View Full Version : WSJ on loss of F-22
"loss" maybe not the best term, but the point is clear enough...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071870881168264.html?KEYWORDS=F22
"Cancelling the F-22 Raptor, the most capable fighter plane ever produced, is yet another act in the tragedy of a nation that, bankrupting itself, embracing moral decline, and apologizing to its enemies, is losing the will to prevail. In pursuit of false prosperities that have failed even the economy, America for three presidencies and an entire generation has diminished its arsenals, unbalanced its military, and forgotten its genius for strategy.
The campaigns in the Middle East have been like a knife cutting through water, leaving behind the ineluctable infill of countries as divided, unstable, and hostile to our interests as on the day we decided to remake them in our image. Nonetheless, we have recalibrated the armed forces to deal with perhaps a division's worth of fluid irregulars worldwide, thus granting China, Russia, and Iran military holidays in which to redirect the balance of power.
Suppressing terrorism should not come at the expense of conventional forces but rather as a necessary and additional obligation to be accomplished with the left hand as the right is made stronger. The penalty for avoiding this will be Chinese military parity, Russia again a threat to Europe, a nuclear-armed Iran, and one country after another free to invade its neighbors, massacre its peoples, or launch pirates upon the sea.
Amid such static one thing stands out. As we rapidly disarm, China is just as rapidly arming. Perhaps because Americans do not play much chess we seem not to understand that a nation can be defeated without war, that after failing in the art of balance and maneuver the king may still stand, but motionlessly in check, "soft power" notwithstanding. "Soft power" in the absence of hard power is like flesh without a skeleton.
With self-destructive enthusiasm disguised as reasonableness, we now court costs of a future war (or defeat by maneuver) far greater than those of preparation or deterrence—in this economy or any other. Despite the Pacific interface with China, our fleet is smaller than at any time since 1916, and potentially halved due to China's physical control of the Panama Canal. The second President Bush built fewer ships than even his feckless predecessor. In abandoning effective missile defense and decimating the nuclear arsenal, we invite proliferation among the minor players, and, after half a century, are making a first strike by the major ones feasible once again. This year, the Air Force will keep 150 fighters in all of Europe, as at one time, while it declined but before it burned, Rome kept only a shadow of legions upon the Rhine and Danube.
In the very long list of such things is the F-22. Its stealth, speed, agility, and advanced sensors are such that in a 2006 exercise against F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, the F-22, its pilots scarcely accustomed to it, scored 241 kills to 2. Famously, before its opponents know it's there, their aircraft are exploding. Former USAF Lt.-Col. Joseph Sussingham, F-16 Experimental Command Pilot, put it best: "To face a flight of F-22s is to face a wall of death."
The average age of Air Force fighter planes has more than doubled from 1960-1990 and is fast increasing. As the number of combat wings was nearly halved, and the U-2 and F-117 were eliminated in its anticipation, the F-22 became the keystone of American air power. With no new fighter on the horizon other than the F-35, it was as well a guarantee against placing every egg in one basket.
The original F-22 requirement for 750 aircraft has fared poorly over various administrations: G.H.W. Bush, 680; Clinton I, 442; Clinton II, 339; G.W. Bush I, 381; G.W. Bush II, 183. President Obama has inherited 186 as a result of congressional insistence, and the production lines are to be dismantled. The death of the Raptor is encompassed in the 2009 Posture Statement of the Air Force, with what irony one can imagine, that "The Department of Defense provided guidance . . . to eliminate excessive overmatch in our tactical fighter force." In a triumph of international cooperation, China, which will field its own fifth-generation fighter in 2018 or 2020, is eager to help us eliminate excessive overmatch, as are Russia and even India.
We scrapped the F-22 in favor of a single strike fighter, the F-35, for all the services. Despite major technical problems it is scandalously slated to go into production before it is fully tested. A lesser airplane, it has neither the speed, range, nor electronic capabilities of the F-22. Who needs speed? With munitions spent amidst a swarm of enemy fighters, speed allows the survival of aircraft and pilot. And the F-22's other characteristics superior to the F-35's mean that when its munitions are spent there may not even be a swarm of enemy fighters.
We have thrown away our best aircraft, as we have—directly or by attrition—discarded good ships, armor, and fighting echelons. We have closed production lines, dispersed the skilled people who run them, and weakened the defense industrial base to the point that in a national emergency it cannot revive. Even the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, hardly a hawk, called the death of the F-22 "ill-advised and premature."
Given that the administration and Congress throw panicked trillions at programs thought up in the spur of the moment, their parsimony in defence of the United States is unjustifiable, even if our brilliant elites simply refuse to contrast the supposed savings to the costs of future wars that otherwise might be prevented. Though the price may be steep for the times, the price of war undeterred, should it be lost or even should it be won, will perhaps be unbearable.
