The F/A-22 Raptor Must Fly

It made sense to kill the Crusader self-propelled howitzer program, a bulky cold war left-over developing so slowly it wouldn't be available before the Starship Enterprise. We also didn't need the Comanche stealth helicopter when our problem is losing choppers to low-tech ground fire. But the stealth F/A-22 Raptor fighter, with apologies to those who consider every new military project a boondoggle, we need this jet. And far more of it than Congress plans to buy.

Even critics admit the Raptor is an incredible fighting machine. Slated to enter Air Force service next year, it blends key technologies that before only existed separately on other aircraft -- or not at all.

It has radar-avoiding stealth, of the F-117A Nighthawk, the agility of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, air-to-air combat abilities and penetrability of the F-15 Eagle, tracking abilities of the E-3 Sentry (AWACS), and, like the SR-71 Blackbird, it can fly faster than the speed of sound without using fuel-guzzling afterburners.

The F/A-22 also has better reliability and maintainability than any military fighter in history and can wipe out ground targets like radar, anti-aircraft sites, and armor formations as readily as it can sweep the skies.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE in danger of losing our air superiority edge -- we've already lost it. With "some foreign aircraft we've been able to test, our best pilots flying their airplanes beat our pilots flying our airplanes every time," Air Force Commander John Jumper told Congress three years ago. When U.S. planes go against the Soviet Su-27 Flanker "our guys 'die' 95 percent of the time," observes Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham of California.

Cunningham is one of only two American aces from the Vietnam War. He knows the value of even a slight edge in combat capabilities. "I'm alive today because of it," he told me.

The international arms market is now flooded with Su-27 aircraft, because the Russians will sell to anybody with a bit of loose change jingling around.

The independent American Federation of Scientists notes that the Su-27 "leveled the playing field" with the F-15, our best fighter but one that's 30 years old. Meanwhile, "The Su-37 represents a new level of capability compared with the Su-27." The Su-37, apparently close to deployment, looks frightfully effective against both air and ground targets -- meaning our soldiers.

Nor is it just Russian planes we have to worry about. Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Michael O'Hanlon, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 1999 that "Congress Should Shoot Down The F-22." O'Hanlon nevertheless admitted that even then the "Swedish Gripen, French Rafale, Eurofighter EF-2000" are "impressive weapons systems that rival the F-15 and F-16." As well they should be: One entered service in 2001, one in 2002, and one just last year. The F-15 is their grand-pappy.

No, we probably won't go to war with Sweden or France anytime soon. (Well, maybe France.) But we already face enemies with high-tech French weaponry. Rest assured in the future we will clash with them -- including the Rafale fighter. It's also rather pathetic that the Czech air force is about to take possession of 39 Gripen fighters, meaning this tiny country will be flying more advanced aircraft than the United States.

Fortunately even the Su-37 lacks one thing the F/A-22 has -- stealth capability. "Only the F/A-22 can compete with the Su-27 or Su-37," Cunningham insists, because "the stealthiness allows you to get inside his radar so you can have first [missile] launch."

Surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) also regularly improve, and potential targets like the North Korean capitol of Pyongyang bristle like porcupines with SAM sites. "If you target an area with the current SAM threat today, our planes will probably die before they ever get to the target," says Cunningham. "So the F/A-22 and B2 [stealth bomber] must soften up those radar sites." Cunningham knows a bit about SAMs, too. After his fifth "kill," he was splashed by an enemy missile that's a slingshot compared to today's technology.

ONE MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL criticism of the Raptor is the cost per plane, now over twice the original estimate. But much of that is because prime contractor Lockheed Martin added a ground attack role. Most of the rest is because those congressional critics cut back the order, knowing that with fixed development costs the smaller the order the higher the per-unit price. Sound like a sneaky game? It is.

Originally the Air Force requested 762 Raptors to support two squadrons for its ten Expeditionary Wings, and then was forced to cut that in half. But it only made its first official purchase last month of a grand total of 22 planes. That's almost enough to stock the nation's aeronautical museums. Worse, it has only authorized only enough money for 218 planes total, and may slice that further.

Mind you, these same congressmen recently passed pork-laden highway spending bills of around $300 billion, but apparently Cleveland needs that transportation museum more than our troops need protection from enemy aircraft.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona told NBC's Meet the Press that we should consider completely canceling the F/A-22 program to free up money for more troops in Iraq. But McCain assumes defense spending is a zero-sum game. It's not.

In 1960, with no U.S. involvement in a hot war, the percentage of GDP spent on defense was 9.3. This year, with wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and anti-terrorist military activities around the world, we're spending a miserly 3.5 percent. Merely splitting the difference between 1960 and now would allow the Army to expand from 10 divisions to 12 and supply the Air Force with more F/A-22s than it would know what to do with. And yet last summer Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia offered an amendment to seize $1.1 billion from the Defense Budget and use it for AIDS/HIV spending.

