?! You can't make this stuff up.
OldPilot takes aim at a straw-man. How do I know we're not headed to an all-Warthog Air Force? Oh, wait, that's right. Our far-seeing USAF leadership shut down the A-10 production lines 25 years ago, and hasn't made a single move since then to commission a new close-ground-support aircraft. The closest it's come is a proposal to replace the remaining A-10s with, that's right, the F-35. So the imminent threat here isn't a complete and utter lost of air superiority, it's our rapidly vanishing close-support capability.
But, as this article points out, all is not lost. The geniuses in blue, determined to keep their toys, had Lockheed conduct tests using the F-22 in that role. Because what we really need in A-stan is a close-support aircraft that costs $350m to purchase and $44k/hour to operate, and might occasionally actually be working well enough for combat. Tragically, the aircraft crashed in the attempt.
Let's run through the math on that. Cost of trying to shoehorn one shiny-new F-22 into a mission for which it was grossly unsuited, solely so that the Air Force brass could claim it had some relevance to the fights in which we're actually engaged? $350 million. Cost of upgrading our entire fleet of 356 A-10As to become A-10Cs? $500 million.
Stupidity on this level makes me wish we could reintegrate the Air Force back into the Army - as a combat arm supporting a broader strategic mission, and not as an independent service supporting its own independence.
I liked Krepinevich's article, but, while he does address geopolitical competition with China and the financial crisis, he completely ignores the hugely significant Chinese/American co-dependence in the bond markets. China is the largest underwriter of U.S. government debt (about one-quarter of all U.S. debt as of January 2009, but this is probably be lower after this year's unprecedented bailouts, stimulus, and budget). China depends upon the U.S. Treasury for a safe holding place for its assets with a guaranteed return. Right up to the crisis, the U.S. Treasury depended upon China to buy its bonds so that the U.S. has hard cash to finance it's deficit operations, though because of the crisis and the liquidity trap we're in, Treasury now relies on the huge oversupply of domestic savings.
While this unsustainable debt co-dependence must certainly end (if it hasn't already), it doesn't change the fact that much of China's savings is tied to U.S. economic well-being. We all know this is no guarantee of preventing wars, but it sure does enter the equation. It's very strange that Krepinevich ignored this important factor.
Krepinevich wrote:
“Americans must learn once again to invest in their future and live within their means. The United States entered the Cold War as the world’s leading producer nation; now it is the world’s leading consumer and debtor nation.”
This is happening right now, whether Americans want it (increased savings, reduced spending) or not (reduced credit). The crisis is following Nouriel Roubini's September 2008 script almost to the letter. From The Coming US Consumption Bust: 12 Reasons Why the US Consumer is in Serious Trouble and Faltering:
“the shopped-out, saving-less and debt-burdened US consumer is on the ropes and that there will be a significant and persistent contraction of real consumption for the next few quarters. … consumers stopped consuming in spite of the tax rebates instead of spending such rebates (so far only 30% of them have been spent). This suggests that real consumption will certainly fall in Q3 and will continue to fall for a while into the middle of 2009. Real consumption did not fall in the 2001 recession and you have to go back to the 1990-91 recession to see a single quarter of negative consumption growth. … will consumption keep on falling for quite a while? There are at least a dozen separate factors explaining why we will now see a sharp and persistent fall in real consumption …”
Almost every day provides fresh evidence that this view is the correct one. Just watch the markets react after the release of today's consumer sentiment report. Watch the corresponding decline in corporate profits. The persistent fall in real consumption and the outstanding bond issuances held by the Chinese will be the real drivers for U.S.-China relations. When it comes to debt and spending, the U.S. is really the one that's holding the "assassin's mace".
P.S. I linked to a crappy "National Debt Road Trip" version. Try this one for a good visualization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc. This person put this clip together to oppose BHO's deficit spending, which I believe is an absolute necessity given the financial crisis and real, if former, danger of a severe collapse. But it is a great visualization, is funny, and equates GWB with Paris Hilton and a bottle of Jägermeister. What's not to love?
Dan Ford's comment is absurd. Suggesting an all A-10 USAF is something anyone is talking about is pathetic enough, but then claiming that the "Gentile Option" leaves us capable of "adapting as we did finally in Iraq" as though we could afford to again waste lives money and everything as we did in Iraq for three plus years is unbelievably off-base.