And because it is a price not only in dollars but in the life of a nation and the blood of its sons and daughters, it is necessary to speak without embarrassment for the defense of the United States and for the rightful preparation to deter war or to win it.
Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is the author of, among other works, "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt), "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt) and, most recently, "Digital Barbarism" (HarperCollins)."
We need more ships, IMO, and more jets like the F-22, IFF the F-35 doesn't live up to expectations.
The Air Force has two important jobs - nuclear strategic deterrence, and moving the Army from Point A to Point B.
Right now, the Air Force is failing it's Air Mobility mission. Drones are currently filling the role of our Air Superiority doctrine.
The F-22 is a maintenance hog and cannot fly in the rain.
The Air Force should double down on it's Air Mobility capability and build it's drone capability.
While the F-22 is an awesome aircraft it really has no place in this war on any potential future war. It really amounts to a 'war toy' that some old fighter jock cum desk jock wants to play with.
They cancelled the F-22 while the F-35 was years away from being operational and before we know what its true capabilities are. The damn plane has not even been certified with sidewinders.
The F-22 was the high end of a high low mix of F-22s and F-35s. As it is the Air FOrce is not going to be buying the number of F-35s (the low end) that it was originally planning to.
People forget that the F-15s will need to be retired in the next decade due to use and wear, and that even now there are planes that are as good or better than the F-15 that could find their way into an enemy's hands and be opposing us at some future time, planes like the Sukois SU-27/35, the Eurofighter and French Rafael, and this new plane that the Russians are testing, Sukhoi T-50.
The F-22 is a maintenance hog and cannot fly in the rain.
Your source that it cannot fly in the rain?
Every new plane takes more maintenance until the crews adjust and best practices get developed.
I remember the same argument made for not replacing the F-4 phantom with the much more expensive F-15 and the M60 tank with the M1 Abrams, with all of its maintenance problems and a turbine engine that the media told ups would never work in a desert environment.
While the F-22 is an awesome aircraft it really has no place in this war on any potential future war.
Do you have a cristal ball and can predict the next 30 years?
China, Russia, and other potential enemies are building or buying futuristic fighters. And we know that our F-15s, which in some ways are outmatched by more current fighters will not be able to fly forever because of things like frame fatigue and electronic obsolesence.
Here is some info on a Russian next gen fighter that is going to be finding its way iinto potential adversarie's hands. This plane is a step up from the SU-27/Su-35 which is as good as the F-15 in some ways and better in others.
from: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=46056&highlight=F-22
Russia's first stealth fighter makes maiden flight
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 29, 1:59 pm ET
MOSCOW – Russia's first stealth fighter intended to match the latest U.S. design made its maiden flight Friday, boosting the country's efforts to modernize its rusting Soviet-built arsenals and retain its lucrative export market.
The Sukhoi T-50's flight comes nearly two decades after the first prototype of the U.S. F-22 Raptor took to the air, and Russian officials said it will take another five years for the new jet to enter service. Still, the flight marked a major step in Russia's efforts to burnish the faded glory of its aviation industries and strengthen a beleaguered military.
The sleek twin-engined jet closely resembling the Raptor flew for 47-minutes from an airfield at Sukhoi's production plant in the Far Eastern city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur on Friday. Development of the so-called fifth-generation fighter has been veiled in secrecy and no images of it had been released before the flight.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin hailed the flight as a "big step forward," but admitted that "a lot remains to be done in terms of engines and armament."
Craig Caffrey, an analyst for Jane's Defense Procurement-Military Aircraft, said the new fighter is "hugely important," both for modernizing the aging Russian air force fleet and retaining export markets.
"The T-50 should offer the Russian Air Force a significant boost in its capabilities and ensure that it remains one of the best equipped air forces in the world," he told The Associated Press by e-mail.
Caffrey said the new fighter will attract many foreign customers. "For those countries that don't traditionally purchase military equipment from the U.S. it will be the only fifth generation aircraft available," he said.
The NPO Saturn company said in a statement that the jet has new engines, but military analysts suggested that they were a slightly modernized version of the Soviet-era engine powering the Su-27 family of fighters.
"It's a humbug," said independent military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. "It's just a prototype lacking new engines and a new radar. It takes new materials to build a fifth-generation fighter, and Russia lacks them."
Putin said Friday the first batch of new fighters is set to enter an Air Force evaluation unit in 2013 and serial production is set to begin in 2015.
