"No more new cash for the F22" Topic

link

Personaly, I think that it's overpowered and usless to fight a man that can blend in with the population and totes around a AK or a IED.

However, I have a feeling that we have not heard the last of the funding debate on the f22.

Well, it's designed for air superiority, which is something it does well as nothing on the planet can touch it. The Army has its own budget for dealing with IEDs and AKs. I agree that it's questionable that we will need over 200 of them, especially since most nations are cutting their air forces down to the bare bones.

The Army has its own budget for dealing with IEDs and AKs.

I thaught that the tagline that the pentigon has been touting for the last decades was that the US was fully intergrated combined armes force for the future…

But why buy a Farari when a Fiat will do?

AT 150 million + each (with dev) (70 mil each at cost) I feel that money can be better spent elsware.

If we can buy five F-35's for the cost of two F-22's, I doubt the difference in F-22 air to air superiority justifies the less flexible mission capability and the shear advantage of affordable numbers. I believe the current plan calls for added F-35's in place of the far more mission limited F-22's.

When the next Enemy has had the chance to develop a weapon system comparable, we will, once again, have to play "Catch-up" is why it's silly to make the "It can't fight an IED argument..

That's like saying we should not have developed aircraft carriers because we did not need them in WWI.

Some people might remember that during the first gulf war one major reason we were able to penetrate the enemy air defenses via stealth and attack key targets that enabled masses of other less stealthy attack aircraft to operate in relative safety was due to our investment in cutting edge stealth aircraft technology.

Sure we could have done it with masses of F-15 E Strike Eagles, but we would have lost a bunch of pilots doing it.

The F22 is not JUST a superiority fighter, it is a means to penetrate to airborne control aircraft and remove them from the equation, ensuring Allied Air Dominance.

I can remember Carter trying to kill the M1 Abrams and B1 program (As well as trying to stall stealth development)

Decision making like this is operating in the vacuum of "now" as opposed to the future of "what may be". I'd much rather be ahead of the game and have whatever tools I need when I need them.

"shear advantage of affordable numbers"

In the US, affordable numbers hasn't been acceptable answer since Veitnam. In the era of the CNN battlefield, 2 F22s are worth more then five F35s if the F22 pilots come home.

It is just fighting today perceived enemy rather than adapt for eventual contingencies. Stupid COIN stuff in my opinion. As has been recently pointed out by people more knowledgeable than me what will happen if beside IED and AK the baddies start to use hi tech weapons? It is called hybrid warfare and to be quite honest a lot of successful baddies are moving this way. Open weaposn market is… uhm… open. And do not understimate the need for a minumum number of airframes to keep a decent number operational.

As I've said before, the F-22 is a victim of it's own good press. The supporters have talked it up so much that the general perception is that we'll only need a few of them to win any future air war.

-Will

Only Warlock has the right of it while we might not need them TODAY tomorrow is another day. Both the Russians and the Chinese are modernizing their Air Forces and continuing to develop counter measures for our existing aircraft.

Saddling us with less then optimum equipment means that more of OUR people die.

To use the F-22 against China (eg in war over Taiwan) would require a secure land base within 500nm of the battlefield and that would still require significant flight time between launch and engagement (not as attractive for a single seat fighter.)

I read one report that noted such bases are simply not that readily available around the Taiwan AO and the ones within range of the AO impose that significant flight time penalty on the pilot. For example, airfields on Taiwan would likely be targeted by Chinese short range missiles and whether or not Japan would want to be dragged into a war with China by allowing us to launch from bases there would a question.

The F22 is a short range fighter that could perform its air combat mission in a theater such as Europe. But in the absence of secure bases near an engagement area its value is appears to be very limited.

MB

Some people might remember that during the first gulf war one major reason we were able to penetrate the enemy air defenses via stealth and attack key targets that enabled masses of other less stealthy attack aircraft to operate in relative safety was due to our investment in cutting edge stealth aircraft technology.

Not quite accurate. It was actually the AH-64 Apache that blew a hole through Iraq's forward radar screen that allowed our initial "stealth" air strikes to make their surprise attacks.

A common misconception about stealth aircraft is that they don't show up on radar. Not true! Their signature is minimized, especially depending upon range and angle relative to the radar.

But show up they do. To a vigilant enemy EXPECTING an attack even these minor returns become contacts of interest. That's why the Apache attack helicopter was required to take out Iraqi radar stations in advance of our air assault by "stealth" fighters.