Not that the Gentile Option would leave us any better prepared to face China or another "peer." The Navy is terrible at anti-mine and ASW, we wouldn't risk the F-22s and B-2s, and we'd have a hell of a time dealing with the cyber, ballistic missile, and other attacks.
The affordability of these forces is a massive issue. F-22s, CVNs, and all the other high-tech weaponry will be lost in a war, and we can't afford to replace them. The technology is evolving to a point where cheaper widely available weapons threaten our arsenal. The WWII analogy is equally facetious - then the only thing that could threaten our carrier fleet were enemy carrier fleets, large numbers of aircraft, and submarines. That is, roughly equal weapons. The enemy was worn down and its production lines could not sustain its war effort.
Today, the Chinese can afford a lot more C-802s than we can CVNs.
WCOG,
From danger room,
"The actual Chinese term is Sha Shou Jian (literally “killing hand club”), which refers to a pair of short wooden or metal rods used as a martial arts weapon. “Jian” normally denotes a long Chinese sword but Sha Shou Jian are blunt and heavy. They could be concealed in the long sleeves of court robes and used to make surprise attacks — hence the association with assassins.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/china-looks-to-undermine-us-powe...
One reason we currently can use Predators and Reapers and Global Hawks and all the other UAVs is that we have total air dominance. No other AF can contest our control of the skies currently. But if you don't have total air dominance, those UAVs won't last ten minutes over the battlespace.
Also, the modern US Army and Marines are TOTALLY dependent on air support for direct fire support. Without air dominance, that air support becomes markedly less effective.
Maybe the F22 is too expensive. Maybe the maintenance issues are more severe than has been publicly acknowledged. But the USAF needs a modern fighter to maintain air dominance so that we can continue to rely on UAVs and so that the grunts will have air support on call whenever they need it. Because our current inventory of F15s / F16s / F18s are on average 15 years old or more. And we don't have ANY technological edge over Russian / Chinese / Indian Su35s.
Whatever the cost, there is no doubt that the F22 is the most capable air dominance asset in the world -- existing or planned. It really is that much more effective than everything else out there, including the F35 which won't arrive in quantity for 8-10 years (if at all).
Regarding the threat posed by Chicom ASBMs, why do you think the US has been pushing so hard to develop theater ballistic missile defense over the past 20 years? It ain't because of Russian strategic nuclear assets, notwithstanding what DOD and the Congresscritters like to say about NORK.
I'm nowhere near convinced that continued exploration of robotics in combat can't exceed the limits (impressive as they are) of the F-22. For one thing a computer can react in far quicker times than any human, they don't experience panic, and problems like gravity or oxygen mean much less to a machine. It's true that reliance on satellites for control would a serious danger, but there are other ways of maintaining control of them or even allowing them autonomy when under attack. The reason why I support the concept of drone fighters despite my unease at trusting machines so far is that it's far harder to mistake a civilian aircraft for military, whereas drones for bombing and missile attacks have known difficulties in telling the difference, Of course my preferred solution is to mix human and machine together instead of continuing to separate them.
Rad? Rad? Isn't that like slang or something for "radical"?
There is nothing "rad" about the F-22. It is perhaps the stupidest plane the US has ever developed.
It has no legs and it's teeth are debatable. But let's talk about the legs.
This overpriced piece-of-shit harks back to the days (just last year) when people thought GM, Ford, and Chrysler were cool. F-150s, Hummers, mustangs, Corvettes, Escalades. Remember? Like when housing prices were going to go up forever.
This $350 million dollar upgrade to the F-15 does what exactly for us strategically. This is an Air Force plane. I thought our air-power was structured around our 12 carrier strike groups, which would be the F-18, but what do I know.
This thing has no legs. It is a fuel-hog. Which means it needs to be refueled coming and going. Which means more tankers. More tankers need to burn fuel carrying the fuel to refuel the F-22s. The tankers require more escorts and AWACs to protect the whole thing. The key is the fuel.
The whole reason our foreign policy has existed the way it does since at least 1979 is to protect the oil.
Which is running out.
So let's build a fighter plane that burns away as much of it as possible on every flight. Smart.