Caffrey said the task looks "very challenging, given the amount of new technology that is being incorporated into the new aircraft."
Russian military analysts were also skeptical, pointing at a history of delays in the program and other Russian weapons projects.
"The schedule will likely be pushed back as usual," said Alexander Konovalov, the head of the Moscow-based Institute of Strategic Assessment, an independent think tank.
Russia's prospective Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile has failed in at least eight of its 12 test launches, dealing a blow to Russia's hopes of making it a cornerstone of its nuclear arsenal. Officials have blamed the failures on manufacturing flaws resulting from post-Soviet industrial degradation.
Felgenhauer and other observers said the fighter program, which depends on hundreds of subcontractors, has been dogged by similar problems.
Russian officials have said the new fighter, like the Raptor, will have supersonic cruising speed and stealth capabilities. Its pilot, Sergei Bogdan, said in televised remarks that it was easy and pleasant to fly.
While officials saw the new fighter as essential, some analysts said the country has more pressing needs.
"There is no mission and no adversary for such plane," Konovalov said, adding that the Russian military lacks a modern communications system and satellite navigation. "It would be more expedient to fit modern avionics to older generation jets."
The U.S. administration decided to quit buying the F-22 Raptor, the world's most expensive fighter jet at more than $140 million apiece, effectively capping its production at the 186 already ordered."
The F-22 is a maintenance hog and cannot fly in the rain.
Please substantiate this. The AF would disagree. Here os an Air Force Association of these points and others that were in a Washington Post article.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html
When I saw how the F-22 maneuvered, my first thought was "man, for once the air force is going to have best, most maneuverable fighter on day one of the next war."
They sure fixed the hell out of that presumption. Business as usual. They've been trying to phase out A-10's forever too. I watched a clip on youtube many moons ago where an A-10 opens up with the 30mm on some taliban and the afghan's on our side started yelling "allahu ackbar." Even the Afghans seem to have simple things figured out pretty good.
Tactical airpower is much more valuable than strategic. Essentially you can't have any tactical airpower without air superiority. The F-22 is air superiority in spades.
These problems have been going on for a very long time.
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Books/Lester/Lester.pdf
Alpha Sierra
02-24-10, 05:16
The Air Force has two important jobs - nuclear strategic deterrence, and moving the Army from Point A to Point B.
Right now, the Air Force is failing it's Air Mobility mission. Drones are currently filling the role of our Air Superiority doctrine.
The F-22 is a maintenance hog and cannot fly in the rain.
The Air Force should double down on it's Air Mobility capability and build it's drone capability.
While the F-22 is an awesome aircraft it really has no place in this war on any potential future war. It really amounts to a 'war toy' that some old fighter jock cum desk jock wants to play with.
Your assumptions are not supported by reality. F-ing drones are no match for even an enemy air force with average aircraft and well trained pilots. Our troops would be massacred without manned air superiority.
Ask any grunt who has had tac air save their ass.....Tac air cannot survive without fighter cover of one sort or the other.
The Air Force has two important jobs - nuclear strategic deterrence, and moving the Army from Point A to Point B.
Right now, the Air Force is failing it's Air Mobility mission. Drones are currently filling the role of our Air Superiority doctrine.
The F-22 is a maintenance hog and cannot fly in the rain.
The Air Force should double down on it's Air Mobility capability and build it's drone capability.
While the F-22 is an awesome aircraft it really has no place in this war on any potential future war. It really amounts to a 'war toy' that some old fighter jock cum desk jock wants to play with.
Before the AF can move troops from point A to point B, the AF must first achieve air superiority and control the skies while denying the enemy the same. Drones (at this time) cannot and do not fulfill that mission. Drones (right now) are flying in areas where we have air superiority or there is an extremely low air threat (think: North Wasiristan).
John_Wayne777
02-24-10, 07:12
The Air Force has two important jobs - nuclear strategic deterrence, and moving the Army from Point A to Point B.
Umm...while I'm not a military strategy expert, I'm pretty sure it's hard to move troops when your transports are getting shot down by enemy fighters. Being able to secure big chunks of airspace where enemy air resources are shredded mercilessly if they are stupid enough to send them up is generally considered to be a good thing.
Having absolute control over the air and the water can have some real tangible benefits on the ground.
Is the F-22 the best way to accomplish that? Beats me. I don't know squat about planes.
What I do know is that air superiority for our forces has pretty much been a given over the last few decades...and that some investment is required if we are to hold that position.
Business_Casual
02-24-10, 07:17
Umm...while I'm not a military strategy expert, I'm pretty sure it's hard to move troops when your transports are getting shot down by enemy fighters. Being able to secure big chunks of airspace where enemy air resources are shredded mercilessly if they are stupid enough to send them up is generally considered to be a good thing.
