The F/A-22 Raptor Must Fly

The American Spectator ^ | July 8, 2004 | Michael Fumento

[barkeep]

Amen to first comment! A-10 was and is perhaps the best designed plane FOR it's job, I have ever seen. God help an infantry force of the future that is suddenly facing a tank batallion a single A-10 could have neutralized.

[barkeep]

Amen to first comment! A-10 was and is perhaps the best designed plane FOR it's job, I have ever seen. God help an infantry force of the future that is suddenly facing a tank batallion a single A-10 could have neutralized.

[Shryke]

That's not a refutation

It is. I was pointing out that if we chose to pursue what you champion, we would be getting shot out of the air instantly by our enemies (remember BIG heat signature), as well as overspending them hundred-folds to do it. It's a bad business plan, much less military strategy.

Now look at the F-22. What technogoly can be developed by another country to shoot this thing down effectively? Nothing in any near future. As far as shooting down a sub-orbital plane, our military has missles that can do that now.

My point is: high and fast mean very little when you are using a rocket (unless you are talking about SUPER high, in which case who needs a damn vehicle? Use a satellite or ballistic missle). A stealthy, fast fighter is far more effective.

[Southack]

The F-22 can't guarantee air supremacy while civilian aircraft are flying higher and faster than it can go and shoot.

Worse, the F-22 is so expensive that it is forcing us to retire vast numbers of experienced F-14, F-15, and F-16 pilots.

You are fighting the last century's wars in your head still.

Future fighters have to be better than current civilian technology. Flying slower and lower than civilian aircraft, and paying a billion dollars more per copy for that priviledge in the meantime, is not the path towards air domination.

If stealth alone is the answer, then we've already got the F-117 and B-2...but current civilian aircraft can already fly over and past them as if they were standing still. Ditto for the F-22, expensive as it is.

Frankly, what the F-22 offers is either redundant (e.g. stealth by the F-117 and B-2) or obsolete (e.g. its speed).

[Shryke]

You didn't answer my questions. Please do.

[tbpiper]

That comment is a slap at all Hog Drivers,"

Don't take it that way. It’s the decision makers I’m not sure of. I remember that early on there seemed to be quite a few disparaging remarks about the A-10 and its mission by some in congress and uniform who were for a bigger and faster Air Force and not a lower and slower one. I suppose they thought we could carpet bomb or nuke Soviet tanks rather than go at them one on one with our own flying tank. I thought Gulf War I was a big ‘I told you so’ to those folks. Now when I hear that some want to do away with the A-10 I think some of those original dunderheads are at it again.

I can understand budgetary problems and I haven’t a clue as to how to effectively use the A-10. I love watching it fly and am awed by the GAU-8 (as are the Iraqis, I hear). I just hate to see a good plane go away. Can you tell me if there is a place for the A-10 in the near future?

I worked on some of the first A-10 simulators. These didn't use a motion base but used strap tighteneres and whoopie cushions to simulate g loads. Don't know how well they really worked, seemed like a cheap approach to me. Did you ever fly one and if so, how did it work?

[Gunrunner2]

I suppose you were replying to my Post 57.

Nav and Tgt pods are heavy, though development is underway to make them lighter.

The A-10 has no radar and the Lantirn Pod would only have a TFR capability, not a true radar capability to TGT ID.

The A-10 pod would be to assist in TGT ID through tgt designation. Nothing fancy.

[Chode]

I always said the Corps shoulda got the A10.

I read somewhere they are using them for FAC aircraft now.

[Gunrunner2]

Okay. But too many times I hear that sort of statement and it is a slap, as if the USAF doesn't appreciate the CAS mission. it does, but prior to Gulf War I, they thought the F-16 a much better platform (all proof to the contrary). Since Gulf War I the "powers" had to accept the fact that we Hog Drivers knew all along--the A-10 is a kick-butt aircraft and would rock the world of any bad guy, under any circumstances.

Sadly, there are no plans to replace the A-10. Instead the plan is to use smarter and smarter weapons systems. Poor choice, in my opinion.

The volatile and ever changing battlefield is the place where the Mark I Eyeball, interfaced with a Cranium Bucket processor, work best when it comes to weapons delivery.

[Southack]

"Now look at the F-22. What technogoly can be developed by another country to shoot this thing down effectively?"

The F-22 is the best fighter aircraft ever to go into service (apologies to the superior YF-23).

Nonetheless, even the F-22 has core weaknesses. When its own radar is on, for instance, it can be shot down by a HARM variant ground to air or air to air missile. It is also vulnerable to optical-processing missiles (i.e. camera+computer that can "understand" and process images).

More fundamental, the F-22's exorbitant cost limits the potential numbers that can be fielded. You'd be hard-pressed to keep CAP over a single F-22 airfield with the mere 23 F-22's that have been paid for to date (some 4 to 6 of which have actually been delivered). Without CAP, the F-22 is vulnerable on the ground.