Somebody needs to screen Mad Max:The Road Warrior specially for the Joint Chiefs.
"Whatever the cost, there is no doubt that the F22 is the most capable air dominance asset in the world."
Uuuumm. Earth to Anon. We don't even use it, Jackass. Whatever the cost. Yeah, would you please just STFU.
We literally have three Air Forces, each of which could wipe out any of the forces you name. Not that any of them would even consider scrapping with us. Do you seriously suggest that we do not already have complete air dominance?
Johnny Rico - the F22s teeth are debatable? You clearly don't know what you're talking about. With its speed, high combat ceiling, advanced passive sensor suite (almost equivalent to an RC135!), its stealth capability, etc., it's the most lethal fighter ever built by a huge margin.
Yes, it's expensive, but you have to replace the current inventory with something. Do you know how much the F35 is going to cost? Even assuming the F35 satisfies its development objectives and is delivered on time and in large quantities?
Regarding the Navy, the F18 is NOT an air superiority platform. And the Navy doesn't pretend otherwise. Besides even if you can surge 4 CVBGs to a war zone -- really hard to do when the USN only has 10 of them (not 12 as you suggest) -- that only gives you 144 FA18s TOTAL. That's a small force to maintain a constant CAP, run CAS missions, etc.
The oil rant was funny. I suppose you'd prefer hybrid fighters or something. Probably look like the Wright flyer though.
Scoff all you want, but if you want to contest air dominance locally with the Russians, Indians or Chinese, you are going to have a hard time doing it today. Without the F22, we have technical parity at best. (At best, because Indians flying Su35s handed the USAF its hat in joint exercises last year.)
And in 10 years, it's going to be worse not better because the average age of the fleet (including the USAF, USN, and USMC) is 20+ years old. The USAF's entire F15 inventory (excepting the F15E) was grounded a year ago because the airframes are old and cracking. The current inventory will not last forever.
What are you going to replace them with? The F35? Mark my words, it's not going to be all that cheaper than the F22 and it won't be delivered in quantity for 8-10 years. And the F22 is clearly superior as a fighter. That's why Japan has turned its nose up at the F35 and is still begging to buy the F22.
Also, the USAF doesn't use F22 over Iraq and Afghanistan because there's no opposing force to contest air superiority. So, we don't "use it." But we don't "use" Air Force F15C/Ds either, by that definition. Instead, we use the F15E and other multirole assets.
if we ever have to fight a war against an opponent with a decent modern air force with Russian AAMs and Russian SAMs who tries to contest air superiority, we're going to need the F22 or something else like it.
Otherwise, you can forget CAS on demand, you can forget constant UAV coverage, and other similar luxuries that modern US ground forces are totally dependent on.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, clearly
replace them with F-18s
Most of the comments here on the pros of the plane focus potential combat with either Russia or China. Admittedly I mentioned the possibility myself, but I find it more likely that such a war with China would be very quick and settled diplomatically. As for Russia, I understand that a Russian military journal* revealed that during the war with Georgia six planes (instead of the claimed four) were shot down and that three were hit by friendly fire. In addition, observations of Russian performance suggest that it ranks behind a professional military. I'm not so worried about the thought of Russia in a war against the U.S as much as I am about the possibility of Russia deciding to give increased support to nations willing to oppose the U.S.
* BBC has the story but sadly you need a subscription for the article itself. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8142999.stm
"the USAF doesn't use F22 over Iraq and Afghanistan because there's no opposing force to contest air superiority."
Oh great. You're a real fucking smart one, aren't you?
First, you couldn't name the last time we didn't have air superiority. Do you even understand how this has totally fucked our mindset? We have nothing to work with conceptually.
We don't even fly "fighter missions" anymore. Or "air superiority." It was in the Atlantic Monthly a few months ago, I think it was Kaplan that wrote it. It was about the last "fighter ace". He had three kills. Two in Gulf War I and one over Bosnia or Kosovo if I remember correctly.
I'm guessing he was flying an F-15. F-15s F-16s, F-18s, and F-22s are all bombers. Check their payloads.
My Grandfather flew B-17s in the Pacific against Japan. Do yourself a favor and go check out a B-17 the next time you're near the Boeing Museum in Seattle or some other air-show type location. They are tiny. As were all WWII era bombers before the B-29.