Having absolute control over the air and the water can have some real tangible benefits on the ground.
Is the F-22 the best way to accomplish that? Beats me. I don't know squat about planes.
What I do know is that air superiority for our forces has pretty much been a given over the last few decades...and that some investment is required if we are to hold that position.
Ah, but perhaps it is best to project that force off the deck of a carrier? You know, parked off the coast of the war zone and not based in Minot, ND.
M_P
Putting aside feelings about the F-22, the single best part of that was the first paragraph:
(insert anything stupid this country is doing here) ... yet another act in the tragedy of a nation that, bankrupting itself, embracing moral decline, and apologizing to its enemies, is losing the will to prevail. In pursuit of false prosperities that have failed even the economy, America for three presidencies and an entire generation has diminished its arsenals, unbalanced its military, and forgotten its genius for strategy.
Cancelling the F22 is just another act in a campaign of intentional destruction of the USA, which the current "administration" is engaged in.
With the 885 F22s that the Pentagon called for, the US could maintain air superiority over Russia and China simultaneously. Without the F22s, China and Russia will be emboldened. They may coordinate efforts, with Russia retaking some former Soviet territory and China attacking Taiwan at the same time, knowing that the U.S. could not successfully hold them both back.
As for the F22 not fitting in the "current war", give me a break. Even a child in kindergarten knows to look ahead.
And please do not mention the F35 which does not hold a candle to the F22 and is turning out to be a big disappointment in any event.
It is scary when we hear of such cutbacks. Inevitable considering the vast amounts of money we are spending fighting terrorism abroad and becoming the world's police force. If that money was spent on the economy...hmm....
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-24-10, 08:42
A fighter may not win you a war, but it sure as heck can make sure you don't lose one. Just as the Brits.
If you can't lose, eventually you have to win. You may win ugly, but hey, you get to write the history.
I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but that F35 seems like it is an F111, F117 and Harrier all rolled into one, and I don't mean that as a compliment. Was coked-up Billy Mays the pitch man for it? It slices, it dices, it goes up, it comes down. Whenever I order that 1-800-its-crap stuff, and I eventually get it out of the G$*# D))#$) Blister Pack plastic packaging, it never is as cool as Billy promised.
But hey, let's keep fighting the last war, its an American tradition.
The Air Force has two important jobs - nuclear strategic deterrence, and moving the Army from Point A to Point B.
And strategic reconnaissance. And long range interdiction. And...
Right now, the Air Force is failing it's Air Mobility mission. Drones are currently filling the role of our Air Superiority doctrine.
Yes to the first point. Absolutely not to the second point. I don't think we field any true UCAV-type assets right now- even in secret. They will come but not for some time.
The F-22 is a maintenance hog and cannot fly in the rain.
Relative to what? Aging Eagles are not all that easy to do mtx on. I have *heard* that routine system mtx on Raptor is modular and fairly easy. As to it's inability to fly in the rain- that is news to me.
The Air Force should double down on it's Air Mobility capability and build it's drone capability.
Agreed, but not at the expense of another key mission, IMO.
While the F-22 is an awesome aircraft it really has no place in this war on any potential future war. It really amounts to a 'war toy' that some old fighter jock cum desk jock wants to play with.
"This war? Maybe not. A potential future war? I don't think you know enough to be so dismissive.
msg too short
dirksterg30
02-24-10, 12:02
The Air Force has two important jobs - nuclear strategic deterrence, and moving the Army from Point A to Point B.
Right now, the Air Force is failing it's Air Mobility mission. Drones are currently filling the role of our Air Superiority doctrine.
What drone is currently fulfilling the Air Superiority mission? Predator? Reaper? Global Hawk? There is currently no operational drone that is capable of targeting enemy aircraft and launching AAMs. Drones are probably decades away from replacing manned fighters, if ever.
While the F-22 is an awesome aircraft it really has no place in this war on any potential future war. It really amounts to a 'war toy' that some old fighter jock cum desk jock wants to play with.
If all we need is an airframe to drop GPS-guided bombs on Taliban insurgents, the F-35, or possibly drones, would work fine. If we are going up against 5th Gen Russian fighters, we will need the F-22. Personally, I'd rather our military have that capability, even if we don't need it. In addition, the USAF fast jet fleet is rather long in the tooth. The F-15s and -16s need to be replaced, so why not replace them with a superior fighter?
