Posted on 07/08/2004 1:01:01 PM PDT by Akira
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 aircraft have the option of dropping down into attack range. The F-22, on the other hand, does *not* have the option of rising up into range to attack sub-orbital fighters (e.g. swarms launched in overlapping waves 15 minutes apart from safely inside the Chinese border immediately prior to initiating their conventional fighter and bomber attacks on Taiwan)."
It takes a boatload of energy - almost as much as it takes to get to orbit - to arbitrarily "drop down". So, when he drops down....is that when he throws the sandwich?
Swarms? overlapping waves? (shaking head incredulously)..... send me a link to these aircraft, will ya?
147 - "The ME-262 ran into the same problem as did the German Tiger II tank; it's hyper-expensive price made it too difficult to build enough of them to win against our overwhelming numbers.
...a problem which I'd prefer to avoid with our current over-budget F-22."
===
I agree.
However, they did manage to build about 1500 of these jet fighters (ME-262), and they still didn't have major impact on the war effort and we are working with 22ea? f-22's.
What utter nonsense are you trying to argue?!
Are you trying to claim that no aircraft has gone into space?
Or are you trying to claim that no weapons can ever be added to existing aircraft?
Or are you trying to claim that the Chinese would never copy American civilian technology?
I am trying to argue that space-fighter stuff does not exist. Because you can have a space shuttle type craft does not mean you can convert it to also act like a fighter jet. You cannot show me that. All you can show me is a craft that went to space for a few minutes and came back down. Nothing else. The rest is in your head and your fantasy. It is you that are arguing nonsense. ONLY YOU.
The funding excuse and reality debate is what?
Cleary military projection is headed to sub orbit and space...some nations will find the money to R&D and be about it.
While the U.S. keeps wasting Billions and Trillions to push giant naval groups and patchwork armies around the planet in support of economic persuits...
other nations will use their Billions and Trillions to R&D the future goodies....then the big suprise and the running around in the Labrynth known as the Pentagon.
Russia is allready hooking up with India on high velocity cruise missiles.
these nations are finding ways around signed agreements which encumber them.
sure..Russia and China are backward..make for great comedy posts..truth is..they are motivated..and will surely suprise us.
Swarms. Overlapping waves. Yes, welcome to the 21st century.
Look at what we've already spent on the F-22 for comparison: $26 Billion. We get 23 F-22's for that amount of money.
Now lets go over to China. For that same $26 Billion, China could build 2,600 sub-orbital fighters (slave labor, stolen U.S. design with slight modifications, etc.).
Each of those sub-orbital fighters could maintain a 15 minute or more aerial advantage far above where our highest F-22 can go.
Launched in waves of 50 craft each some 15 minutes apart, such a fleet could maintain an active, shooting, aerial presence over our F-22's in Taiwan for hours...all while more conventional Chinese bombers, fighters, and invasion craft headed for Taipei.
The money is real. The concept has already been proven.
What does our *existing* force do against such a scenario? Do we retreat? Surrender? Stand and take our losses?
Or we could be like you and argue incoherently about "sandwich throwing" or some such nonsense.
Good grief. If you want to mentally examine what the next war is going to look like you are going to have to put on your thinking CAP.
"The point is that we are now vulnerable to existing civilian technology being adapted by our enemies. The F-22 can't touch such technology, hardly making it look attractive for our future needs"
You're right, I understand now. It's much closer if you send swarms of fighters through the earths crust in overlapping waves, isn't it? Your fighters coming from above, mine coming from below......no F-22 can defend against that. I totally see your point.
The US is also funding these types of future weapons. Haven't you read about the hypersonic cruise missiles slated for 2010?
151 - "And how long can your rocket-fighter loiter? Compared to the F22, it is a lousy choice (even if it was anything other than a pipe-dream at this point) because it doesn't fit OUR tactical and strategic needs..."
Good points.