But put one next to an F-18 Super-Hornet and tell me what you think.
The F used to stand for fighter. But they really aren't. The only fighters we have are Apaches and Cobras and A-10s (A for Attack, I think, maybe Army). F is for Bomber. B is for super-expensive and Big Bomber.
"This simply overlooks our own capabilities and the history of war. Japan, our erstwhile foe in the Far East, waged an all out war against our carriers with some success. Dozens were hit in battle -- and then expeditiously repaired by their crews to return to battle."
Whereas this simply overlooks what decade it is.
The only thing sailors with toolbelts are going to change about an ASBM attack is they're going to sink quicker.
@Anon -
Look, I apologize for being quick on the trigger to call you a douche. But I ain't gonna mix it up with someone named "Anon" for much longer.
You need something cool. Can I suggest "Whopper Junior"?
"Did you happen to notice that the Marines' largest air assault since Vietnam (in Southern Afghanistan) was primarily supported by an Army combat aviation brigade consisting of Blackhawks and Chinooks?"
8:38 AM the sixth comment on the thread. As Johnny said in "The Shining" - "Words of wisdom, Lloyd, Words of wisdom."
"This is reason enough to retain the program, especially since a key function of frontline fighters is to look rad."
The real question: is it enough to look rad or is rad-looking superiority required ?
Radar visibility does of course have merit, but at what cost ? The other Sukhoi fighters do have those little wings near the cockpit. Can you really afford to plan to go to war without these ? With a 2:4 wing superiority gap favouring the look of your enemy's fighter ?
Kilo -
I say we break off. This is like a turkey shoot. Or fish in a barrel. You choose the appropriate metaphor. I give up. I'm just sick of slaughtering these clowns.
They don't get it, but they obviously have interests, hence the opinions backed by math and physics impairment. And when I say physics I mean the Isaac Newton kind, "Anon."
The more time I spend on flickr comparing my country's new F/A-18F Superhornet to what Sukhoi offers in terms of sexyness, I'm for ending the ANZUS agreement right now.
@Kilo-
The Russians aren't stupid. Look at the new Sukhoi 100-person regional jet. If only Boeing was so smart. Granted it is beyond schedule. I track it through hits on my blog post I did over a year ago. Everybody has given up on Boeing and Airbus. My money is on Bombardier right now.
It's all efficiency. I'm looking at a resurgence of interest in turbo-props. Noisy. Yes. Burn less kerosene.
"advanced passive sensor suite (almost equivalent to an RC135!), its stealth capability, etc., it's the most lethal fighter ever built by a huge margin."
You are correct, Sir. C'mon, let's do it again.
The RC135 is American. You already said we have no adversary when it comes to fighters.
So what are we fighting against, dickwad?
Cynic @ 10:53 AM.
I could not possibly agree with you more. Seriously, your words are like an echo from my mind. What we should be worrying about is our diminishing CAS capabilities. The F-22 and F-35 were partly sold as fighters to replace the A-10. Please. I have long been a proponent of joining the Air Force back into the Army. I think it would lead to a smarter budget that could potentially save billions in the long run. No longer would the services suffer from such a fierce degree of monetary competition regarding, for the Army and Air Force would then share the same goals and needs. But that is like asking for Congress to put the needs of the nation before their own petty desires and corrupt deals. Not going to happen. And what about the Apache? I read recently that during the invasion of Iraq, some 30+ Apaches were either destroyed or rendered inoperable by enemy fire. That’s from Iraqis. Imagine what a country with its shit together could do.
Kingly ignore the word "regarding" in the above post.
In the rhetoric, we miss a few important points. First, we will have 187 F-22s in operation to patrol the homeland and that can be pressed into duty worldwide. That is not an insignificant number. Iran has F-16s and F-4s that were bought before the Shah fell and are falling out of the sky. North Korea can't train on their aging MIGs because of fuel shortages and famine. These are our two near-term adversaries in the world today and they would not be able to contend with the combination of F-15Es, F-16s, F-18s, and F-22s that the U.S. now has in inventory.