This is from an October 2007 interview with Air Force Gen. T. Michael Moseley
The F-15s and F-16s were designed and built in the late '60s and '70s. Some of them were produced up until the early '80s. But they've led a pretty hard life of 17 years of combat. So you have to replace them with something, because we were continuing to restrict the airplanes. In the F-15 case, we've got the airplane restricted to 1.5 Mach. It was designed to be a 2.5 Mach airplane. We've got it limited on maneuvering restrictions because we've had tail cracks, fuselage cracks, cracks in the wings. The problem with that is - and Mike Wynne uses this analogy - it's almost like going to the Indy 500 race practicing all the way up until Memorial Day at 60 miles an hour, and then on game day, accelerating the car out to 200 miles an hour. It's not the time to be doing that on game day.
from http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1007/103107gg1.htm
Ah, but perhaps it is best to project that force off the deck of a carrier? You know, parked off the coast of the war zone and not based in Minot, ND.
Not every country has a coast that one can fly off of without flying over another country.
For example Afghanistan. And Iraq has a very small coast line. Also carrier fighters have to be built around the limitations of a carrier environment, which includes limited deck space, size of the runway, et al.
As much as the movies and fan boys hyped up the F-14, the F-15 was always a better fighter, it had a lower wing loading, and higher thrust to weight ratio. The only thing that the F-14 did better was longer range engagements using the AIM-54.
Business_Casual
02-24-10, 14:00
Not every country has a coast that one can fly off of without flying over another country. For example Afghanistan. And Iraq has a very small coast line.
So wouldn't the Air Force have to overfly a lot more countries to get there?
Also carrier fighters have to be built around the limitations of a carrier environment, which includes limited deck space, size of the runway, et al.
They were able to complete the missions assigned to them in every conflict so far.
As much as the movies and fan boys hyped up the F-14, the F-15 was always a better fighter, it had a lower wing loading, and higher thrust to weight ratio. The only thing that the F-14 did better was longer range engagements using the AIM-54.
That's 1970's technology, might was well complain about the F-4U Corsair.
M_P
So wouldn't the Air Force have to overfly a lot more countries to get there?
They were able to complete the missions assigned to them in every conflict so far.
Not really. During ODS (the last time we have fought a half way descent Air Force) the F-15 was the primary US aircraft doing CAP missions.
As far as overflying, that depends on where they are based. I was simply pointing out that in many cases an aircraft carrier isn't the solution for every problem. The USN has limited carrier based aerial fueling capabilities, so that limits their range (which is already shorter the land based aircraft) unless they depend on land based refueling aircraft.
And if you are bringing land based refuelers, you can also bring in land fighter aircraft, which will have greater reach, and better capabilities.
That's 1970's technology, might was well complain about the F-4U Corsair.
So is the F-15, they were both developed within a couple of years of each other.
And the F-16 is the same generation as the F-18, and you can see the same difference. The F-16 has a higher thrust to weight ratio, low wing loading, and longer legs.
Naval aircraft will always have limitations placed on them for the sake of saving deck space, and other issues that are unique to carrier usage.
ETA: Just some of the limitations:
Wing span - even with folding wings, aka weight, you have limited wing span
Length
Weight - the aircraft can only be so heavy as it needs to be able to survive multiple crashes onto the ground that the Navy calls landings
Height - Your vertical stabilizers can only be so tall
All these limitations are not present on land based aircraft.
dirksterg30
02-24-10, 15:32
Weight - the aircraft can only be so heavy as it needs to be able to survive multiple crashes onto the ground that the Navy calls landings
I'm reminded of the difference between the YF-17 and the F-18. The YF-17 was Northrop's submission for the USAF lightweight fighter competition, and strictly land-based. It became the basis for the F-18 Hornet. Note the difference in landing gear.
YF-17 -
http://www.air-and-space.com/19791028%20Edwards/1%2011%20YF-17%2072-1570%20right%20front%20l.jpg
F-18 -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/F18C-01.jpg
Does this mean I should remove the sights from my AR15 so I am not "overmatched" with an assailant? :confused:
I agree with the article's statement about us giving up the will to win decisively. In strategic terms that is. I am sure every trooper out there intends to win, but do our politicians and commanders? Or are they more concerned about international opinion (and who is htat anyway, France/ Britain? Germany? China? Russia?).
First we have to get back to agreeing when we fight our number one priority is to win. Then we have to develop strategy and tactics based on that premise and not the one we seem to have adopted that we will exert just enough force to subdue an adversary but not really destroy them. This would change the thinking about arms and rules of engagement.
It is hard to understand that we so readily abandon a weapons platform that has proven its superiority. There may be better solutions, but they don't exist nor are deployable today. Until we have a better solution ready we should deploy enough F-22 to not only handle current conflicts, but also to be a serious deterrent to any adversary's adventurism. A good indication that we have deployed enough F22s will be when Russia and China screech to high heaven in protest. Right now they seem pretty satiusfied with our strategy.