MB

The 200 we have will be more than enough assuming we can keep them in the air. At 35+ hours of maintenance per hour of flight time (did I read that right?!?) we might need thousands of them though. Frankly it sounds like a giant slab of flying pork to me.

Majer, My Producer was one of the Apache Pilots who executed those forward strikes. Your statement is inaccurate.

Destruction of the Forward Radar pickets were to prevent local engagement of strike craft, not prevention of stealth fighter detection.

I think the F-35 is getting needlessly denigrated. There is virtually no difference in stealth between the F-22 and the F-35, the F-35 is actually more manouverable at lower speeds, has equal or superior avionics for targeting and battlespace integration and is vastly more adaptable in a multi-role mission. The F-35 is capable of carrying all the existing AAM's an F-22 can carry. The F-22 probably has a better onboard radar and higher speed but except as a pure interceptor (and what is the net delta at that, 5%?), the F-35 is a far more flexible and broadly useful platform as an integrated air combat/dominance asset than a narrowly focused F-22. Given that we are flat broke, purchasing an asset that can do more things well than the F-22 and can come awfully close on it's one trick, the F-35 is simply a better buy for what is a very limited pool of dollars.

I used to be a pretty stoic supporter of the F-22, but now that I have a better grasp/understanding of air war, I think we have enough of them for the foreseeable future. I believe the current 187 is enough for 3 squadrons? Regardless, those 3 squadrons or whatever are more than enough. The technology contained in the F-22, and the F-35, will only be necessary for the first week or 2 of any air war, even against Russia and China. The advantages of stealth are largely dissipated once the battlespace has been cleared of enemy air defenses. Provided we are not fighting a "limited war" ala Vietnam, serious enemy air defenses should be gone pretty quickly.

Once SAM sites, and the majority of enemy aircraft, are disabled, I'd much rather have a horde of F-15/16/18/A-10 flying around than a handful of F-22s and F-35s. The Air Force, and hell Navy and Marine Corps, combat role for the last 40 years or so has largely been what the AF calls "Counterland Operations." As of right now, there aren't enough aircraft to fulfill all needs. There are NEVER enough aircraft to fulfill all needs. People like to talk about CAS missions etc. but the sad reality of the situation is that more often than not, the air assets needed to fulfill these missions are unavailable. The AF is only getting smaller, and as it gets smaller, the harder it will be to provide those assets to boots on the ground.

Destruction of the Forward Radar pickets were to prevent local engagement of strike craft, not prevention of stealth fighter detection.

He was part of Strike Force Normandy?

The maps I've seen indicate that the F-117s followed Normandy's path/gap through the Iraqi air defenses (ie the Apache attack occurred prior to the F-117s strikes and the F-117s were restricted to that gap.)

Also EF-111s were the first aircraft into Iraqi airspace to jam remaining Iraqi radars in advance of the F-117 strikes. The F-117s followed them in.

I suppose all of that pre-strike prep could be a coincidence and that the F-117s didn't need the help. On the other hand, the Yugoslav army managed to shoot down one "stealthy" F-117 and permanently "retire" another.

YouTube link

Being a fan of Occam's Razor I'd go for the simplest (but less sexy) explanation: wanting to minimize aircraft losses, stealthy or otherwise, the air force did everything it could to disrupt Iraqi air defenses in advance of the initial air strike by both stealth and conventional aircraft.

In light of the F-117's losses to the Yugoslav army that was probably a wise move!

MB

Actually, the F-35 can carry very few weapons internally, and has much lower performance than the F-22, in terms of radar, speed, etc.

Basically, it is like a stealthy, single-engined, F-18 Hornet – another, underpowered jet fighter. It is designed to be a low-cost, high-performance strike fighter. Sadly, much like the F-18 (which cost more to produce than the F-14's it replaced, and has much less capability), it will probably be neither.

"Up to two air to air weapons can be carried internally…" (by the F-35), not one, but two. That is reassuring – certainly slightly better than being unarmed.

That is good, since two missiles are usually the minimum number required for aircraft self-defense, and not offensive operations. Hopefully, a couple more can be carried in place of the two internal, air to ground weapons, but it appears that will not be the case, since mention continues to be made of underwing and wingtip mountings.