In addition, our A-10 fleet is aging and significant problems are arising on a near daily basis and hindering our Close Air Support (CAS) capability in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we aren't going to update that line, then we need to close that gap. The F-35 Strike Fighter closes that gap. Plus, to the credit of the system, has nearly the same capabilities as the F-22. This system is more than capable to defeat whatever pilot and aircraft combinations Iran and North Korea possess plus can be used in the current low intensity and counter-insurgency environments.
Finally, Russia and China are currently not our enemies. The big if, is that in 20 years these countries may be our enemies based on geopolitical conflict. However, China needs the U.S. economic stability and Russia is currently undergoing a massive transformation in the military from a conscript to a professional military which will take time. By the time we are openly hostile, if ever, to China and Russia, the F-22 will be obsolete.
Therefore, the F-22 is worthless to the U.S. if it is not, or ever will be, used for our current operations in Afghanistan or Iraq and needs to go away. The resources that are saved need to be diverted to the the F-35, which is a suitable replacement, allowing the U.S. time to design and develop a new system that will be better suited against future systems of our potential enemies.
I could not possibly agree with you more. Seriously, your words are like an echo from my mind. What we should be worrying about is our diminishing CAS capabilities.
Where have you been for the last ten years? You seem to be one of many people who is living in the 1960's when it comes to CAS. After the all the experience of the past 9 years I'm not sure how anyone can take seriously the claim that CAS capabilities have diminished, or that platform capabilities are crucial to performing the mission. The reality is that CAS was once a platform-dependent mission but is now largely platform independent, largely because of advances in sensor and weapon technology. People seem to have forgotten that the CAS that rolled up the Taliban in 2001-2002 came mostly from B-52's and B-1's. The A-10 didn't even start flying missions in Astan until, IIRC, late Nov or early December 2001 and even then it was a minor player in the CAS picture.
I read recently that during the invasion of Iraq, some 30+ Apaches were either destroyed or rendered inoperable by enemy fire. That’s from Iraqis. Imagine what a country with its shit together could do.
Most of that came from the near-disastrous Karbala raid. Google if you want the details.
Whopper Jr., the douchebag, with my rudimentary understanding of physics and math, lining up once again to be shot like fish in a barrel.
In all seriousness, the debate over the F22 is a lot like the debate over whether the Army is hurting its conventional war fighting ability by focusing on COIN.
Yes, the F22 is useless in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's useless against just about every opponent we might face. Despite Lockheed-Martin's best efforts to strap on JDAMs and SDBs, the F22's only mission is to maintain air superiority against someone like the Russians, the Chinese, or the Indians. Maybe we shouldn't worry about that. Maybe it's not worth the cost and we would be better off spending our money elsewhere. That seems to be what Johnny Rico thinks. And it's a legitimate viewpoint that I don't necessarily dispute.
The point I've been trying to make is that if you don't buy the F22 you are saying that we can no longer assume air dominance in a conflict with the Russians, the Chinese, or the Indians. Air-to-air seems like a sideshow because we haven't fought a war since 1953 where we didn't take air dominance for granted, but all of our military doctrine assumes that we will have air dominance in any conflict. However, if you don't buy the F22 in quantity, the USAF cannot ensure air dominance in a conflict against someone like the Russians, the Chinese or the Indians. And if you don't have air dominance, you don't get UAV support, you get greatly diminished CAS, you don't get helicopter support, etc. Given the fiscal realities and the diminished likelihood of conflict with the Russians, Chinese and Indians, maybe we shouldn't worry about it. Because with our current inventory, we would have air dominance in a conflict with anyone else. Again, that is a legitimate viewpoint.
Where I think that Johnny Rico is incorrect is to claim that the F22 isn't all that capable, as he did in his first comment. Kidding aside, that's just ignorant. The F22 is a dramatic leap forward in terms of fighter capability. Don't take my word for it though, ask the Japanese who are desperate to buy the F22 -- even a dumbed down export version -- despite the ridiculous price. Ask the Australians, who are buying the F18E/F and F35 but have said repeatedly that they prefer the F22. And ask the guys who fly Red Flag every year. None of this is "physics," Johnny Rico, but it is amply confirmed by the public record. The F22 really is the best fighter in the world, both existing and planned. Of course, even with that awesome capability, it's a legitimate view to conclude the F22 is not worth the money. If you review all of my posts, I have never suggested otherwise.
