Wright-Pat general lauds F/A-22 Raptor

Dayton News Daily ^ | Timothy R. Gaffney

[Pukin Dog]

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE — While the F/A-22 Raptor loomed large on congressional radars Thursday, the expensive Air Force fighter jet drew praise from a top general at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Lt. Gen. William R. Looney III, commander of the Aeronautical Systems Center, called the Lockheed Martin Corp. fighter "a transformational leap" over the F-15 Eagle, the air-superiority fighter the Raptor is to replace starting in December 2005.

Looney, who once flew F-15s, said the stealthy Raptor has been untouchable in mock dogfights with Eagles, even when outnumbered two-to-one.

"We are taking four F-22s and we're flying them against eight F-15s. . . . The F-15s have not even been able to get a shot off" at the F-22s, Looney said in a roundtable discussion with local news media.

"The F-15 radar, the best in the world of operational fighters flying today, does not see the F-22," he said.

In his fighter-pilot days, Looney said he would engage another fighter in a training duel with a slightly supersonic dash between six and seven miles above the earth.

F-22s attack from 10 miles up at much faster speeds, he said. Stealth technology helps hide them from adversaries' radar, while their own radar can spot targets from many miles away.

"The F-15s are all dead before the fight has hardly even started," Looney said. "The (F-15) pilots don't even look at their radar now to try to find the F-22 because they'll never see it, so they're looking out (through their canopies) trying to see a contrail, trying to see a glint in the sky."

But technical and cost issues have made the $72 billion program anything but invisible on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers reaffirmed their support for the project Thursday in a House Armed Services Committee hearing, but a recent congressional report questioned the Air Force's "business case" for the fighter in the face of growing costs and changing world conditions.

Approximately 237 people work in the Raptor system program office at Wright-Patterson. The office is an ASC function, but instead of reporting to Looney, it reports directly to a two-star "program executive officer" at Air Force headquarters.

The F/A-22 is one of a few major Air Force aircraft acquisition programs that was not realigned under ASC in a reorganization announced last year. Looney said he expects ASC to take control of the program next year.

Meanwhile, a separate reorganization will allow Looney to focus more attention on ASC, an $18 billion operation, by shifting responsibilities for daily base operations. Those duties will fall to the commander of the 88th Air Base Wing, currently Col. Michael Belzil.

The new arrangement is similar to the division of responsibilities before 1992, when the base belonged to the Air Force Logistics Command and ASC — then the Aeronautical Systems Division — was a tenant unit. The base commander then wore a brigadier general's star, reflecting the responsibilities of running an 8,000-acre base that was home to a major command and a host of other important units.

The resident command now is the Air Force Materiel Command, a $44 billion operation that includes ASC. Some 22,000 military and civilian Air Force personnel and contractors work on the base.

Looney noted some wing commanders responsible for large bases are brigadier generals.

"I believe that will be something that will be considered in the future" for Wright-Patterson, he said.

Contact Timothy R. Gaffney at 225-2390.

[bigfootbob]

You've been here long enough to know a post like this requires a picture.

[Poohbah]

Of course, there is one small issue:

Air-to-air engagements between US and enemy forces are getting scarcer and scarcer.

We subscribe to the idea of cratering the runways and then killing enemy aircraft by the dozen while they're still on the tarmac as opposed to killing 'em one at a time at 30,000 feet.

In some ways, it's similar to naval strategy: the enemy airfield is a choke point that can be interdicted to deny him access to the air.

If a potential enemy starts developing a STOVL aircraft that doesn't require a couple miles of smooth concrete to land on, and doesn't have a long logistics tail...then we will need to reemphasize the air-to-air mission.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Working on a replacement or upgrade of the A-10 would be nice, too.

[Your Nightmare]

Really, when was the last time 4 of our fighters were against 8 enemy fighters? Vietnam?

[Chewbacca]

There is nothing wrong with the A-10.

[Cicero]

I have no first-hand knowledge of the issues at all, but I tend to agree. The only conceivable potential enemy for which we might need air superiority of that kind in the 21st century is probably China, assuming they put a lot of money and talent into the development of an advanced fighter themselves. In any war against more immediately probable enemies such as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the like, it would be foolish even to risk such an expensive plane when it simply isn't needed.

Even assuming we had an air war with France or Germany, let's say, I wouldn't think it would be needed. But I may be wrong about this.

[hchutch]

But will we constantly be able to cut off the choke point? I'm not about to bet lives and aircraft on that. You never know. OPFOR could get safe haven across a border or something. Or they have a constant CAP. Or they manage to get the cruise missiles.

Best to assume we may have to deal with some folks in the air, and have the training. Just in case...