Sure, you can slap a few missiles under the wings to supplement the internal ones, but then you negate its stealth characteristics, so would be better off with a more maneuverable, better armed, and less costly, older generation aircraft, like the F-16. I'll take a "Lawn Dart" over the F-35 with two AAM's any day.

"Concerns about the F-35's performance have resulted partially from reports of RAND simulations where numerous Russian Sukhoi fighters defeat a handful of F-35s by denying tanker refueling". Of course, that is denied by military officials.

For those wanting a more modern, less costly, and well armed choice, I suggest the Saab Gripen, or the Eurofighter Typhoon, which can carry an amazing array of armament, can super-cruise, and are incredibly maneuverable.

With supercruise, the F-22 can redeploy to stations far away faster than any fighter on the planet, by using inflight refueling, and is certainly much better armed, and prepared to take on well armed, and extremely maneuverable adversaries.

I believe the decision to cut the F-22 program is penny-wise, and pound-foolish.

See here for more info on the F-35:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F35

link

I feel sorry for the highly skilled workers who will be out of jobs now.

Yes, that is sad.

At least it is poetic justice, since the politicians will be losing out on the tax revenue they generated with those high-paying jobs.

Of course the unit cot of the F22 would drop if they built more. Our airforce (Australian) was interested in the F22 (we wanted about 100) and was basically told to take a hike the US congress would not approve export of the F22. Consequently we are getting some stopgap F18Fs and the F35 if it is ever enters service. Some things I have read on the net and media here (taken with a large pinch of salt) claim the F35 will be obsolete by the time it enters service. I hope not given how much is being spent on the project.

According to that Wiki article, the internal capacity is four AIM-120s in an ADF role versus 6 plus 2 AIM-9's for the Raptor. The F-35 can carry any AAM weapon that the F-22 can whereas the F-22 is very limited in its' air to mud suite and too darn expensive to use for killing 3 guys and a donkey.

Bottom line still remains as the SecDef and Chiefs painfully know, we simply don't have enough money to replace our aging F-16's, F-15's and F-18's and even with the F-35, may disband Guard and Reserve formations for lack of airframes of any kind. We simply don't have the money to buy the minimum number of aircraft of any kind needed to maintain current force structure and we cannot afford and will not spend the kind of money needed to fully meet a PRC or Russian threat that seems to most of the populace as a vanishingly low risk.

One report indicated that the F35 will employ more people than the F22 does now. Whether they are the same people in the same places remains to be seen.

Reportedly the Bush administration also tried to end production of the F22 and was stopped by Congress, so the "pork" call is pretty close to the mark. Get the F35 production spread out the same way (F22 upstream parts production is/was spread across 40 states) or broader, and the grousing from Congress won't last long.

Ideally we'd disband the USAF and divide the roles between the Army and Navy and see if the quality and utility of design improved.

McKinstry, that is a horrible idea. It might be first person bias (USAF cadet), but the Army and Navy/Marine Corps can't fulfill the air force role and still meet the requirements of the parent services. The USAF is a strategic force, the Navy/Marine Corps utilize their airpower tactically, and the army defines it's helicopter corps as a non-tactical air asset but uses them in exactly that way, and even though it is a strategic land force, it is becoming more and more tactically oriented by the day. The US would lose a lot in terms of nuclear strike capability as well as heavy air interdiction and air superiority (lord knows the Navy/Marine Corps air assets aren't oriented in that direction as it is).

Congress should look into purchasing F-15SE Silent Eagle's. Gen 4.5, but it's cheaper than the F-35 and about as stealthy, and uses much of the existing F-15 parts and manufacturing facilities.

Seriously, some of the responses here emitted a chuckle (aegis and TGA a few of the exceptions). Those lauding the F-35 over the F-22 need to do some serious research on the subject, as there really is no comparison. Capping F-22 production at 187 airframes is a very ill-conceived decision, particularly since normal wear and tear is going to put a premium on spare parts, and there will not be a surplus of aircraft to use as backups (and no spare parts from older airframes at AMARC).

While many of the factors of the F-35 vs. F-22 have been covered, I present you with another little known fact working against the F-35, it's engine and the amount of noise it produces. Last year an article was published in the local (Tucson, AZ) paper concerning Davis-Monthan AFB becoming a destination for the F-35 at some point (right now we have the largest A-10 base), worthwhile read that illustrates another major issue not discussed by the pentagon, and that will have an impact on potential basing decisions:

link

To those that say that we might need the F-22 in a futre war against (insert Boogyman nation of the month here), could the F-22 be compaired in some ways to the Battlecruisers of 100 years ago?