The one other point I have tried to make is that we will have to buy new fighters someday soon because our current fleet is already old and needs replacing. I actually agree with Johnny Rico that we ought to buy more F18s because the USN/USMC are way understrength and getting worse. (Pay attention to CVBG squadron assignments sometimes. The USN has been juggling them so that forwarded deployed CVBGs are full strength but it's starting to catch up with us.) We ought to buy more new build F15s while we're at it because the situation is almost as bad with the USAF. But recognize that we have no technological edge with new build F15s and F18s vs. other 4.5 generation fighters like the Su35. And older F15s and F18s are actually at a disadvantage.
Last, the F35 is years away from production and deployment. Assuming it works, it's still not going to be as capable in the fighter role as the F22 and it's going to be ridiculously expensive too. With R&D, the flyaway cost is going to be way more than $100M per. And we still don't know if the F35 will actually work. It's only just begun flight testing.
A few remaining points... Visitor, I am aware that the RC135 is an American asset. Thank you. The point is that the F22's sensor suite offers capabilities like the RC135, which gives the F22 an ability to hunt passively at beyond visual range that other fighters don't have. And with its speed and stealth, the F22 can go places an RC135 obviously can't. That integrated passive sensor suite is a major reason that the F22 is so capable.
Aaron Anderson, I would rather have 187 F22s than zero, but that is not a large number. The USAF has roughly 400 F15s dedicated to the air superiority role that have to be replaced someday. The USAF identified the minimum number of F22s at roughly 340. Gates has USAF leadership on a tight leash but 340 remains the minimum number the USAF says it needs. 187 is simply a budget number.
Kilo, the main reason that the Su35 and the Su30MKI are such a serious threat isn't the canards, the thrust vectoring or the cool air show maneuvers they can do. The main reason is the AESA radar and the AA12. Those give the Su35 and Su30MKI parity with our latest F15s and F18s with their own AESA radars and AMRAAMs. Technological parity is something that we haven't had to deal with since WWII.
"Where have you been for the last ten years? You seem to be one of many people who is living in the 1960's when it comes to CAS. After the all the experience of the past 9 years I'm not sure how anyone can take seriously the claim that CAS capabilities have diminished, or that platform capabilities are crucial to performing the mission. The reality is that CAS was once a platform-dependent mission but is now largely platform independent, largely because of advances in sensor and weapon technology. People seem to have forgotten that the CAS that rolled up the Taliban in 2001-2002 came mostly from B-52's and B-1's. The A-10 didn't even start flying missions in Astan until, IIRC, late Nov or early December 2001 and even then it was a minor player in the CAS picture."
-Andy
Andy, your words are more or less fair. I have not forgotten that guided weapons can be delivered from a multitude of platforms, not limited solely to the A-10. However, when it comes to slow flying, eyes on, possibly danger close strafing, what other plane comes even close to the A-10 in terms of that capability? Since there is all that talk about the economy (who knew?), we don't have to spend 500,000 to kill a single bloody haji when an A-10 flying at low speeds can come right over and feed him depleted uranium at a remarkably lower cost. Does an F-35/F-22 have the capability to get the shots right like an A-10 can? And with the renewed emphasis put on not destroying civilian areas, sometimes a short strafing run might better fit the bill than a 500 lb. bomb. And it is worth repeating that the cost differential between guided munitions and a 2 second pull on the A-10's trigger is massive.
Also, according to quite a few sources I have read, when it comes to knocking the crap out of tanks, the A-10 has no equal. In both Iraq wars, it has been well documented that Iraqi armor greatly feared the A-10 and its capabilities.
Is that before or after their own communication systems get targeted? I don't see why we should attribute super-effective accuracy to chinese missiles without any real proof of that being the case.
It goes beyond that, too. In a sense, with the F-22, we're buying a top-notch air superiority in the present so that we can have parity in the future - as in the case of F-15s and F-16s, which were top-notch back in the 1970s, and, while they still work well now, have a number of foreign counterparts that can counter them effectively.
If you think that air superiority has somehow become obsolete, just say it. Expect to defend that position, though.
As for drones, most of them are light-weight, slow as crap, and guided by long-distance communication systems. Can you imagine what happens to said drones when they run up against an enemy that can shoot more than RPGs back at them and disrupt their communication networks?