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Ditto. Hands off the 'hog.

[Shryke]

Working on a replacement or upgrade of the A-10 would be nice, too.

Faster, and two Bofors cannons under the vulcan. Hell, let's add another vulcan. 2 Vulcans and a pair of Bofors. Deal?

[Rummyfan]

F/A-22 Raptor.....

[Pukin Dog]

The idea behind the Raptor is the same as with Missile Defense.

We are not trying to stay ahead of the other guy, we are trying to get him to give up the race. The Raptor creates the argument among our enemies as to why they would even invest in fighter technology. At some point, as we get further and further ahead, it becomes necessary for the enemy to consider capitulation.

One squadron of F-22s leading a flight of B-2s over North Korea will change the world. When Iran's nuclear capability is destroyed, the entire middle east will go democratic within a decade. The F-22 represents more than a tactical advantage. It is a strategic imperative.

[Daus]

In any war against more immediately probable enemies such as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the like, it would be foolish even to risk such an expensive plane when it simply isn't needed.

How many Middle Eastern countries are flying our stuff? Saudi has our F15's correct?

[Blood of Tyrants]

True, they do what they were designed to do wonderfully. I was only concerned with 20 year old airframes. The A-10B has a nice ring to it.

[JasonC]

Air superiority is the one mission that makes all the others possible. We should not compromise on it, one iota. You can crater all the runways you want - *if* you can sweep the skies whenever you have to. If on the other hand your packages of F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s are all going to get shot to heck by MiG-29s by the hundred (over mainland China, or the Taiwan strait e.g.), then no bomb is a substitute. Put a dozen Raptors on top cover and they never get close to your own strikes. The point is not to kill planes "retail" in air to air combat, it is to go wherever we please with our bombers, and never let any of theirs reach our own airfields.

[Poohbah]

But will we constantly be able to cut off the choke point?

Yes. We can drop JDAMs on runways with impunity. One B-2 can close down every damn airfield in most of the countries we will be fighting in. And the

OPFOR could get safe haven across a border or something.

In a post-9/11 world, the likelihood of "safe havens" is dramatically smaller--"hey, salaam aleikum to you to, brother, but there is NO way you're going to use my territory as a hidey-hole. The Yankee Air Pirates are liable to pitch a JDAM into my tent."

Or they have a constant CAP.

What, the USAF is going to fight the US Navy? We're the only folks that can afford to sustain a 24/7 CAP.

Or they manage to get the cruise missiles.

Fire another salvo, and that one gets a free ride.

Best to assume we may have to deal with some folks in the air, and have the training. Just in case...

Training? Yes, keep doing it.

But buy an expensive-as-hell single-mission fighter like the Raptor? (Don't let the "fighter/attack" designator fool you; it absolutely SUCKS at the attack mission.)

[Tallguy]

We are not trying to stay ahead of the other guy, we are trying to get him to give up the race. The Raptor creates the argument among our enemies as to why they would even invest in fighter technology. At some point, as we get further and further ahead, it becomes necessary for the enemy to consider capitulation.

A potential enemy would adopt a radical shift in Tactics or Strategy long before he was forced to capitulate. Call it Aerial guerilla war.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I'm game.

[Pukin Dog]

A potential enemy would adopt a radical shift in Tactics or Strategy long before he was forced to capitulate. Call it Aerial guerilla war.

Pick one with the money, means and ability to do that, before we can counter and kill it. There are only 5 nations that can fabricate Titanium. Only three that know Composite materials. Only two that understand Stealth.

Radical shifts are not cheap.

[JasonC]

Wrong. A Raptor is *not* at risk in the skies over Syria, or Iran, or North Korea - or even Saudi Arabia or China. Whereas an F-15 is. As for "money and talent into development of an advanced fighter", the Russians already have planes about as good as F-15s. (Our radars and missiles are marginally better, but modern Sus and MiGs are in the same league. The F-15 is nearly 30 years old; the Russians have had comparable planes for 15 years or so).

And they have been selling them aboard. China has bought about a hundred and is negotiating for hundreds more. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has F-15s we provided. Without the Raptor, we have only parity in plane quality with leading enemies. We have better aircrew to be sure. But with the Raptor, they are just completely outclassed and will stay that way for decades.

It simply kills them at ranges where they can't even see it. It also has "dash" abilities that multiple its impact on an overall battle (e.g. you can send 4 of them to destroy enemy airborne early warning deep in his rear, too fast to see or intercept, blinding and discoordinating his force for the rest of the battle, etc). It is not an incremental improvement. It is like jets against propeller planes - that big a shift in air to air combat ability.