They were the touted as the ultimate escort for the Dreadnaughts and Super Dreadnaughts, but when war came around, it was felt my many in the admiralty that the tonnage and manufacturing capability would have been better diverted to make more armourd cruisers, since more hulls can cover more area and still escort the SD and DN of the fleet.

Or bring up the whole more Panzer 4 vs King tigers and Panthers

Or am I taking a wrong paralelle here?

The US would lose a lot in terms of nuclear strike capability as well as heavy air interdiction and air superiority (lord knows the Navy/Marine Corps air assets aren't oriented in that direction as it is).

You miss my point. I'd give those assets back to the Army Air Corps (as it was in WW2) and the Navy. Adding those blue suit weenies to the Pentagon budget tussle just added one insular collection of overhead while burdening the budget with a bunch of broken down ex-fighter jocks who want to focus on shooting down the other sides fighter jocks to the detriment of all other missions. For example, only the Air Force and their built in pilot prejudice is dumb enough to insist that UAV's require a rated pilot to fly them.

McKinstry, I'm taking all of what you just said very personally. And no, I understood quite well that you would give the assets back, but what makes you think that the army/navy would continue to maintain and support those missions? The army/navy of today operates very differently than the army/navy of yesteryear and has very different requirements/needs. I'm not sure that they would continue to do what the AF is doing.

The Navy/USMC would undoubtedly continue as it does now, purchasing (underpowered) multi-role air frames that fulfill the need of air superiority and tactical counterland functions, as well as the various other aircraft it utilizes to meet its needs. And I could see the army continuing to support dedicated attack planes ala the A-10, as well as airlift capability, but I don't see either service continuing on with heavy bombers (B-1, B-2, B-52), or dedicated air superiority aircraft, which even though they are rarely used these days, are still a must.

I'm not going to debate the ex-fighter jock bit though. If you ask me the entire Air Force leadership needs to be given the boot and replaced from the top down.

me I thank a unmanned remotely controled fighter half the size or smaller and a 3rd or less of the cost would be the way to go

me I think a unmanned remotely controled fighter half the size or smaller and a 3rd or less of the cost would be the way to go

That gets my vote and I'd have a bunch of PFC's that cut their teeth on Xbox driving them.

I wouldn't discount the F22 altogether, but if the US is going to fight in Iraq/Afghanistan type wars, it's not going to do much good.

From what I understand both the F22 and F35 are pretty much the last generation of fighters with a person in the cockpit. Future aircraft will be drones, since the human can only pull so many G's during maneuvers and aircraft can take a lot more than a pilot can.

Have them around in case the US goes up against a real airforce.

Much like many weapon systems, the F-22 is primarily a deterrent to those that might want to consider taking off, and fighting against the USA in the great blue yonder.

Thus far, they have been reluctant to do that since Vietnam, but obviously, that may now change in the future.

Sadly, the errors of decision-making in weapons procurement today will not be noticed until some time in the future, when it will be too late to rectify, given the long lead times needed for development and production of sophisticated aircraft.

Since many of the F-15, F-16, and F-18 airframes have seen a lot of flight time in the last decade, they will be retired before too long, and/or subject to very expensive refits.

I believe the F-15's were recently grounded due to airframe, and/or wing cracks. No doubt, many of the others will be as well.

I would support drone fighters over the F-35, which as mentioned by someone else, is pretty much obsolete before it enters service, excepting for its stealth tech, which will sadly be compromised due to the need to give it some underwing weaponry. Two AAM's internally is not a reasonable loadout for combat ops – I imagine if it could carry more internally, the Brits wouldn't be considering adding them onto the wings.

You know the external weapon mounting on the F-35 isn't really that much of a drawback. It's actually one of the few examples of GOOD forward thinking in the AF today. There is no air force on the planet, current or projected(including the US), that has enough airframes and air defense systems to sustain losses for more than a couple weeks in a proper air war. By the time those external weapons systems will be used, the whole "it compromises stealth" thing won't be an issue as there won't be any opposition left to worry about.

Sorry to say, but I too think the future is also in drones. They will be much faster more expendable, and cheaper to build. I imagine they will also be autonomous, and able to react to changing conditions faster then any human can.