Other armchair air experts say we can skip the F/A-22 (other than the 22 already procured) while awaiting the cheaper F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is a fine plane and will be great for exporting to our allies, but it's far inferior to the F-22, especially in the stealth category. (Its advantage is a much lower price.) F-35 development is also three years behind that of the Raptor. If you needed a top-of-the-line new car immediately, would you hold off three years on buying that BMW until Honda Civics become available?

It's also true that F/A-22s were unneeded in invading Iraq -- though one of our F-117s was shot down over Serbia. The value of the F-22 in the current guerrilla war? Zero. But you know that expression about generals "planning to fight the last war"? Here it's the F/A-22 critics like O'Hanlon who remind us that during Desert Storm "The Air Force's premier fighter, the F-15C, flew 6,000 missions without a single loss." Yes, and that was 13 years ago. Any war against North Korea or China would make heavy use of the Raptor.

A WASHINGTON POST ANALYSIS piece that ripped the F/A-22 was reprinted on websites of such groups as Environmentalists Against War and Million Worker March. The Post claimed the plane's "role is now more ambiguous because no country is developing an aircraft with anything near its capabilities."

But isn't that exactly what we want: Quick and complete air domination? If price is the primary consideration, why not scrap both the F-22 and the F-35 and start rebuilding the P-51s of World War II, which cost only $54,000 in 1943 dollars? Like the F-15, they were marvelous planes in their time.

Why not? Because our potential enemies will be flying the best jets and antiaircraft missiles they can make or buy, allowing them to intimidate us in peacetime and defeat us in war. We must beat their capabilities, or we will surely die trying.

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

"You should be slapped for making that statement when you know it isn't true." - Pukin dog

The statement that I made is completely factual, that's what pisses you off so (contrary to your pleas, I'm sure).

Whether we are talking about the X-20A DynaSoar launched via a Titan booster or the current civilian SpaceShipOne launched by Burt Rutan, the F-22 can't fly either as fast or as high as those sub-orbital machines.

That means that those sub-orbital aircraft can fly right over the F-22. There's nothing that you can do to change that fact.

Repeat: fact.

"I take another angle. How many pilots are you willing to see shot down in order to continue to keep the F-15 as your premier air superiority fighter? That is how I see it."

No, what you are saying is that you aren't prepared to admit that you are in favor of retiring vast numbers of our current pilots to field your beloved F-22.

If you can't tell me how many you are prepared to give up, then either you fear disclosing such numbers or else you aren't prepared to give any pilots up (the latter meaning that you aren't prepared to pay for the expensive F-22).

"For the awesome things that plane will do against other fighters and ground anti-aircraft missiles, I think it is worth every penny. The capabilities that plane will possesses will save pilots lives as opposed to pilots who fly the F-15."

It's not at all clear that the F-22 will save lives.

Back in WW2 the Germans had a vastly superior tank (the Tiger II). However, they were only able to build 500 of the hyper-expensive machines.

Those 500 "superior" Tiger II's were OBLITERATED on the battlefield by our 10,000+ "inferior" tanks.

Fast forward to today: the F-22 is so expensive (we've *already* paid $26 Billion for the first 23) that we have to retire scores of F-15 and F-16 pilots for each new F-22 that comes on line.

Well, how do 23 F-22's defend against an attack of 6,000 civilian aircraft? What about a swarm or ten or twenty of a thousand UAV's?

Giving up numbers for quality is not always a recipe for success. It certainly didn't carry the field for the NAZIs against our overwhelming WW2 numbers.

You bet I am willing to retire pilots if neccesary to get F/A-22. It will save pilots lives where the F-15 cannot in future scenarios. As simple as that. Will you tell me how many pilots you are willing to see shot down to have the F-15 flying for another 30 something years??? Btw, there are about 500 something F-15 flying today. Maybe less. I believe something close to 500 F/A-22 will eventually be built. As well as 2500+ F-35 for the services. Combined that is still in the ballpark of the # of fighter jets the US has today. So in the end, not many pilots will be let go. But if they are, it is well worth it because of the awesome jet that will be acquired.

Oh I agree and understand that . The "our best vs our standard per se " just struck my funny bone . I like the F22 based on everything I have read and seen to date. And I'm used to disappointment as they do the final assembly of the Tiltrotor near me in Amarillo.

Stay safe !

"We've paid for 23 F-22's to date, spending $26 Billion (yes, with a "B") on the program so far to date.

.....(as if we'd ever let a Billion+ Dollar aircraft plink at muddy ground targets)."

Man, you sound like a 'Rat, with all the slight of hand on the "cost per aircraft" during development to justify cancelling the program.

The initial expenditure bought Billion$ in engineering technology advancement, drawings, manufacturing advancement, design improvements, etc. before the first plane was even made. Maybe we should just buy millions of P-51 Mustangs to defend ourselves if cost is your only concern.