So because of that core weakness, the F-22 will have to rely upon *other* American aircraft to protect itself. Other types of American aircraft will have to provide CAP for the F-22.

That's structural. That's fundamental.

Nor can the F-22 go into Space or even shoot into Space with our current arsenal. Sub-orbital and orbital fighters can fly right over the F-22 with impunity already today.

That too is a core structural failure.

Repeat: failure. Core failure.

Worse, fielding the F-22 means that we will have far fewer F-14, F-15, and F-16 pilots in our forces (due to cost savings needed to pay for the Raptor). Those pilots, the very ones needed to provide CAP for the F-22, will be retired in order to field the F-22.

Likewise, the small numbers of F-22's that we can afford to field are incapable of stopping a mass swarm attack from thousands of UAV's or civilian aircraft.

Again, we'd have to fall back on our *other* fighters to handle those emerging threats.

[Oztrich Boy]

Why do we ever want our fighters to go faster and fly higher?

Yep that was the reason they built 2000 F-12A fighters back in the 60s

[saminfl]

Just this year I saw A-10s with Litening Pods shoot Mavericks and drop LGBs.

[Bob J]

Major FR Announcement

The National March Against Terror

[Southack]

"Yep that was the reason they built 2000 F-12A fighters back in the 60s"

No, the F-12A went into military service to take advantage of its ability to fly higher and faster, just not as a fighter. We called it the SR-71 Blackbird.

Again, why does the military want to always go higher and faster?

ANSWER: Because it is advantageous.

Well, if the F-22 doesn't go higher and faster, then it doesn't have certain advantages.

[Oztrich Boy]

And militarily, a "Burt Rutan style fighter" is worthless. Why would we launch a teeny little thing up really high only for it to fall back down 15 minutes later only a hundred miles away?

But you have to admit the concept is mature technology (talk about planning for the last war - or five)

[Shryke]

Sub-orbital and orbital fighters can fly right over the F-22 with impunity already today.

Wrong

That and other missles were developed LONG ago to hit satellites traveling very quickly. And far above a sub-orbital craft's ceiling.

When its own radar is on, for instance, it can be shot down by a HARM variant ground to air or air to air missile

Possible, yet very improbable.

It is also vulnerable to optical-processing missiles (i.e. camera+computer that can "understand" and process images).

Not at night.

So because of that core weakness, the F-22 will have to rely upon *other* American aircraft to protect itself. Other types of American aircraft will have to provide CAP for the F-22

And? That's modern warfare. Why would a craft flying at....let's say 30 miles above the surface, be any more protected from missiles? Do you have any idea how fast a Pheonix missile can cover that distance? At Mach 5+? And this is a missle deployed im 1974????

[David1]

Ok...I disagree with you. We need the F/A-22 and we need it now. Just because it cannot go into space does not mean we don't need it. There will always be better technology in the future. ALWAYS!!! But just because there will be better technology in the future does not mean we suffer and not use the best technology available now. The technology to go into space and back in an affordable way is far into the future. Heck, the US wants a hypersonic bomber version by 2025. They are not even talking about a fighter version yet since the technology for the bomber version alone is already too advanced enough. Bottomline, F/A-22 is needed now so that it can kick the ass of current and projected future enemy fighters. In the future, when technology is ready, they may build a space fighter. Btw, the US will not only purchase 23. They already have projected to purchase 218. And if the thing proves itself in the real world, don't be surprised if something around the original figure of 700 is purchased.

[Gunrunner2]

Pretty cool but not as cool as the FOGG (Fist of GAWD GUN).

Mavericks have to either lock on to an IR, visual tgt. Some may be laser designated, though I haven't seen that variation at all (think it's Navy).

Point is, for the weapons load and the power of the A-10, much needs to be done to reduce the weight of pods, and LGB's require either self-designation or designation from some other source, and because laser pods weigh a heck of a lot, this is problematic, and besides, the LGB must have enough kinetic energy to "fly" to the tgt as the fins move about, cranking and burning off the energy, and A-10's generally don't fly that fast at low to med altitude and the LGB burns off energy and never reaches the tgt. High altitude is different as you may trade altitude for energy. However, the BRP and the ORP are much different and what source of cueing will the A-10 pilot have to tell him when he is within ORP as opposed to BRP (and never reach the tgt).

Work is in progress but much remains to be done.

[M1-A2]

F/A-22 Raptor
Air Superiority Stealth Fighter

My favorite plane if it doesn't see action Congress will hear from me and believe me I will be loud! As much as I would like to trust the F-15 or a drone fighter but we can't drone don't have the skill and instincts to even stand a chance to a superior fighter and the F-15 is not in the least able to cope with the disadvantage. I'm only stating what I've heard if I'm wrong please correct me I haven't been able to verify any of these as facts because I can't find any data comparisons.

[M1-A2]

Sorry to all about my last my last post in this thread my punctuation is horrible.