……………..Doug

And subjected to communication jam…

… Arrigo

As for drones, I have mixed feelings about them. On one hand they are wonderful technological milestones, but on the other hand I feel that by taking the human out of the military equation, we are in some way cheapening the courage and sacrifice of those before us, and thus lead generals to make some more risky/stupid moves since they are more expendable.

At the moment that all I can put into words, but to me drones seem morally and philosophically wrong.

There's only one example I can think of where drones operated in an enemy controlled airspace and the exchange didn't work too well for the drone.

YouTube link

We really have no idea how drones will do in contested airspace. It seems to me that air-to-ground UAVs will be sitting ducks for manned interceptors, have inherent lag time, and are susceptible to electronic jamming.

Drone's are marvelous if you are the country owning them over completely dominated airspace. But I don't think it's particularly wise for any country to put all its eggs in that basket.

As a fan of the F-35 IN CONCERT to the F-22, I see it's advantages. Making the F-35 the REPLACEMENT for the F-22 is just short sighted. The programs were designed to work together. Now you'll have half the capability.

I also grow tired of the 'it does us no good in the conflicts we're fighting now' arguments.' Haven't we seen example after example of what happens when you plan for the future only with the tools and tactics available now? If we gear our entire military to fight only COIN engagements, what happens when there's a real war against real opponents?

what happens when there's a real war against real opponents?

We all die in a nuclear holocost?

And subjected to communication jam…

Not if you let the AI take over.

Also keep in mind that the F-35 is about two years behind schedule -- link

We can build operational F-22's now.

Our fleets of 30-plus-year-old F15's and F16's could be grounded tomorrow with any number of metal-fatigue issues.

We dare not assume that the world will wait until our new planes are ready before they start the next big crisis.

I will bypass the technical discussion (which I have VERY firm opinions about) at this stage of discussion to point out that the "correct" response for an American is that if that American feels the stupidity/brillance of decision is important to them they should be talking to the appropriate Federal representatives first.

If you're not an American then your opinion (right or wrong) will not have any impact on the legislators involved. You response here will not affect reality.

Speculation about the future is just that – speculation. History will judge the value of the decision in the end.

Gracias,

Glenn

The Air Force needs to stay a separate branch from the Army … The USAF has many more missions then the CAS & Transport that the US Army needs(BTW – I was a US Army Officer). We need to maintain our air dominance … Without it ground and naval forces will have a harder time doing their job. History tells us that we have to look ahead and be prepared for the next war. Some other counties continue to modernize … we must do the same. We do need the F-22, maybe not in the number requested, but we need to keep our edge … The current enemy and situation may not call for the F-22. But we have no idea what will happen in the future. If some one told me that 3rd World religious fanatics/terrorist would crash our own planes into structures on our own soil, I would have said that is highly unlikely and never happen … I would have been [dead] wrong …

"Personaly, I think that it's overpowered and usless to fight a man that can blend in with the population and totes around a AK or a IED."

If you don't have it, you'll be fighting men flying state-of-the-art Migs too. Do you really think Neo-Soviet Russia and China are going to forgo military confrontation just because our administration sucks up to them at every point?

And, of course, if we hadn't backed down or done a half-*d job in every major conflict since Korea, we wouldn't be fighting people with AK47s and IEDs either. (Terrorists aren't stupid – they're opportunists.)

One of several projects that are being considered for the
F22/F35 is LOC(low observable carridge).If this project
has't been dropped,I think it should help preserve some
stealth lost by under wing weapons.It appears the weapons
would be enclosed in containers with increased stealth features.
I hope there will be room for both of these birds.I can only see some sort of watered down export Raptor saving
future plans for program.

David

Another consideration is the fact that the F35 will be sold to allies. This is all well and good as it brings money in from the sales, but when that ally turns to an enemy, then suddenly you are facing the same capabilities that you have.

The f-22 is clearly a better interceptor than the f35 will be, and it would be a good idea to keep an edge if you need it.

I think it is short sighted to cut such a program, and I am already starting to think back to the Carter days for the military. What's next?

Let's see. 72 million a copy. Cookies sell for about $2 USD each.

Think we can sell 36 million bags of cookies to keep the production lines open for another year?

(CF the old bumper sticker about "Wouldn't it be great if the schools had all the money they needed, and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale for a fighter bomber?")

Um, if you are talking about the F-22 being only $72 USD million… What are you smoking?

The F-22 in the 2010 budget costs $134.5 USD million a copy (REC Flyaway).