Personally, I think we are better served by Navy carrier battle groups and attack subs. Simply stationing them in the in the waters of a potential adversary can stop a war before it starts.
Or, as Ben Franklin put it 'a sword in the hand keeps another in it's sheath.' Or, as Sun Tzu put it 'to win without fighting is the height of generalship.'
Our drones are currently configured to fight the current threat. I am pretty sure that they could be configured with air-to-air missiles without too much difficulty. Whats more, you could simply have them loiter over international waters for hours on end as an implied threat/deterrent.
Quite simply, we cannot afford the F-22 and we may need to look at other less exotic options.
As for the F-22's all weather capability, try Google. It can't survive rain. I can't wait to see what sand does to it. This has been well documented and covered. SecDef Gates wanted this thing dead a long time ago. He event went so far as to fire the old fighter jock Chief of the Air Force and replacing him with a female general who ran AMC. The current priority is Air Mobility to serve the current war we have been fighting for the last 9 years with no end in sight.
See below, but the complete story can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html
Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009
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.
The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.
While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
See below, but the complete story can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html
Again, I point you to this
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html
which rebuts the WP article as factually incorrect
Personally, I think we are better served by Navy carrier battle groups and attack subs. Simply stationing them in the in the waters of a potential adversary can stop a war before it starts.
No current or future carrier based planes (F-18s & F-35s) is a match in terms of air superiority for emerging threats like the Sukhoi T-50 and the Chinese Pakwhatever aircraft.
It is not an either or. We need carriers, carrier based aircraft, subs, and top grade air superiority and strike aircraft.
And not every place is accessible within range of carrier based aircraft. Carriers are also limited in the amount of aircraft that they can carry, are vulnerable to being sunk, and require time to refit and refurbish. It itypically takes 3 carriers in service to keep one at sea at any time. Then comes the support ships and protection ships. Then there is a matter of personel to crew the whole bunch. One minute you are telling us that we can't afford the F-22, but the next you are suggesting more carriers and ships which is even more expensive.
Our drones are currently configured to fight the current threat. I am pretty sure that they could be configured with air-to-air missiles without too much difficulty.
You're joking. Current drones do not have the air to air sensors, the speed, the maneuvering capabilities or the weapons to take out anything other than a chopper or a cesna--and this in a world where future enemies will have access to
planes that are as good if not better than F-15s.
And there you go again with the current threat. This isn't about the current threat--it's about future threats for the next 20-30 years.
Quite simply, we cannot afford the F-22 and we may need to look at other less exotic options.
The F-35 Joint Strike fighter is likely to be as expensive if not more so than the F-22, and all for a considerably less capable aircraft. They are basing the price on a much larger number of units than they will be buying.
Personally, I think we are better served by Navy carrier battle groups and attack subs. Simply stationing them in the in the waters of a potential adversary can stop a war before it starts.
True. The B2 platform does the same thing sitting on the ramp at Whiteman. It's not an either/or question, IMO.
Or, as Ben Franklin put it 'a sword in the hand keeps another in it's sheath.' Or, as Sun Tzu put it 'to win without fighting is the height of generalship.'
Our drones are currently configured to fight the current threat. I am pretty sure that they could be configured with air-to-air missiles without too much difficulty. Whats more, you could simply have them loiter over international waters for hours on end as an implied threat/deterrent.
Almost certainly not true.
Quite simply, we cannot afford the F-22 and we may need to look at other less exotic options.
As for the F-22's all weather capability, try Google. It can't survive rain. I can't wait to see what sand does to it. This has been well documented and covered. SecDef Gates wanted this thing dead a long time ago. He event went so far as to fire the old fighter jock Chief of the Air Force and replacing him with a female general who ran AMC. The current priority is Air Mobility to serve the current war we have been fighting for the last 9 years with no end in sight.
First TAC operates F-22's out of Langley (27th TFS). I *think* they get rain in Tidewater..? Perhaps you mean that rain increases the workload for maintainers? The jet can and does fly in the rain. Often. You can say the same thing about ANY helo operating in Iraq. Sand, after all, is hell on rotor systems. Yet they still operate effectively.
See below, but the complete story can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html
Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009
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.
The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.
While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
Half truth at best. Airframes DO NOT become easier and less costly to maintain. The F-14 needed 50+ mx hours/flight hour by the time it retired, maybe more for the A+.
msg to short
Personally, I think we are better served by Navy carrier battle groups and attack subs. Simply stationing them in the in the waters of a potential adversary can stop a war before it starts.