In order to get around that, you'd basically need high-performance, damn near autonomous drones. No idea on how expensive those will be.
We haven't exactly been using SSBNs to their full capacity in terms of starting nuclear wars, or ICBMs for that matter - does that make them useless?
Only if you completely discount the availability of land-sited air bases.
Why are you assuming this will last forever? The current planes themselves are only at parity, and happen to be 30 years old.
Deus Ex,
No doubt the A-10 is a great airplane and I will be sad to see it go twenty years from now. One thing it is great at that you don't mention is escorting helicopters. The rest of what you say about the A-10 is true for the most part - my point was simply that in most cases a dedicated platform is not needed for CAS.
On the F-22, I've pretty much stopped commenting on the subject completely. Debating the F-22 is like debating abortion - what's the point?
Andy- That's a whole lot of wishful thinking about CAS, and the tragedy in Farah province last May proves it. All they really needed was something to force the bad guys into cover so they could land the medevac, instead of blowing a town to hell. Strategic bomber- CAS was a good idea at the start of OEF; no longer. We need to field an aircraft commensurate with the mission it performs. The A-10 is closer, but too much muscle for this kind of fight. Whether it's a light gunship or some kind of COIN-CAS plane, or a mix of types, I don't care. We can always sell them when we don't need them any longer; the world has plenty of customers.
F-22 is the product of an undisciplined, corrupt, and broken acquisition process. Commenters here have pointed out the old inventory needs replacing, and F-22 was politically engineered to be the only game in town. It has much more to do with business and pork than defending the country. There is no sane reason why a fighter plane needs to be as complex, as expensive, or as long in development. Nor, honestly, as central to American survival as the F-22 supposedly is.
Cancel it for good and get serious about reform.
we are too reliant on tech, and not well enough trained in tactics. We have for years gotten slack about many facets of training. One EMP is enough to screw up our whole program.
Mike j,
So let me get this straight. A decade of experience with tens of thousands of sorties is "wishful thinking" and one incident in Farah "proves" what exactly? It seems obvious you haven't read the report. The problem there was not what you apparrently think it is.
Your "strategic bomber CAS" comment makes no sense. Tell me what the difference is exactly between an A-10 (or even an AT-6) dropping a JDAM and a B-1?
So, let me get this: ""The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show..."
So what you mean to tell me is that in this war against China, you will need 30 hours maintenance for every 1 hour sortie? So in a conflict, you would have air-superiority for like what, 6 hours and then they all would have to go down for a day?Basically, they would fall out of the sky on day 5? Wtf?
Andy- I did read the report, actually. Did you understand it?
You seriously believe that a heavy strategic bomber + four tactical fighter-bombers make as much sense as lighter, lest costly aircraft with more appropriate weapons and longer time-on-station? 10 years of experience has been teaching us we need to tailor our force to the situation, and we are lacking the weapons systems and platforms.
It's a well known insurgent tactic to incite an over-reaction from the gov't they're fighting. I'd say getting us to drop multiple bombs, including some 2k pounders, on a town achieved that aim.
Fnord,
Not exactly - most of that maintenance to to maintain the plane's stealth characteristics - fixing small flaws in the radar-absorbant skin is apparrently very time consuming. In a real shooting war I have no doubt compromises would be made to get planes in the air if needed.
Mike,
Again, what is the difference between a weapon dropped from a "heavy strategic bomber" or "tactical fighter-bombers" or your supposedly less-costly aircraft? The effect on the ground is caused by the weapon, the the platform that releases it.
You say Farah "proves" your point. Well, explain exactly how some other aircraft would have resulted in a different outcome at Farah because, as the report clearly states, the mistake was not the lack of a "proper" aircraft as you would define it. The mistake was about the decision to employ weapons in the first place as well as consider the risks to noncombatants.
You also need to explain exactly why the airframe you prefer (which you haven't really even defined) is not only superior to what we have now, but superior enough to justify everything that goes into procuring, supporting and maintaining a new weapon system.
What source are you getting your dope from? Who says it takes X ammount of hrs per 1 hour of combat? If that is the fact.............. well hell they should have run a few more tests........... ya think?
Add your comment