In fact, during Vietnam, one of my aircraft of choice for ground support and Search and Rescues, was the WWII A1-E, Douglas Skyraider. An oldie, but goodie. Could carry tons and tons of various weapons, give great support, guns, bombs, rockets, cameras, etc, take a pounding from Anti-Aircraft guns and small arms fire, and keep on chugging for up to about 8 hours of support where necessary.
The Latest technology is not always the bestest.
....you forgot the link to the suborbital swarm aircraft the chinese are developing.
Yup, I am still waiting for that link, too! LOL ;-)
We've built space fighters in the past. One was called the X-20A DynaSoar, Neil Armstrong's first Space Program.
Even civilians have flown their own aircraft into Space already (e.g. Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne).
You are ignoring what has already been done by both American civilians as well as by our military.
You are trying to pretend that existing weapons can't be added to existing space craft, too. I've got news for you, even the little SpaceShipOne can carry a pilot and a 600 pound payload into Space already. That's enough payload capacity to already field a GPS bomb, an air to air missile, or even an air to ground missile.
What you are engaging in is sheer denial. No new technology is needed for what I've been telling you. All of it already exists.
Do you want to pretend that hostile nations will never try to copy existing American technology? Is that your idea of good defense planning?
153 - "If numbers were more important, Iraq would have kicked are ass in both Gulf Wars. "
Iraq's Airfoce never had any 'numbers' superiority on us, and certainly never had a quality superiority.
But there are vast numbers of countries now sporting quality fighters in what is getting to be some rather freightening numbers, including China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia and others. Most of the mid-east countries are now flying our f-16's, and most are 'friendly', for now.
I meant that they definitely had ground numerical superiority both times. And in a war with NK, NK will also have numerical superiority. But both SK and US will win in about a month because of technological superiority. At least that is the amount of time it would take estimated by Fox News (Lt Gen or Gen or some other military rank)Tom McEnery(sp?) What you say about other countries acquiring advanced fighters is correct. That is why the F/A-22 in sufficient numbers is required.
The DynaSoar was a screwy idea in search of a mission. In fact, it still exists today, and ultimately culminated in the NASA Shuttle.
Other than that, it is a basically worthless idea. Why does it need a pilot? An ICBM can do the same job, cheaper and better and safer.
174 - "I meant that they definitely had ground numerical superiority both times. "
A trained army will beat a mob anytime. That is a worthless comparison. In addition, we had air superiority, which took care of any real numerical superiority problems.
If you wish to cite a more applicable example on ground numerical versus qalitative superiority, look at the Korean War, and when the Chinese came down, and beat our pants off.
Now that's killing flies with a hammer! Yes, an ICBM can take out helpless fighter aircraft flying below...but the DynaSoar could be armed to take out such fighters conventionally from up in a safe orbit or sub-orbit.
There is a difference between spending tax money on military aircraft and spending tax money on "subsidize bums and deviates" programs. There's waste and thievery with the DOD stuff - but at least you get usable aircraft. For the "bum and deviate" program spending, what you get is more bums and deviates.
I wouldn't call them a mob, at least in the first one. They were very well versed in ground warfare. The strengh of the Iraqi Army was tank warfare. The US just pounded the hell out of them through the air and technological superior ground forces took over the rest. Yes, in sufficient number not numerical superiority.
I just thought you meant that numerical superiority wins all the time. Of course, technological superiority with sufficient numbers can always counter a much more numerical but less qualitative force. That is the point I am trying to make.
Furthermore, remember the Chinese thing caught the US totally by surprise and pushed the US back all the way back behind the 38th and almost lost the entire country before the US recovered and pushed back all the way back to the 38th.
177 - "Now that's killing flies with a hammer! Yes, an ICBM can take out helpless fighter aircraft flying below...but the DynaSoar could be armed to take out such fighters conventionally from up in a safe orbit or sub-orbit."
And just how are you going to get it into orbit? That takes an ICBM, and a whole lot of power.
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.