And what do we do when our opponent is Chad, or Uzbekistan? Neither country has a sea border, and is big enough that it can't be covered effectively by short range Naval Aviation.
Or, as Ben Franklin put it 'a sword in the hand keeps another in it's sheath.' Or, as Sun Tzu put it 'to win without fighting is the height of generalship.'
I agree and Marine Amphibious Groups and Carrier Battle Groups have their place in the DOD aresenel, but so does the 1st Infantry Division, and the 1st Fighter Wing
Our drones are currently configured to fight the current threat. I am pretty sure that they could be configured with air-to-air missiles without too much difficulty. Whats more, you could simply have them loiter over international waters for hours on end as an implied threat/deterrent.
Seriously? Do you now know about satellite lag? It takes on average 1.5 seconds to 2.0 seconds for a command to complete a trip across non-military sat coms. And I assume that military sat coms are just as slow, if not slower since they are encrypted much more heavily.
Quite simply, we cannot afford the F-22 and we may need to look at other less exotic options.
Really saws who? There are a lot of other wasteful programs in government, at least the F-22 program produces something useful.
As for the F-22's all weather capability, try Google. It can't survive rain. I can't wait to see what sand does to it. This has been well documented and covered. SecDef Gates wanted this thing dead a long time ago. He event went so far as to fire the old fighter jock Chief of the Air Force and replacing him with a female general who ran AMC. The current priority is Air Mobility to serve the current war we have been fighting for the last 9 years with no end in sight.
See below, but the complete story can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html
Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009
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.
The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.
While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
And that entire story is utter BS.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html
And SecDef Gates shows how divided the USAF has always been. Previously it was TAC vs SAC. Now it's ACC vs AMC. So of course the AMC side is against the F-22, just as attack side was against the Fighter Mafia pushing pure fighters like the F-15, and F-16, which are probably the two best aircraft that the USAF has ever purchased. The F-15 and F-16 shows that you can turn an excellent fighter into a damned good bomber.
And both aircraft were conceived exclusively to be fighters.
And what happens when this current war is over, and we have to take on a country with modern generation 5 fighters?
Ah, but perhaps it is best to project that force off the deck of a carrier? You know, parked off the coast of the war zone and not based in Minot, ND.
M_P
Carriers can be sunk. And one day, heaven forbid, China and Russia might just try to slap down a war zone in my back yard by way of Canada. A capable Air Force based in Minot wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Nathan_Bell
02-25-10, 09:22
Personally, I think we are better served by Navy carrier battle groups and attack subs.
So you would like to put all of our force projection power into 12 hulls? Hulls that the Chinese and Russians have been working on ways of rendering hors de combat for half a century? Look at the anti-shipping missiles that they have developed in just the past 10 years. Mach 5, 1600 mile range, and a 600 pound warhead. Not in wide production at the moment, but do you really think that the country that builds most of our electronics and consumer goods cannot crank out a large amount of them without much trouble?
So you would like to put all of our force projection power into 12 hulls? Hulls that the Chinese and Russians have been working on ways of rendering hors de combat for half a century? Look at the anti-shipping missiles that they have developed in just the past 10 years. Mach 5, 1600 mile range, and a 600 pound warhead. Not in wide production at the moment, but do you really think that the country that builds most of our electronics and consumer goods cannot crank out a large amount of them without much trouble?
Having the Chinese pop up a sub in the middle of a carrier task force in torpedo range during our war games should instill some caution to relying on just carriers. And they did it TWICE as far as I recall.
See, we don't take our own forces seriously. If we did we would do what the Chinese or Russians would do if one of our subs made itself known in the middle of their task force: sink the damn thing! And then make sure it doesn't happen again. Those admirals should have been keel hauled for not knowing a Chinese sub was in their midst.
Having the Chinese pop up a sub in the middle of a carrier task force in torpedo range during our war games should instill some caution to relying on just carriers. And they did it TWICE as far as I recall.
See, we don't take our own forces seriously. If we did we would do what the Chinese or Russians would do if one of our subs made itself known in the middle of their task force: sink the damn thing! And then make sure it doesn't happen again. Those admirals should have been keel hauled for not knowing a Chinese sub was in their midst.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4452407&c=SEA&s=TOP
According to 2009 data the Pacific Command chief presented the House committee, that weaponry includes 27 destroyers, 48 frigates, more than 70 patrol crafts armed with missiles, 55 amphibious vessels, 40 mine warfare ships and 50 support crafts.
What's more, "modernization programs have included development of sophisticated shipboard air defense systems, as well as supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles," Willard said.