FYI, On 30 December 1999 the Air Force awarded contracts totaling more than $1.5 billion to Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, Marietta, GA, and Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, FL, to build six F-22 Raptor production-representative test vehicles. That was $250 Million each.

Full production, estimated to be 335 aircraft, will cost about $113 Million each. That's Value Priced at under 1/8 the cost of your projection.

I read somewhere that forward swept wings delaminate / come apart VERY fast when hit and are almost always a kill if it's the leading edge that takes the hit.

Love the Switchblade though, tooo cool!

You avoided my question, not answered it. When the ROE state you must eyeball a target before engaging it, which platform is the best able to carry out the mission? And what is a space-plane's TOT?

As a pure interceptor or as a strike platform (git' in, git' out, both as fast as possible), the space-plane might have promise. But as an air superiority fighter, it cannot accomplish its mission.

So the enemy has CAS aircraft low-and-slow strafing the troops. Can your pocket rocket get down low and clean out that airspace (or will it just zoom waaaaaay overhead and let the troops get creamed)? If not, it ain't an air superiority fighter...

I'll defer to your definition and superior knowledge (as I'm still not doing a good enough job explaining what I mean, but it should translate pretty close to yours). But I think one thing we can agree on is that, in a knife-fight, corner is going to be a lot slower than Mach for most (if not all) aircraft, and that Southack's space-plane would have its lunch handed to it in a tight-turning furball...

I first heard about switchblade here: http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/switchblade.shtml

I usually never believe these type of sites. But it did provide a patent number of 5,984,231. So I went to the US patent office web site and hot damn the patent does exist.

Here is the patent to it which was filed by northrop grumman:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,984,231.WKU.&OS=PN/5,984,231&RS=PN/5,984,231

On that page, click on "image" on the top of the page for more info.

Now, this is only a concept. So it is not a given this will ever be seen in the US arsenal. But at least their is that possibility.

"Full production, estimated to be 335 aircraft, will cost about $113 Million each. That's Value Priced at under 1/8 the cost of your projection."

I didn't give you a projection. I gave you what we've spent so far to date: $26 Billion.

For that $26 Billion, we've purchased 23 F-22's, of which some 4 to 6 have been delivered. If the F-22 program is cancelled tomorrow, we'd still get those 23 aircraft.

In contrast, the figures that *you* gave were projections from back in the early 1990's, and wouldn't you know it, but costs have gone up since then!

"You bet I am willing to retire pilots if neccesary to get F/A-22."

How many?

How many F-15 and F-16 pilots are you prepared to retire for each F-22 that we field?

"Man, you sound like a 'Rat, with all the slight of hand on the "cost per aircraft" during development to justify cancelling the program."

No, I sound like an American who is reluctant to retire large numbers of our current F-15 and F-16 pilots for each expensive new F-22 that we field.

The more that the F-22 runs over budget, the more current American fighter pilots we have to retire to stay in budget.

How many of our fighter pilots are *you* prepared to retire?

"As a pure interceptor or as a strike platform (git' in, git' out, both as fast as possible), the space-plane might have promise. But as an air superiority fighter, it cannot accomplish its mission."

What if its mission is simply to be launched from China to disrupt American fighters flying over Taiwan during an invasion?

What if a cheap sub-orbital fighter is meant to merely give the Israelis flying American fighter aircraft grief...launched from nearby Iran? Ditto for a North Korean variant launched over our South Korean CAP?

How does our current arsenal counter such a threat? How does the F-22 help in such a scenario?

"Southack's space-plane would have its lunch handed to it in a tight-turning furball..."

By what? What specifically do we field in our existing arsenal that can shoot down something at 62.5 miles altitude before it drops its payload?

I dunno. All i know the amount of F/A-22 that will be built will be enough to cover the F-15. Like I already said anyway, there will be about the same number of fighters built in the future as exist now. So not many will be let go anyway. How many F-15 pilots are you willing to see shot down?????

What if a cheap sub-orbital fighter is meant to merely give the Israelis flying American fighter aircraft grief...launched from nearby Iran?

If it can't loiter and it can't dogfight, then it can't cause your undefined "grief." So what are these fighters going to do, zoom up into the atmosphere, launch a couple of long-range missiles as they go by, then zoom back home? What will that do to stop Israeli (or American, for that matter) CAS? A little jamming, some chaff and flares, dive for the deck, and then when the rocket-fighters are zooming back home, go back to your mission. That's hardly air superiority.

Why don't you research the Me-262 and its use in WWII before you start fantasizing about your rocket planes. Sure, the P-51's couldn't catch them, but they flew fast and straight (one of the consequences of flying fast) and made very little impact on Allied Air. Other than attacking bombers, the Me-262 was completely ineffective in any role versus Allied CAP or CAS... just like your rocket-planes would be...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.