China also possesses what he called "the largest conventional submarine force in the world, totaling more than 60 boats" to go along with "a number of" nuclear-powered fast attack and ballistic missile subs. The PLA, Willard contended, is also developing a new submarine-launched ballistic missile, the JL-2, which is "capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States."
The U.S. officials told the lawmakers China could have an operational aircraft carrier by 2012. Gregson raised concerns that "China may be interested in building multiple operational aircraft carriers by 2020."
The PLA also has a "growing number" of multimission fighter aircraft, Willard said, adding the Chinese are focused on improving pilot skills in "multiplane scenarios, including operations over water." He said China has put "considerable effort" into fielding air-to-air and anti-air systems, and has developed an anti-ship ballistic missile to target aircraft carriers.
A larger portion of the Chinese Air Force are its own F-10s and Russian-made aircraft. These fourth-generation fighters, as well as China's improved air defenses, "have reversed Taiwan's historic ability to maintain dominance of the airspace over the Taiwan Strait," Gregson said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6970921.ece
http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring111209.html
New China fighter
A Chinese general is boasting that the People's Liberation Army Air Force will soon fly a new advanced fighter that U.S. intelligence projections had said would not be ready for 10 years. The new fifth-generation Chinese fighter could be deployed as early as 2017 -- years earlier than announced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in explaining his cancellation of the U.S. version of the fifth-generation fighter, the F-22.
Gen. Ho Weirong, the deputy commander of the Chinese air force, told Chinese state-run media on Monday that China's fifth-generation fighter has been under intense development and will enter service in the next eight to 10 years. Characteristics of this type of jet include radar-evading stealth, supersonic cruise, super maneuverability and the capability for short takeoffs.
The comments by the Chinese general represent an unusual disclosure by the Chinese military, which rarely mentions future weapons systems.
The disclosure will likely fuel further debate in the United States over the F-22, which was canceled in favor of the F-35 by Mr. Gates earlier this year.
Mr. Gates said in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago July 16 that the F-22 was canceled as part of considerations for the proper mix of warplanes needed for a potential of "state-to-state conflict." The F-35, despite development problems, was chosen over the F-22 for cost reasons, but he noted that it was "clearly a capability that we do need."
Mr. Gates stated in the speech that the F-22 was not needed because China's air force would not have a comparable jet by 2020.
"Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds," he said. "Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth-generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth-generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens."
As a result, the United States would have about 1,700 advanced fifth-generation fighters "versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security," Mr. Gates said.
A Pentagon spokesman did not reply to e-mails or telephone calls seeking comment on the issue. A Defense Intelligence Agency spokesman also did not respond to e-mails.
Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist, said the reports on a Chinese advanced fighter reflected "unprecedented transparency" by China.
"One has to assume they have some confidence in their projections in order to make them public," said Mr. Fisher, of the International Assessment and Strategy Center. "So what is the Obama administration going to do, ignore this and proceed with F-22 production termination, to the detriment of U.S. security interests in Asia and beyond?"
According to defense specialists, the F-35 is comparable in some ways to the F-22 but lacks what is called "supercruise" capability, a feature that enables it to penetrate deep into enemy airspace, launch its weapons and exit without using up all its fuel.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks that canceling F-22 production without a better warplane in the pipeline is tantamount to unilateral disarmament. "In Asia, this means a decline in American military credibility and an increase in regional instability," he said.
Mr. Fisher also called on U.S. intelligence agencies to explain "what appears to be a significant underestimation of Chinese capability."
"The PLA does not make it easy to read their future, but after spending $40 billion a year on intelligence, it would be a real scandal if they got this one wrong," he said.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE54363X20090504
Admiral Michael Mullen said China had the right to meet its security needs, but the build-up would require the United States to work with its Pacific allies to respond to increasing Chinese military capabilities.
"They are developing capabilities that are very maritime focused, maritime and air focused, and in many ways, very much focused on us," he told a conference of the Navy League, a nonprofit seamen's support group, in Washington.
"They seem very focused on the United States Navy and our bases that are in that part of the world."
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?cate_img=logo_china&cate_rss=CHINA_eng&id=926493&lang=eng_news
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6188506.ece
http://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.
First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.
The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.
The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.
Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.
If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.
Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/12/inside-the-ring-79761847/
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/ea_china_03_19.asp
See below, but the complete story can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html
Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009
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.
And they said the F-14 was a maintenance whore.
Dan
And they said the F-14 was a maintenance whore.
Dan
It was. It took much more than 30 hrs mx, and that was when spares were actually available in the logistics pipeline. The "30 hours" figure is misleading if one is not familiar with the relative mx requirements on other airframes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.